Abstract
AbstractReducing global forest losses is essential to mitigate climate change and its associated social costs. Multiple market and non-market factors can enhance or reduce forest loss. Here, to understand the role of non-market factors (for example, policies, climate anomalies or conflicts), we can compare observed trends to a reference (expected) scenario that excludes non-market factors. We define an expected scenario by simulating land-use decisions solely driven by market prices, productivities and presumably plausible decision-making. The land-use allocation model considers economic profits and uncertainties as incentives for forest conversion. We compare reference forest losses in Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia (2000–2019) with observed forest losses and assign differences from non-market factors. Our results suggest that non-market factors temporarily lead to lower-than-expected forest losses summing to 11.1 million hectares, but also to phases with higher-than-expected forest losses of 11.3 million hectares. Phases with lower-than-expected forest losses occurred earlier than those with higher-than-expected forest losses. The damages avoided by delaying emissions that would otherwise have occurred represent a social value of US$61.6 billion (as of the year 2000). This result shows the economic importance of forest conservation efforts in the tropics, even if reduced forest loss might be temporary and reverse over time.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation,Urban Studies,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Ecology,Geography, Planning and Development,Food Science,Global and Planetary Change
Reference68 articles.
1. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
2. Balvanera, P. et al. in Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Pascual, U. et al.) Ch. 1 (IPBES, 2022).
3. Franklin, S. L. & Pindyck, R. S. Tropical forests, tipping points, and the social cost of deforestation. Ecol. Econ. 153, 161–171 (2018).
4. Groom, B. & Venmans, F. The Social Value of Offsets. Preprint at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1515075/v1 (2023).
5. Sevil, A., Muñoz, G. & Godoy-Faúndez, A. Aligning global efforts for a carbon neutral world: the race to zero campaign. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 58, 779–783 (2022).
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献