A multi-benefit framework for funding forest management in fire-driven ecosystems across the Western U.S.

Forests across the Western U.S. face unprecedented risk due to historic fire exclusion, environmental degradation, and climate change. Forest management activities like ecological thinning, prescribed burning, and meadow restoration can improve landscape resilience. Resilient forests are at a lower risk of high-intensity wildfires, drought, insects, and other disturbances and provide a wide range of benefits to ecosystems and communities. However, insufficient funding limits implementation of critically needed management. To address this challenge, we propose a multi-benefit framework that leverages the diverse benefits of forest management to engage a suite of stakeholders in sharing project costs. We take a three-pronged approach to develop our conceptual model: examining existing frameworks for environmental project implementation, conducting a literature review of forest management benefits, and evaluating case studies. Through our framework, we describe the steps to engage partners, starting by identifying benefits that could accrue to potential public and private beneficiaries, and moving through an iterative and collaborative process of valuing benefits, which can accrue over different spatial and temporal scales, in close consultation with potential beneficiaries themselves. The aim of this approach is to stack funding streams associated with each valued benefit to fully fund a given forest management project. The multi-benefit framework has the potential to unlock new sources of funding to meet the exceptional challenges of climate and wildfire disturbances. We apply the framework to dry forests of the Western U.S., but opportunities exist for expanding and modifying this approach to any geography or ecosystem where management provides multiple benefits.

Valuing the benefits of forest restoration on enhancing hydropower and water supply in California's Sierra Nevada.

Forest restoration through mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, and other management actions is vital to improving forest resilience to fire and drought across the Western United States, and yields benefits that can be monetized, including improvements in water supply and hydropower. Using California's Sierra Nevada as a study area, we assess the water and energy benefits of forest-restoration projects. By using a scalable top-down approach to track annual evapotranspiration following forest disturbance, coupled with hydropower simulations that include energy-price information, and marginal prices for water sales, we project the potential economic benefits of hydropower and water sales accruing to water-rights holders. The results found that water-related benefits from strategically planned fuels-reduction treatments now being carried out can be sufficient to offset costs of management actions aimed at forest restoration, especially in the face of climate change. Our findings justified investments in restoring forests and reinforce the central role of water and hydropower providers in partnerships for management of source-water watersheds. Results also highlighted the importance of accurate, scalable data and tools from the hydrology and water-resources community.

A techno-economic analysis of biochar production and the bioeconomy for orchard biomass.

It is well established that the global practice of burning crop residues, such as orchard biomass, harms human health and the environment. A bioeconomy for orchard biomass may reduce open burning, facilitate the recovery of nutrients that improve soil health, and boost economic growth. We present a techno-economic analysis for converting orchard waste into biochar, a charcoal-like substance that shows promise for improving soil health, but that is considered an experimental product with emerging efficacy and limited market demand. We impute values derived from a cost analysis of biochar production in California's Central Valley into a regional economic input-output model to demonstrate economic growth and a bioeconomy for biochar made with orchard waste. Results from a stochastic Monte Carlo simulation show a probable range of biochar production costs between $448.78 and $1,846.96 (USD) Mg-1, with 90% probability that costs will range between $571 and $1,455 Mg-1. A sensitivity analysis shows that production costs are most responsive to biochar production rates. A modifiable Excel-based biochar enterprise budget that includes fixed and variable biochar production costs is provided as Supplementary Material. The regional economic analysis demonstrates positive economic growth as defined by job creation, labor compensation, value-added product, and gross output. Stochastic cost estimates and net positive regional economic impacts support economic feasibility of a circular bioeconomy for waste orchard biomass when coupled with governmental policy initiatives. Results may contribute to developing a circular bioeconomy for biochar and orchard biomass in the study region and elsewhere in the world.

Abatement costs of soil conservation in China's Loess Plateau: balancing income with conservation in an agricultural system.

This study proposes the use of marginal abatement cost curves to calculate environmental damages of agricultural systems in China's Loess Plateau. Total system costs and revenues, management characteristics and pollution attributes are imputed into a directional output distance function, which is then used to determine shadow prices and abatement cost curves for soil and nitrogen loss. Marginal abatement costs curves are an effective way to compare economic and conservation tradeoffs when field-specific data are scarce. The results show that sustainable agricultural practices can balance soil conservation and agricultural production; land need not be retired, as is current policy.

Mountain substitutability and peak load pricing of high alpine peaks as a management tool to reduce environmental damage: a contingent valuation study.

High alpine peaks throughout the world are under increasing environmental pressure from hikers, trekkers, and climbers. Colorado's "Fourteeners", peaks with summits above 14,000 feet are no exception. Most of these peaks have no entrance fees, and reach ecological and social carrying capacity on weekends. This paper illustrates how a series of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions can be used to evaluate substitutability between different alpine peaks and quantify the price responsiveness to an entrance fee. Using this approach, we find that peak load pricing would decrease use of popular Fourteeners in Colorado by 22%. This reduction is due almost entirely to substitution, rather than income effects. There is also price inelastic demand, as 60% of the hikers find no substitution for their specific Fourteener at the varying cost increases posed in the survey. The no substitute group has a mean net benefit of $294 per hiker, per trip, considerably higher than visitor net benefits in most recreational use studies.