Anticipating changes in wildlife habitat induced by private forest owners’ adaptation to climate change and carbon policy

Hashida, Yukiko and Withey, John and Lewis, David and Newman, Tara and Kline, Jeffrey (2020): Anticipating changes in wildlife habitat induced by private forest owners’ adaptation to climate change and carbon policy. Published in: PLoS ONE , Vol. 4, No. 15 (2 April 2020)

Abstract

Conserving forests to provide ecosystem services and biodiversity will be a key environmental challenge as society strives to adapt to climate change. The ecosystem services and biodiversity that forests provide will be influenced by the behaviors of numerous individual private landowners as they alter their use of forests in response to climate change and any future carbon pricing policies that emerge. We evaluated the impact of forest landowners’ likely adaptation behaviors on potential habitat for 35 terrestrial, forest-dependent vertebrates across three U.S. Pacific states. In particular, we couple a previously estimated empirical-economic model of forest management with spatially explicit species’ range and habitat associations to quantify the effects of adaptation to climate change and carbon pricing on potential habitat for our focal species (amphibians, birds and mammals) drawn from state agency lists of species of conservation concern. We show that both climate change and carbon pricing policies would likely encourage adaptation away from currently prevalent coniferous forest types, such as Douglas-fir, largely through harvest and planting decisions. This would reduce potential habitat for a majority of the focal species we studied across all three vertebrate taxa. The total anticipated habitat loss for amphibians, birds and mammals considered species of state concern would exceed total habitat gained, and the net loss in habitat per decade would accelerate over time. Carbon payments to forest landowners likely would lead to unintended localized habitat losses especially in Douglas-fir dominant forest types, and encourage more hardwoods on private forest lands. Our study highlights potential tradeoffs that could arise from pricing one ecosystem service (e.g., carbon) while leaving others (e.g., wildlife habitat) unpriced. Our study demonstrates the importance of anticipating potential changes in ecosystem services and biodiversity resulting from forest landowners’ climate adaptation behavior and accounting for a broader set of environmental benefits and costs when designing policies to address climate change.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: climate change; wildlife habitats; forests; ecosystem services; climate change mitigation and adaptation; carbon pricing policy
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation

References

1. Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio E, Ngo HT, Guèze M, Agard J, et al. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. : 45.

2. Restaino CM, Peterson DL, Littell J. Increased water deficit decreases Douglas fir growth throughout western US forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113: 9557–9562.

3. Hashida Y, Lewis DJ. The intersection between climate adaptation, mitigation, and natural resources: An empirical analysis of forest management. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ. 2019;6: 893–926.

4. Nordhaus WD. The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World. Yale University Press; 2013.

5. Gray, A. N., Whittier, T. R. & Harmon, M. E. Carbon stocks and accumulation rates in Pacific Northwest forests: role of stand age, plant community, and productivity. Ecosphere 7 (2016).

6. Smith MD, Knapp AK, Collins SL. A framework for assessing ecosystem dynamics in response to chronic resource alterations induced by global change. Ecology. 2009;90: 3279–3289.

7. Abatzoglou JT, Williams AP. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113: 11770–11775.

8. Guo C, Costello C. The value of adaption: Climate change and timberland management. J Environ Econ Manag. 2013;65: 452–468.

9. Curtis PG, Slay CM, Harris NL, Tyukavina A, Hansen MC. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science. 2018;361: 1108–1111.

10. Bansal S, Brodie L, Stanton S, Waddell K, Palmer M, Christensen G, et al. Oregon’s forest resources, 2001–2010: ten-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-958 Portland US Dep Agric For Serv Pac Northwest Res Stn 130 P. 2017;958. Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/55382

11. Christensen GA, Waddell KL, Stanton SM, Kuegler O. California’s forest resources: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 2001–2010. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-913 Portland US Dep Agric For Serv Pac Northwest Res Stn 293 P. 2016;913. Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/50397

12. Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science. 2014;344: 1246752.

13. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute; 2005.

14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How are the World’s Forests Changing? [Internet]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2015. Available: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4793e.pdf

15. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive, Multiscaled Approach. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 2002.

16. Kremen C, Merenlender AM. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science. 2018;362: eaau6020.

17. Mendenhall CD, Shields-Estrada A, Krishnaswami AJ, Daily GC. Quantifying and sustaining biodiversity in tropical agricultural landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113: 14544–14551.

18. Lawler JJ, Shafer SL, White D, Kareiva P, Maurer EP, Blaustein AR, et al. Projected climate-induced faunal change in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology. 2009;90: 588–597.

19. Huntley B, Collingham YC, Willis SG, Green RE. Potential Impacts of Climatic Change on European Breeding Birds. PloS One. 3: e1439.

20. Midgley GF, Hannah L, Millar D, Rutherford MC, Powrie LW. Assessing the vulnerability of species richness to anthropogenic climate change in a biodiversity hotspot. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2002;11: 445–451.

21. Lubowski RN, Plantinga AJ, Stavins RN. Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. J Environ Econ Manag. 2006;51: 135–152.

22. Nelson E, Polasky S, Lewis DJ, Plantinga AJ, Lonsdorf E, White D, et al. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105: 9471–9476.

23. Lawler JJ, Lewis DJ, Nelson E, Plantinga AJ, Polasky S, Withey JC, et al. Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111: 7492–7497.

24. Bryan BA, Nolan M, McKellar L, Connor JD, Newth D, Harwood T, et al. Land-use and sustainability under intersecting global change and domestic policy scenarios: trajectories for Australia to 2050. Glob Environ Change. 2016;38: 130–152.

25. Latta GS, Adams DM, Bell KP, Kline JD. Evaluating land-use and private forest management responses to a potential forest carbon offset sales program in western Oregon (USA). For Policy Econ. 2016;65: 1–8.

26. Phelps J, Webb EL, Adams WM. Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions. Nat Clim Change. 2012;2: 497–503.

27. Strassburg BBN, Kelly A, Balmford A, Davies RG, Gibbs HK, Lovett A, et al. Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conserv Lett. 2010;3: 98–105.

28. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California 2000-2004 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; 2005. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/new_te_rpt.html

29. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oregon Conservation Strategy 2016 [Internet]. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; 2016 Nov. Available: http://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/

30. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) List [Internet]. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife; 2016 Jun. Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/

31. U.S. Geological Survey. National Gap Analysis Program: USGS Core Sciences Analytics and Synthesis [Internet]. 2017 [cited 28 May 2015]. Available: http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/

32. U.S. Geological Survey. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), version 1.4 Combined Feature Class [Internet]. 2016 [cited 28 May 2015]. Available: https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/

33. Crookston NL, Rehfeldt GE, Dixon GE, Weiskittel AR. Addressing climate change in the forest vegetation simulator to assess impacts on landscape forest dynamics. For Ecol Manag. 2010;260: 1198–1211.

34. Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge university press; 2009.

35. Sohngen B, Tian X. Global climate change impacts on forests and markets. For Policy Econ. 2016;72: 18–26.

36. Coops NC, Hember RA, Waring RH. Assessing the impact of current and projected climates on Douglas-Fir productivity in British Columbia, Canada, using a process-based model (3-PG). Can J For Res. 2010;40: 511–524.

37. Sanford T, Frumhoff PC, Luers A, Gulledge J. The climate policy narrative for a dangerously warming world. Nat Clim Change. 2014;4: 164–166.

38. McKenney DW, Pedlar JH, Yang J, Weersink A, Lawrence G. An economic analysis of seed source options under a changing climate for black spruce and white pine in Ontario, Canada. Can J For Res. 2015;45: 1248–1257.

39. van Kooten GC. The Economics of Forest Carbon Sequestration Revisited: A Challenge for Emissions Offset Trading [Internet]. 2015 Apr. Available: http://www.web.uvic.ca/~repa/publications/REPA%20working%20papers/WorkingPaper2015-04.pdf

40. van Kooten GC, Binkley CS, Delcourt G. Effect of Carbon Taxes and Subsidies on Optimal Forest Rotation Age and Supply of Carbon Services. Am J Agric Econ. 1995;77: 365.

41. ArcGIS Desktop 10.7, Esri Inc.

42. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States, available at U.S. EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states

43. Pacifici M, Foden WB, Visconti P, Watson JEM, Butchart SHM, Kovacs KM, et al. Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat Clim Change. 5: 215.

44. Irwin LL, Riggs RA, Verschuyl JP. Reconciling wildlife conservation to forest restoration in moist mixed-conifer forests of the inland northwest: A synthesis. For Ecol Manag. 2018;424: 288–311.

45. Spies TA, Giesen TW, Swanson FJ, Franklin JF, Lach D, Johnson KN. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landsc Ecol. 2010;25: 1185–1199.

46. Salzman J, Bennett G, Carroll N, Goldstein A, Jenkins M. The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nat Sustain. 2018;1: 136–144.

47. Chen G, Pan S, Hayes DJ, Tian H. Spatial and temporal patterns of plantation forests in the United States since the 1930s: an annual and gridded data set for regional Earth system modeling. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2017;9: 545–556.

48. Weiskittel AR, Crookston NL, Rehfeldt GE. Projected future suitable habitat and productivity of Douglas-fir in western North America. Schweiz Z Forstwes. 2012;163: 70–78.

49. Rehfeldt GE, Crookston NL, Warwell MV, Evans JS. Empirical Analyses of Plant‐Climate Relationships for the Western United States. Int J Plant Sci. 2006;167: 1123–1150.

50. Fezzi C, Harwood AR, Lovett AA, Bateman IJ. The environmental impact of climate change adaptation on land use and water quality. Nat Clim Change. 2015;5: 255–260.

51. Bateman I, Agarwala M, Binner A, Coombes E, Day B, Ferrini S, et al. Spatially explicit integrated modeling and economic valuation of climate driven land use change and its indirect effects. J Environ Manage. 2016;181: 172–184.

52. Pacifici M, Foden WB, Visconti P, Watson JEM, Butchart SHM, Kovacs KM, et al. Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat Clim Change. 2015;5: 215–224.

53. Massetti E, Mendelsohn R. Measuring Climate Adaptation: Methods and Evidence. Rev Environ Econ Policy. 2018;12: 324–341.

54. Burger JA. Management effects on growth, production and sustainability of managed forest ecosystems: Past trends and future directions. For Ecol Manag. 2009;258: 2335–2346.

55. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Strategic Plan: FY 2014-2018 [Internet]. Washington D.C.; Available: https://www.ocfo.usda.gov/usdasp/sp2014/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-2018.pdf

56. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cooperating across Boundaries: Partnerships to Conserve Open Space in Rural America. Washington D.C.; 2006.

57. Keppel G, Niel KPV, Wardell‐Johnson GW, Yates CJ, Byrne M, Mucina L, et al. Refugia: identifying and understanding safe havens for biodiversity under climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2012;21: 393–404.

58. Lawler JJ, Shafer SL, White D, Kareiva P, Maurer EP, Blaustein AR, et al. Projected climate-induced faunal change in the Western Hemisphere. Ecology. 2009;90: 588–597.

59. Williams JW, Jackson ST. Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Front Ecol Environ. 2007;5: 475–482.

60. Hoffmann AA, Sgrò CM. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature. 2011;470: 479–485.

61. Lawler JJ. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Resource Management and Conservation Planning. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1162: 79–98.

62. Krutilla JV. Conservation Reconsidered. Am Econ Rev. 1967;57: 777–786.

63. Lewis DJ, Dundas SJ, Kling DM, Lew DK, Hacker SD. The non-market benefits of early and partial gains in managing threatened salmon. PLOS ONE. 2019;14: e0220260.

64. Lewis DJ, Polasky S. An auction mechanism for the optimal provision of ecosystem services under climate change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2018;92: 20–34.

65. Polasky S, Kling CL, Levin SA, Carpenter SR, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, et al. Role of economics in analyzing the environment and sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116: 5233–5238.