case_images: PMC6054017_01
case_images: Distribution of the strategy mix in portfolios
case_images: 11027_2016_9735_Fig5_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC6054017_01_11027_2016_9735_Fig5_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig5
case_images: FMU across portfolios varied, higher utilization plus more LLP and higher utilization plus bioenergy plus more LLP were chosen in most FMUs in portfolios considering displacement effects (Fig. 5), indicating that those two strategies are among the best examined here when considering mitigation efforts of BC's forest sector from a systems perspective. For the forest sector alone (ignoring displacement effects), however, the bioenergy strategy was not selected in portfolios for either long-term or short-term mitigation goals, because burning harvest residues for bioenergy created limited mitigation benefits relative to other strategies (panel b, Fig. 8).
case_images: Cost curves for individual strategies in a long term (2017-2050), b mid term (2017-2030), and c short term (2017-2020). Some extreme values were eliminated for display purposes
case_images: 11027_2016_9735_Fig8_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC6054017_01_11027_2016_9735_Fig8_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig7
case_images: Because of the fixed shift in product commodities, this strategy had a flat cost curve (Fig. 7) with only three different costs per tonne values recognizing the different cost and price assumptions we used for the three forest regions in the province.
case_images: Spatial distribution of the strategy mix in portfolios with short-term (2017-2020) and long-term (2017-2050) goals. FMUs without color refer to spatial units that were not included in this study. Different strategy mixes were selected for the goal of maximizing forest sector mitigation versus the goal of maximizing domestic mitigation. For forest sector mitigation (b, d), Higher Utilization + More LLP and Harvest Less + More LLP were the dominant strategies in the long term and short term, respectively, because of their significant mitigation potentials in the forest sector. When domestic displacement effects were considered (a, c), the Bioenergy strategy was included in the best strategies in many FMUs except areas where large amounts of harvest residues were available, but local heat and electricity demand was relatively low. Compared to ( a), Harvest Less + More LLP was selected in ( c) in some coastal areas because large proportion of the harvest in those areas are from mature or old-growth forest stands with a high carbon density; therefore, less harvest provided greater gains in the carbon stock initially. In ( b), Higher Utilization + More LLP was the best for the interior of the province because all mitigation from this strategy was gained within the forest sector, and the Restricted Harvest strategy was preferred for the coast because of the great proportion of old-growth harvest there. In ( d), the Harvest Less + More LLP strategy almost completely replaced other strategies in all FMUs because in the short term a reduction in the harvest level always resulted in the highest initial forest mitigation
case_images: 11027_2016_9735_Fig9_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC6054017_01_11027_2016_9735_Fig9_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig8
case_images: Without considering socio-economic impacts and values for other ecosystem services, most mitigation benefits generated by this strategy would be limited to the central and north coast of BC (panels a and b, Fig. 8) where harvest levels were significantly lowered because old growth represents a greater proportion of the baseline harvest in those areas and there are insufficient younger stands to meet harvest targets. FMU across portfolios varied, higher utilization plus more LLP and higher utilization plus bioenergy plus more LLP were chosen in most FMUs in portfolios considering displacement effects (Fig. 5), indicating that those two strategies are among the best examined here when considering mitigation efforts of BC's forest sector from a systems perspective. For the forest sector alone (ignoring displacement effects), however, the bioenergy strategy was not selected in portfolios for either long-term or short-term mitigation goals, because burning harvest residues for bioenergy created limited mitigation benefits relative to other strategies (panel b, Fig. 8).
case_images: Sensitivity analysis of the cost of the portfolio that maximizes domestic mitigation during 2017-2050 (PORT2) based on three different assumptions about discount rates
case_images: 11027_2016_9735_Fig7_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC6054017_01_11027_2016_9735_Fig7_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig9
case_images: Considering 3 and 1% discount rates to be the most conservative assumptions, we re-estimated the cost curve for PORT2 based on a moderate assumption of 5 and 3 and also a high assumption of 8 and 6%, respectively (Fig. 9).