Forests around the world serve a wide variety of functions, from providing habitats for many species to delivering economic benefits for communities. Conserving forests is often seen as a cost to commercial forestry in that removing land from production could reduce wood supply and jobs. Research led by scientists with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, however, shows that increased conservation may not necessarily come at a cost.
A new study published in Nature Communications by researchers at the Forest Products Laboratory and the Southern Research Station, and their collaborators, tested several global forest conservation scenarios and evaluated how these scenarios affected harvestable area, roundwood production, and prices within the global forestry sector. Building on previous studies, they considered how forest protection could change prices and expanded their analysis to include 180 countries. These new results challenge previous findings and suggest that increased forest protection could, for most countries, result in a net economic gain.
Testing Three Scenarios
The research team tested three different scenarios in which more land was protected for conservation, agriculture, or both. They used an optimization technique called integer linear programming to determine the ideal set of protected areas using several constraints. These scenarios include:
- Biological Focus: uses integer linear programming to protect 30 percent of forests globally without any consideration of the economic consequences of doing so.
- Agro-economic Focus: removes all natural areas that could potentially be converted to agriculture to meet food production needs from consideration before using integer linear programming to protect 30 percent of forests.
- Biological-agroeconomic Compromise: compromises global forest protection and food production needs.
Source : usda.gov