Some Results from Modelling Forest Management under Climate

Some Results from Modelling Forest Management under Climate Change Rasoul Yousefpour et al. , Postdoc @ EU-FP 7 Project; MOTIVE (MOdels for Adap. TIVE Forest Mangement) Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Denamrk 03 -06 -2021 Slide 1 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Adaptation to Climate Change S. t. Decision-maker’s behavior Forest response (i. e. Perceprion of CC) (e. g. ↑↓Productivity/Mortality) Actions’ performance (i. e. Finding optimal decision) Scale of adaptation (i. e. Local owner, Forest structure) Objective of adaptation (e. g. min. ∆productivity) Problem: Climate Change Uncertainty 03 -06 -2021 Slide 2 (e. g. IPCC scenario A 1, A 1 B 2) LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

No/Low Change 50% 03 -06 -2021 Slide 3 Moderate Change 30% High Change 20% LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Why belief-1 2008 2009 2007 2006 2010 2011 03 -06 -2021 Slide 4 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Combining evidence by Dempster rule: A and B are different sorts of evidence k measures initial beliefs in conflict between different sorts of information e. g. intersection is null 03 -06 -2021 Slide 5 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Why belief-2 As the time proceeds, we know more about the CC A +6° world? CC index A +4° world? A +2° world? when can we tell? Time 03 -06 -2021 Slide 6 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France No change?

Why belief-3 Every time we decide, NPV we may adapt/switch management ---- M 1 ---- M 2 ---- M 3 Climate/Time 03 -06 -2021 Slide 7 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Decision-maker’s behaviour: Determinist: no way believes in climate change and stick to the absolute belief in no-change unless very convincing evidence are experienced Pessimist: believs in the worst scenario and invets heavily on the very costly adaptation actions Adaptive: constantly observes the state of the climate and update the knowledge and beliefs towards the actual climate realization 03 -06 -2021 Slide 8 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Decision on action to be made in each decision point: 03 -06 -2021 Slide 9 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Realization of future climate state : Climate scenario SMHI (2081 -2100) MPI (2081 -2100) HC (2081 -2100) Temperature [° C] Mean Min Precipitation [mm] Annual Summer* 11. 24 3. 02 809. 6 372 12. 27 4. 59 807. 5 344 12. 64 3. 28 734. 5 331. 3 SMHI: Model realization by the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute MPI: Model realization by the Max-Planck Institute (MPI) in Germany HC: Model realization by Met office Hadley centre (HC) in UK 03 -06 -2021 Slide 10 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Simulation of Management actions by Land. Clim in VELUWE (The Netherlands): Category Management overview Management scenarios M 3: M 1: M 2: Multifunctional forestry Multifunctional No intervention forestry with a focus on production No intervention with removing non -native tree species Adaptive & Productive Protective & Adaptive Conservation Diversification of forest structure Focus on timber harvesting Natural regeneration Convert to near natural forest 03 -06 -2021 Slide 11 11 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France M 4:

Specifications in Veluwe TBP = The total biomass production at a given time (biomasst-1) and defined as a flow consisting of the sum of; i) HB = harvested biomass & ii) BM = biomass from mortality because Of competition, fire, windthrow & iii) DBI = decadal biomass increment From cumulated growth (not harvested) 7 forest/land owner = L, M, N, R, S, T, Z 4 Management alternatives 3 climate change realizations 03 -06 -2021 Slide 12

Land. Clim Spatially-explicit forest landscape model Asses the climatic effects, wildfire and management on forest dynamics Developed at Forest Ecology, ETH Zurich-Switzerland 03 -06 -2021 Slide 13

M 1 34. 4 T M 1 S M 2 R M 4 N M 2 M 3 L Z Total Determinist (w. SMHI=100%) M 3 5. 2 11. 0 35. 1 47. 0 25. 9 14. 2 9. 2 0 20 40 60 min. ∆Biomass (m 3/ha/year) 03 -06 -2021 Slide 14 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

M 1 29. 5 5. 2 T M 1 S M 2 R M 1 N M 1 M M 2 M 3 L Z Total Pesimist (w. HC = 100%) M 3 11. 0 35. 1 39. 5 20. 1 14. 2 9. 2 0 20 40 60 min. ∆Biomass (m 3/ha/year) 03 -06 -2021 Slide 15 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

(w. SMHI=w. MPI=w. HC=33%) M 1 31. 2 T M 1 S M 2 R M 1 N M 1 M M 2 M 3 L Z Total Adaptive-Indifferent M 3 5. 2 11. 0 35. 1 43. 3 25. 6 14. 2 9. 2 0 20 40 60 min. ∆Biomass (m 3/ha/year) 03 -06 -2021 Slide 16 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Adaptive-Active (based on observation & Dempster’s rule) SMHI MPI HC Temperature (°C) 30% 60% 10% Precipitation (mm) 0% 30% 70% K= (0. 3*0. 3)+( 0. 3*0. 7)+(0. 6*0. 7)+(0. 1*0. 3) = 0. 75 w. SMHI= (0. 3*0)/*(1 -0. 75) = 0 w. MPI= (0. 6*0. 3)/(1 -0. 75) = 0. 72 w. HC= (0. 1*0. 7)/(1 -0. 75) = 0. 28 03 -06 -2021 Slide 17 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

M 3 T M 2 S M 4 R M 2 N M 2 M M 1 M 3 L Z Total Adaptive-Active (w. SMHI=0%, w. MPI= 72%, w. HC=28%) M 3 0 03 -06 -2021 Slide 18 20 40 60 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

0 Total Z T M 3 S M 3 M 4 R M 1 M 2 N M 1 M 2 M 3 M 3 L Z Total 0 T M 3 S M 3 M 1 R M 1 M 2 N M 1 Adaptive-Act. M 1 M M 2 Adaptive-Ind. L Z Total 0 T M 3 S M 3 M 1 R N M 2 N R M 4 M 1 M T S M 2 M 1 Pesimist L M 1 L Z Total Determinist M 3 50 min. ∆Biomass (m 3/ha/year) 03 -06 -2021 Slide 19 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France 0 50

0 25 03 -06 -2021 Slide 20 50 0 25 Total Z T M 4 S M 2 M 4 R M 3 M 1 M 2 N M 1 M 3 M 2 M M 3 Adaptive-Act. M 3 L Total Z T M 4 S M 4 M 3 R M 1 M 4 N M 2 M 3 M M 2 Adaptive-Ind. L Total M 4 Z M M 4 T N M 4 S R M 1 M 2 R S M 2 N T M 2 M 1 M Z M 2 Pesimist L Total M 1 L Determinist M 3 50 min. Mortality (M 3/ha/year) LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France 0 50 100

Conclusion: -Perception of cliamey change e. g. Beliefs about CC realizations affects the adaptive decision-making and must be integrated in the process -Behavior of decision-makers may change the optimal management actions and the economical figures, e. g. Expected NPV, . . . -Scale of adaptive actions on climate change mattters because of the difference in natural state of forest ecosystems. -Decision points create the opportunity to adapt/switch the actions and make use of novel information, update the beliefs and optimize the utility. 03 -06 -2021 Slide 21 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

-Difinig the goals for evaluating the perfomance of adaptive actions is a crucial point and may change the results. -In our example of adptive forestry in Veluwe area, multifuctional forestry (M 1) is the most dominant management action and can serve as a good precautionary action under climate change. - In Veluwe area, initial state of the forest ecosystem is a major player in the decision space and disregarding it (regional decisions) may cause making non-optimal decisions. 03 -06 -2021 Slide 22 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France

Thank you! 03 -06 -2021 Slide 23 LEF Biennial workshop, May 30 - June 1, 2012, Nancy, France