Using portfolio theory in spatial targeting of forest carbon payments: an effective strategy to address spatiotemporal variation in land-use opportunity costs?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of our research is to extend current conservation applications of modern portfolio theory (MPT) to develop a framework for the cost-efficient budget distribution for a forest carbon payment program that optimizes risk–reward trade-offs in the presence of economic growth uncertainty over time. We consider correlation across space and time of the fluctuating opportunity costs of restoring forestland under changing future economic conditions using a case study of eight states in the central and southern Appalachian region of the United States. The findings suggest that optimal budget allocation decisions that ignore the covariance component of the spatial variance–covariance structure of forest carbon returns fail to minimize the true risk of conservation investment for any level of expected return. The importance of incorporating the spatial covariance in targeting conservation payments is made explicit through alternative approaches using multi-objective (mean–variance) optimization and an ex post analysis with and without the covariance component of the spatial variance–covariance structure of forest carbon return on investment (ROI). A comparison of these approaches against our MPT-based approach revealed misleading risk–return expectations if the ROI covariance is ignored in the spatial targeting of forest carbon payments under uncertainty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".