Economic losses in carbon forestry due to errors in inventory data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forestry can help to mitigate climate change by storing carbon in trees, forest soils, and wood products. Forest owners can be subsidized if forestry removes carbon from the atmosphere and taxed if forestry produces emissions. Errors in forest inventory data can lead to losses in net present value (NPV) if management prescriptions are selected based on erroneous data. This study assesses the effect of inventory errors on economic losses in forest management when the objective is to maximize the total NPV of timber production and carbon payments. Errors similar to those in airborne laser scanning based forest inventory were simulated in stand attributes with a vine copula approach and nearest neighbor method. Carbon payments were based on the total carbon balance of forestry (including trees, soil, and wood-based products) and calculations were carried out for 30 years using carbon prices of 0, 50, 75, 100, 125, and 150 €·t−1. The results revealed that increasing the carbon price and decreasing the level of errors led to decreased losses in NPV. The inclusion of carbon payments for the maximization of the NPV decreased the effect of errors on the losses, which suggests that the value of collecting more accurate forest inventory data may decrease when the carbon price increases.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".