MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396915475 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2024-0089

Economic impacts of climate change on forests: a PICUS–LANDIS–CGE modeling approach

2024· article· en· W4396915475 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Galen McMonagle, Van Lantz, Anthony R. Taylor, Yan Boulanger, Chinmay Sharma, Patrick Withey, Chris R. Hennigar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityGovernment of CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceGovernment of New BrunswickUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsComputable general equilibriumClimate changeEnvironmental scienceForestryEconomicsEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is expected to alter both forest stand- and landscape-level dynamics through a change in environmental characteristics. While numerous studies have employed models to assess the ecological and/or economic impacts of such changes on forests throughout the world, there is need to further refine such analyses. In this paper, we contribute to this literature by coupling an ecological (PICUS–LANDIS II) modeling framework with an economic (computable general equilibrium) model to better account for the economic impact associated with climate-induced impacts on forest stand- and landscape-level structure and composition dynamics. Applying this framework to a case-study region of New Brunswick, Canada, we estimate that climate change will reduce softwood supply by 16%–73% and impact hardwood supply in the range of −2% to +4% by 2150. The change in wood supply is estimated to reduce the value of the softwood and hardwood forestry and logging sector output by up to 51% and 17%, respectively, by 2150. These sector-level impacts may lead to a 0.08%–0.88% reduction in annual gross domestic product by 2150. The methodological advances established in this study can be used to better inform future forest management and economic plans that aim to lessen both the ecological and economic impact of climate change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207