Efficiency Evaluation of Forest Carbon Sinks: A Case Study of Russia

被引:4
|
作者
Vilkov, Arsenii [1 ]
Tian, Gang [1 ]
机构
[1] Northeast Forestry Univ, Coll Econ & Management, Harbin 150040, Peoples R China
来源
FORESTS | 2024年 / 15卷 / 04期
关键词
forest carbon sink efficiency; SBM-undesirable output model; Malmquist index; Low-carbon development strategy; forest carbon offset projects; Russia; PROJECTS; OUTPUT;
D O I
10.3390/f15040649
中图分类号
S7 [林业];
学科分类号
0829 ; 0907 ;
摘要
Forest carbon sinks in Russia are an integral part of the national "Low-carbon development strategy". However, the influence of natural disasters and various land use policies in economic regions (ERs) raises the issue of forest carbon sink efficiency (FCSE). This study adopted a DEA-SBM model that considers undesirable outputs to measure FCSE, and the Malmquist index (MI) approach to analyze total factor productivity (TFP) of forest carbon sinks, using panel data from 2009 to 2021. The results show that the average FCSE was 0.788, with an improvement rate of 21.2%. Scale efficiency is the main factor constraining FCSE in Russia. In twelve ERs, forest carbon sinks are efficient only in the Kaliningrad and West Siberian ERs. In general, forest carbon sinks in Russia are inefficient mainly due to forest fires and other natural disturbances (82.33%); excessive logging activities (38.64%); and lack of carbon absorption capacity (31.70%). The average score of their TFP is 0.970, indicating a decline of 3% over the study period. This is primarily attributed to the decline of 1.6% in technological change. The productivity of forest carbon sinks remained static only in the Kaliningrad ER, while other economic regions performed deterioration trends. Therefore, Russia should enhance the efficiency of forest carbon sinks.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Bias in the attribution of forest carbon sinks
    Karl-Heinz Erb
    Thomas Kastner
    Sebastiaan Luyssaert
    Richard A. Houghton
    Tobias Kuemmerle
    Pontus Olofsson
    Helmut Haberl
    Nature Climate Change, 2013, 3 : 854 - 856
  • [2] Economics of forest and agricultural carbon sinks
    van Kooten, G. C.
    CLIMATE CHANGE AND MANAGED ECOSYSTEMS, 2006, : 375 - 395
  • [3] Taking credit for forest carbon sinks
    Pelley, J
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2003, 37 (03) : 58A - 63A
  • [4] Forest carbon sinks in the Northern Hemisphere
    Goodale, CL
    Apps, MJ
    Birdsey, RA
    Field, CB
    Heath, LS
    Houghton, RA
    Jenkins, JC
    Kohlmaier, GH
    Kurz, W
    Liu, SR
    Nabuurs, GJ
    Nilsson, S
    Shvidenko, AZ
    ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2002, 12 (03) : 891 - 899
  • [5] Using water scarcity footprint to choose the most suitable location for forest carbon sinks: A case study
    Roibas, Laura
    Cuevas, Antonio
    Eugenia Vazquez, Maria
    Vilas, Marta
    Hospido, Almudena
    SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION, 2018, 16 : 1 - 12
  • [6] Quantitative Study of Optimal Carbon Tax under Forest Carbon Sinks Market in China
    Ying, Zhang
    Dan, Liu
    EPLWW3S 2011: 2011 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF LAKES-WETLANDS-WATERSHED AND APPLICATION OF 3S TECHNOLOGY, VOL 3, 2011, : 511 - 514
  • [7] Forest Carbon Sinks and Its Economy Evaluation of State-owned Forest Region in Heilongjiang Province
    Li Changsheng
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2011 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM - TECHNICAL INNOVATION OF INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMATION AND STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT, 2011, : 107 - 112
  • [8] Analysis of the Efficiency of Forest Carbon Sinks and Its Influencing Factors-Evidence from China
    Wei, Junmin
    Shen, Manhong
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (18)
  • [9] Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review
    van Kooten, G. Cornelis
    Sohngen, Brent
    INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2007, 1 (03): : 237 - 269
  • [10] COMMENTARY: Bias in the attribution of forest carbon sinks
    Erb, Karl-Heinz
    Kastner, Thomas
    Luyssaert, Sebastiaan
    Houghton, Richard A.
    Kuemmerle, Tobias
    Olofsson, Pontus
    Haberl, Helmut
    NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 2013, 3 (10) : 854 - 856