Climatic Change

, Volume 89, Issue 3–4, pp 355–370 | Cite as

Using portfolio theory to guide reforestation and restoration under climate change scenarios

Article

Abstract

The general problem addressed by this study is that of designing a decision support system for planned adaptation to climate change that uses the principles of modern portfolio theory to minimise risk and maximise return of adaptive actions in an environment of deep uncertainty over future climate scenarios. Here we show how modern portfolio theory can use the results of a climate change impact model to select an optimal set of seed sources to be used in regenerating forests of white spruce in an environment of multiple, equally plausible future climates. This study shows that components of solutions are not selected to perform equally well across all plausible futures; but rather, that components are selected to specialise in particular climate scenarios. The innovation of this research rests in demonstrating that the powerful and widely used principles of quantifying and planning for risk and return in the uncertain environment of asset markets can be applied successfully to serve the objectives of planned adaptation to climate change.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Box EO, Crumpacker DW, Hardin ED (1999) Predicted effects climatic change on distribution of ecologically important native tree and shrub species in Florida. Climatic Change 41:213–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davis MB, Shaw RG (2001) Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 292:673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eriksson G, Namkoong G, Roberds JH (1993) Dynamic gene conservation for uncertain futures. For Ecol Manag 62:15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Figge F (2004) Biofolio: applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 13:827–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foley JA (1996) An integrated biosphere model of land surface processes, terrestrial carbon balance and vegetation dynamics. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 10:603–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Houghton JT (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Iverson RL, Prasad AM (2001) Potential changes in tree species richness and forest community types following climate change. Ecosystems 4:186–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jackson ST, Overpeck JT, Webb T, Keattch ST, Anderson KH (1997) Mapped plant macrofossil and pollen records of Late Quaternary vegetation change in eastern North America. Quat Sci Rev 16:1–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ledig FT, Kitzmiller JH (1992) Genetic strategies for reforestation in the face of global climate change. For Ecol Manag 50:153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lempert R, Nakicenovic N, Sarewitz D, Schlesinger M (2004) Characterizing climate change uncertainties for decision-makers. Clim Change 65:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lesser MR, Parker WH (2004) Genetic variation in Picea Glauca for growth and phenological traits. Silvae Genet 53:141–148Google Scholar
  12. Lesser M, Parker WH (2006) Comparison of canonical correlation and regression based focal point seed zones of white spruce. Can J For Res 36:1572–1586Google Scholar
  13. Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. J Finance 7:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKenney D et al (2005) High-resolution climate change scenarios for North America. Technical Note No. 107. Canadian Forest Service Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, pp 5Google Scholar
  15. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenham J et al (2000) Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change on emission scenarios. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Natural Resources Canada (2005) Regional, National, and International Climate Modeling. http://www.glfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/landscape/climate_models_e.html. (visited May, 2005)
  17. Neilson RP (1995) A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation distribution and water balance. Ecol Appl 5:362–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Noss RF (2001) Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate change. Conserv Biol 15:578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parker WH (1992) Focal point seed zones: site specific delineation by geographic information systems. Can J For Res 22:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker WH, van Niejenhuis A (1996) Regression-based focal point seed zones for Picea mariana from Northwestern Ontario. Can J Botany 74:1227–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peters RL (1990) Effects of global warming on forests. For Ecol Manag 35:13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popper SW, Lempert RL, Bankes SC (2005) Shaping the future. Sci Am April:67–71Google Scholar
  23. Rehfeldt GE, Cheng CY, Spittlehouse DL, Hamilton DA (1999) Genetic responses to climate in pinus contorta: niche breadth, climate change, and reforestation. Ecol Monogr 69:375–407Google Scholar
  24. Rehfeldt GE (2002) Intraspecific responses to climate in Pinus sylvestris. Glob Chang Biol 8:912–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubinstein M (2002) Markowitz’s ‘Portfolio Selection’: a fifty-year retrospective. J Finance 57:1041–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schnieder SH (2001) What is dangerous climate change? Nature 411:17–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sykes MT, Prentice IC, Cramer W (1996) A bioclimatic model for the potential distributions of north European tree species under present and future climates. J Biogeogr 23:203–233Google Scholar
  28. Toth FL et al (2001) ‘Decision-making Frameworks’. In: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 601–688Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada

Personalised recommendations