Search

• The nexus between forest-based climate mitigation and health is poorly researched. • This scoping review identified exposure pathways and health co-benefits from forests. • There is potential for synergies between forest management and health benefits. • Interdisciplinary efforts are required for advancement of research and understanding. Climate change is a pressing global challenge with profound implications for human health. Forest-based climate change mitigation strategies, such as afforestation, reforestation, and sustainable forest management, offer promising solutions to mitigate climate change and simultaneously yield substantial co-benefits for human health. The objective of this scoping review was to examine research trends related to the interdisciplinary nexus between forests as carbon sinks and human health co-benefits. We developed a conceptual framework model, supporting the inclusion of exposure pathways, such as recreational opportunities or aesthetic experiences, in the co-benefit context. We used a scoping review methodology to identify the proportion of European research on forest-based mitigation strategies that acknowledge the interconnection between mitigation strategies and human impacts. We also aimed to assess whether synergies and trade-offs between forest-based carbon sink capacity and human co-benefits has been analysed and quantified. From the initial 4,062 records retrieved, 349 reports analysed European forest management principles and factors related to climate change mitigation capacity. Of those, 97 studies acknowledged human co-benefits and 13 studies quantified the impacts on exposure pathways or health co-benefits and were included for full review. Our analysis demonstrates that there is potential for synergies related to optimising carbon sink capacity together with human co-benefits, but there is currently a lack of holistic research approaches assessing these interrelationships. We suggest enhanced interdisciplinary efforts, using for example multideterminant modelling approaches, to advance evidence and understanding of the forest and health nexus in the context of climate change mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential for large-scale afforestation, as a climate change mitigation strategy, has led to national afforestation targets being proposed. These targets raise many questions, including how to optimise carbon storage, whilst enhancing other ecosystem services (ES). Here, we assess how decision-making at different scales might affect the spatial distribution of new tree planting in England and hence ES provision. This was achieved by modelling the impact of afforestation on three example ES (carbon sequestration, recreation, and flood mitigation) to identify the best areas for planting at five scales of decision-making: national, regional, county, district, and parish. The modelling shows that carbon sequestration rates are relatively invariant across England (once unsuitable areas are excluded), whilst recreation and flood mitigation are more spatially variable, so full simultaneous optimisation of the three ES is not possible. Consequently, recreation and flood mitigation are also more impacted by changes in planning-scale than carbon, with the modelling showing over 200% difference between the parish and national-scenarios for flood mitigation benefits. Overall, targeted afforestation at national scale maximises ES benefits, but risks overwhelming some landscapes with trees. Targeting afforestation using smaller planning units generates more evenly distributed planting, but lower ES benefits. Our results show national-scale planning produces over 35% more combined ecosystem value than planning at parish-scale, and over 65% more than randomized planting. This highlights the benefits of targeting at a relevant scale, but also the potential trade-offs between widely-distributed new tree planting (e.g., parish-scenario), versus planting to optimise ES provision (e.g., the national-scenario). These results do not imply a single 'correct' scale for planning, but instead highlight the importance of considering the impact of a specific scale on the different ES, and that even spatial targeting at the smallest scale produces higher ES benefits than random planting. • Spatially targeting afforestation optimises provision of multiple ecosystem services. • Optimisation method demonstrated for national afforestation targets. • Substantial increase in ecosystem services over untargeted afforestation. • Service provision varies widely with governance level used to plan afforestation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enhancing and conserving carbon pools in vegetation is a major climate change mitigation strategy. The dynamics of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems depend on processes like photosynthesis, respiration, decomposition and combustion, anthropogenic activities like emission of greenhouse gases and climatic variations in rainfall and temperature, and is stored as biomass in different forms. The quantification of biomass is necessary to understand the productivity of forests, carbon sink and source dynamics and recommend ways to aid sequestration through supply side interventions like afforestation and demand side measures that check wood consumption. In this study, carbon sequestration based on the change in total carbon in two different scenarios using Markov chain and InVEST model is evaluated for the years 2000, 2018 and predicted for 2035. The results show that 1.351 Tg carbon has already been lost from 2000 to 2018 in the forest area of Sariska Tiger Reserve and another 0.107 Tg of carbon is expected to be lost in the predicted future, when we compare the land use land cover of the year 2035 with the present scenario. The local communities extract fuelwood by cutting down tree branches illegally, which leads to carbon loss into the atmosphere. The lower release of carbon in 2035 as compared to 2018 is because of forest management practices e.g., plantations done in the range Tehla-Talabberi, Sariska- Ganeshpura, Alwar buffer-Shoydanpura, Talvriksh-Manavaas, Akbarpur-Kalikhol, Ajabgarh-Jatwana. The study shows that the economic value of carbon lost from 2000 to 2018 is million $ 214.57 and if we see the economic value of the predicted year 2035, carbon sequestration is worth million $ 17.19. Outputs demonstrate the potential for restoration/reforestation and afforestation as the most practical carbon loss mitigation strategy and calls for improved access to cleaner energy sources where the renewable energy industry and government may pitch in. Image 1 • Markov chain and InVEST model were used to predict carbon sequestration. • Prediction maps revealed that open forest will be decreased in future. • Total carbon sequestration decreased 1.351 Tg during 2000–18. • It is predicted that −0.107 (Tg) carbon to be sequestered from 2018 to 35. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]