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]

• A RCM is used to study the effect of LCC on climate extremes in Europe. • LCC significantly changes the occurrence frequency and duration of extreme climate. • Increasing understanding of land cover change-climate interactions. • Findings are helpful in developing future land management strategies in Europe. Extremes in climate and weather can pose significant challenges to economy, ecosystems and human health. Changes in land cover are one of the drivers for variability in frequency and magnitude of extreme climate at regional and local levels. In this study, a regional climate model (COSMO-CLM v4.8) is used to simulate effects in climate extremes from two different idealized land cover change scenarios in Europe. These two simulations involve abrupt large-scale conversion of today forestland to herbaceous vegetation (deforestation), and of today cropland to evergreen needle-leave forest (afforestation). A control simulation with today land cover distribution is used to identify differences in extreme climate. We find significant changes in extreme climate in both deforestation and afforestation simulations, with seasonal and spatial differences. Deforestation causes a warmer summer (with higher annual maximum temperature) and a colder winter (with lower annual minimum temperature). Afforestation slightly increases the average intensity of the hot extremes, although with high spatial variability (a reduction is common in several locations), and mitigates cold extremes in winter. Changes in extreme indices show that deforestation increases both the frequency and duration of hot and cold extremes, while afforestation causes a lower frequency of extreme cold climate. The two simulations show opposing results in the number of frozen days, as they increase for deforestation and decrease for afforestation. A drier climate is found after deforestation, whereas a wetter climate is observed after afforestation. In general, deforestation and afforestation increase the frequency of hot extreme climate as they reduce the return period and increase the return level. Overall, our findings show the potential critical effects that land cover changes can have on climate extremes, and the possible synergies that land management strategies and planning can have for climate change mitigation and adaptation at a regional scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimal forest management strategies for mitigating climate change are hotly debated during political negotiations, because afforestation and forest management can increase atmospheric CO 2 removal, and the wood produced can provide a substitute for fossil fuel. Studies quantifying the carbon balance of the forest sector apply a wide variety of management and wood-use scenarios. Some model studies include future climate change effects on forest growth, but others ignore them. Here, a conceptual empirical model of sequestration efficiency, the fraction of net primary production stored in the biosphere and anthroposhere, simulates European forest carbon pools and fluxes. The sensitivity of the sequestration efficiency of European forests was quantified by varying model parameters along the forest growth and wood transformation chain: environment and climate change, harvest intensity, rotation length, fraction of harvest residues left on site and substitution efficiency. Irrespective of the evolution of the sink, the forest sector as a whole remains a net carbon absorber in 99% of the simulations at a time horizon of 100 years, even if in 25% of the simulations the forests themselves become sources. However, if the goal is to enhance the current sequestration efficiency to mitigate emissions, only in 25% of the simulations the sink efficiency was found to be enhanced. If the current sink were to reverse to a source, no management action or change in wood use would result in an increase in the current forest sequestration efficiency. In all other cases, increasing harvest levels would lead to an increase in forest sector carbon emissions, highlighting the pivotal role of the baseline used to set the emission reduction targets. Our results show that the uncertainty on the response of European forest to climate change undermines the quest for a carbon-optimal management strategy. The uncertainty in whether climate change will maintain the current forest sink or turn it into a carbon source is largely overlooked in the debate over the best forest management strategy to reduce the growth of atmospheric CO 2 concentration, yet it is large enough to change the merit order of different alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]