|
|
 |
Research Projects
Woody Biomass Utilization | Systems Analysis of Policy Instruments for Bioenergy Development | Stakeholder Participation, Agency Decision Making, and Watershed Management | Environmental Review and Impact Analysis
Woody Biomass Utilization
The idea of offsetting the cost of wildfire fuel reduction  treatments by
selling the biomass removed is appealing. Biomass utilization also offers hopes of restoring forests to a healthy ecological state, providing critical employment and economics benefits to rural communities, and is increasingly seen as a viable option for greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and renewable energy generation. But for all the possibilities, uncertainty exists regarding the factors necessary to stimulate utilization. How much biomass is available? Are landowners willing to participate in new energy markets?
What is the role
of federal, state, and local initiatives in
stimulating utilization?
Funding by:
Recent Presentations and Initiatives
FPS 2009 (BioSS Policy Implications).pdf
EESI Congressional Hearing
Great Lakes Biomass Policy Forum hosted by University of Minnesota, Pinchot Institute for Conservation, and the Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment
University of Minnesota—Forest Guild partnership for biomass research
For recent results, see:
Becker, D.R., D. Abbas, K.E. Halvorsen, P.J. Jakes, S.M. McCaffrey, C. Moseley. 2009. Conventional Wisdoms of Woody Biomass Utilization. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program. [Internet] Available from: http://www.forestguild.org/biomass/resources/ISE_Biomass.pdf
Becker, D.R.; Larson, D; Lowell, E.C. 2009. Financial considerations of policy options to enhance biomass utilization for reducing wildfire hazards. Forest Policy and Economics 11(8):628-635.
Becker, D.R.; Larson, D.; Lowell, E.; Rummer, R. 2008. User guide HCR Estimator 2.0: software to calculate cost and revenue thresholds for harvesting small-diameter ponderosa pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-748. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Becker, D.R.; Moseley, C.; Lee, C. In press. Comparison of state policy approaches to incentivize woody biomass utilization. Biomass and Bioenergy.
Becker, D.R.; Nechodom, M.; Barnett, A.; Mason, T.; Lowell, E.; Graham, D.; Shelly, J. 2009. Assessing the role of federal community assistance programs to develop biomass utilization capacity in the western United States. Forest Policy and Economics 11(2):141–148.
Becker, D.R.; Skog, K.; Hellman, A.; Halvorsen, K.E.; Mace, T. 2009. An outlook for sustainable forest bioenergy production in the Lake States. Energy Policy 37(12):5687-5693.
Hjerpe, E.; Abrams, J.; Becker, D.R. 2009. Socioeconomic barriers and the role of biomass utilization in southwestern ponderosa pine restoration. Restoration Ecology 27(2):169-177.
Lowell, E.C.; Becker, D.R.; Larson, D.; Rummer, R.; Wadleigh, L. 2008. An integrated approach to evaluating the economic costs of wildfire hazard reduction through wood utilization opportunities in the southwestern U.S. Forest Science 54(3):273-283.
Nechodom, M.; Becker, D.R.; Haynes, R. 2008. Evolving interdependencies of community and forest health. In Forest and Community Connections, Donoghue, E. and Sturtevant V., eds. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. pp. 91-108.
Systems Analyses of Policy Instruments 
Policy instruments, which are the tools used by governmental authorities to achieved certain outcomes, are critical to natural resource management. However, the appropriate mix of instruments ranging from regulations to tax credits and technical assistance programs are difficult to create. Uncertainty exists regarding the optimal mix of policies to achieve sustainable outcomes and the synergies created and unintended consequences of their interaction. This research takes a systems approach to policy evaluation
in which theoretical aspects of policy design and implementation
are investigated in the context of forest planning, bioenergy
development, ecosystem services, and carbon markets.
Funding by:
For recent results, see:
SAF 2009 (Supply Chain Analysis).pdf
Becker, D.R.; Lee, C. 2008. State woody biomass utilization policies. University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources Staff Paper 199. 183 p. [Internet] Available from: http://www.forestry.umn.edu/publications/staffpapers/Staffpaper199.pdf
Becker, D.R.; Moseley, C.; Lee, C. In press. Comparison of state policy approaches to incentivize woody biomass utilization. Biomass and Bioenergy.
Domke, G.M., Ek, A.R.; Becker, D.R.; Espeleta, J.F.; D’Amato, A.W.; Reich, P.B.; Suh, S.; Kilgore, M.A.; Current, D.A.; Hoganson, H.M.; Burk, T.E.; Blinn, C.R. 2008. Assessment of carbon flows associated with forest management and biomass procurement for the Laskin Biomass Facility. University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources Staff Paper 198. 31 p. [Internet] Available from: http://www.forestry.umn.edu/publications/staffpapers/Staffpaper198.pdf
Stakeholder Participation, Agency Decision Making and Watershed Management
Stakeholder engagement in agency decision making has become common practice in watershed planning efforts. Collaborative processes and other forms of public engagement offer mechanisms for including community members and interested stakeholders in management outcomes. They may also improve the quality of management decisions. This research examines the benefits of stakeholder engagement from a variety of perspectives, barriers to their participation, and institutional arrangements necessary. This research also investigates the role of agency decision making in coordinating management outcomes.
Funding by:
For recent results, see:
Steiger-Meister, K.; Becker, D.R. 2009. The role of local stakeholders in water resource management: characterization and diffusion of Minnesota Lake Improvement Districts. University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources Staff Paper 202. 33 p. [Internet] Available from: http://www.forestry.umn.edu/publications/staffpapers/Staffpaper202.pdf
Environmental Review and Impact Analysis
Techniques for measuring social impacts and procedures for environmental review are the focus of this area of research. Specific projects include development of assessment tools, review of institutional structures guiding review processes, and state procedures and practices for conducting environmental review. We also look at the practice of cumulative impact assessment as an emerging area of research.
Funding by:
For recent results see:
Aylesworth, R.J., Becker, D.R.; Kilgore, M.A. 2008. Benchmarking Minnesota's environmental review and permitting processes for forestry and mining industries: a comparative assessment. University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources Staff Paper 195. 209 p. [Internet] Available from: http://www.forestry.umn.edu/publications/staffpapers/Staffpaper195.pdf
Becker, D.R.; Harris, C.C.; Nielsen, E.A.; McLaughlin, W.J. 2004. A comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(3):177-189.
Ma, Z.; Becker, D.R.; Kilgore, M.A. 2009. Assessing cumulative impacts within state environmental review frameworks in the United States. Environmental Impact Assessment Review29(6):390-398.
Ma, Z.; Becker, D.R.; Kilgore, M.A. 2009. Characterizing the landscape of state environmental review policies and procedures in the United States: A national assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52(8):1035-1051.
Ma, Z., Becker, D.R., Kilgore, M.A. 2009. The integration of cumulative environmental impact assessments and state environmental review frameworks. University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources Staff Paper 201. 116 p. [Internet] Available from: http://www.forestry.umn.edu/publications/staffpapers/Staffpaper201.pdf
|
|
|
