@article{vien_galik_2024, title={Individual and interlinked SDGs: higher education institutions and metro area sustainability performance}, volume={2}, ISSN={["1758-6739"]}, DOI={10.1108/IJSHE-06-2023-0231}, abstractNote={
Purpose
Recent scholarship has explored higher education institutions’ (HEIs) role in transitioning to a sustainable society, but empirically, questions remain regarding their impact on the sustainability of surrounding areas. This study aims to examine the correlation between HEIs’ sustainability actions and local sustainability performance.
}, journal={INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION}, author={Vien, Ha and Galik, Christopher S.}, year={2024}, month={Feb} }
 @article{ba_galik_2023, title={Historical industrial transitions influence local sustainability planning, capability, and performance}, volume={46}, ISSN={2210-4224}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.100690}, DOI={10.1016/j.eist.2022.100690}, abstractNote={We evaluate the influence of long-term industrial transitions on local sustainability action. We construct two aspects of historical industrial transitions—direction and magnitude—along with three aspects of local government sustainability action: planning, capabilities, and performance. Using a national survey of local sustainability practice and nearly five decades of historical manufacturing employment data in the U.S., we find local communities with more substantial swings in manufacturing jobs to be less likely to engage in sustainability planning, cultivate sustainability-related capabilities, and make progress towards meeting sustainability-related objectives, underscoring the potential challenges associated with top-down programs and the importance of decentralized solutions.}, journal={Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Ba, Yuhao and Galik, Christopher S.}, year={2023}, month={Mar}, pages={100690} }
 @article{galik_ba_bobbitt_2023, title={Institutional stability and change in environmental governance}, volume={5}, ISSN={["1470-8442"]}, DOI={10.1332/030557321X16806127945591}, abstractNote={Efforts to better understand what prevents institutions from changing to meet contemporary demands – or what facilitates the evolution of existing constructs to address new challenges – are of particular import and relevance to environmental governance. While the existing literature provides valuable conceptualisation and empirical evaluation of institutional stability and change, the lack of a consistent and holistic typology complicates the evaluation of institutions over time. In this article, we use a combined stability–change typology to assess the dominant modes of institutional change and stability over a multi-decadal timespan across three environmental governance systems – air quality governance in the US and China, and climate governance in the European Union. Across cases, we find that these modes are not mutually exclusive but can occur simultaneously, in concert or in conflict. We also find that observed patterns of change and stability are reflective of the social and political context in which systems operate, as well as the focus of the system itself (for example, localised air quality versus global climate change). Apart from providing a proof-of-concept analysis of institutional change and stability, our findings raise questions about the mechanisms underlying spatial and temporal patterns across identified modes. Indirectly, our findings also further highlight challenges to designing systems both resilient to exogenous stressors and capable of adapting to new situations. Our combined stability–change typology may help to advance understanding of whether and how such balancing has occurred in the past, thus facilitating future efforts to address contemporary challenges.}, journal={POLICY AND POLITICS}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Ba, Yuhao and Bobbitt, Christopher}, year={2023}, month={May} }
 @article{keskar_galik_johnson_2023, title={Planning for winter peaking power systems in the United States}, volume={173}, ISSN={0301-4215}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113376}, DOI={10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113376}, abstractNote={Most regions in the United States experience peak electricity demand during the summer months. Several regions, however, are dual peaking with distinct summer and winter peaks of roughly equal magnitude. Deep decarbonization of our energy system could lead to greater instances of dual or winter peaking power systems across the country. This seasonal shift has important implications for grid operations. Furthermore, the compounding impacts of decarbonization strategies and climate change could introduce new challenges in ensuring sufficient generator availability during peak demand. This paper provides policy recommendations to plan for a shift to dual or winter peaking power systems. We first analyze the seasonal peak demand trends between 2016 and 2021 at the regional and subregional levels. We provide key examples of how regulators and system operators plan for winter resource adequacy, focusing on the measures undertaken by different stakeholders, post-Winter Storm Uri. We then detail challenges posed by the multilevel regulation framework in planning for winter peaking power systems for both extreme cold events and a gradual shift due to electrification. Finally, we provide our policy recommendations for utilities and regulators on how they can robustly meet the challenges of winter peaking systems.}, journal={Energy Policy}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Keskar, Aditya and Galik, Christopher and Johnson, Jeremiah X.}, year={2023}, month={Feb}, pages={113376} }
 @book{galik_baker_bartuska_abt_2022, place={Washington, D.C}, title={Accounting Considerations for Capturing the GHG Consequences of BECCS}, publisher={Energy Futures Initiative}, author={Galik, C.S. and Baker, J.S. and Bartuska, A. and Abt, R.C.}, year={2022} }
 @article{galik_baker_daigneault_latta_2022, title={Crediting temporary forest carbon: Retrospective and empirical perspectives on accounting options}, volume={5}, ISSN={["2624-893X"]}, DOI={10.3389/ffgc.2022.933020}, abstractNote={The costs and technical expertise associated with forest carbon offset projects can be significant, while decades-long time commitments can discourage participation from the outset. Considering these challenges, several new approaches have emerged in the United States under the auspices of both long-standing and recently-established programs, attempting to leverage increased carbon mitigation. What several of these approaches have in common is reduced emphasis on long-term storage, what we refer to as a traditional perspective of permanence. Instead, each considers shorter periods of time—up to and including single year harvest deferrals—as eligible project commitments. Here, we provide a brief discussion of the historical permanence and accounting literature, with an emphasis on contradictory views and how these perspectives have evolved over time. Next, we quantitatively assess the long-term influence of different permanence requirements as envisioned in several new and existing forest carbon programs, estimating net mitigation across a variety of forest types and project configurations. We conclude with a presentation of our quantitative findings in the context of the existing literature, while also highlighting unmet research needs on these so-called new offsets, those emerging novel approaches for forest carbon mitigation that challenge the research and practice status quo.}, journal={FRONTIERS IN FORESTS AND GLOBAL CHANGE}, author={Galik, Christopher S. S. and Baker, Justin S. S. and Daigneault, Adam and Latta, Gregory}, year={2022}, month={Aug} }
 @article{murray_galik_bast_hawley_2022, title={From 'Think' to 'Do': Operationalizing the SDGs across the Curriculum at North Carolina State University}, journal={UN Chronicle}, publisher={Carolina State University”. UN Chronicle}, author={Murray, S. and Galik, C.S. and Bast, J. and Hawley, D.}, year={2022}, month={Mar} }
 @article{ba_galik_2022, title={Historical manufacturing volatility and local sustainability efforts: A link to the past}, volume={72}, ISSN={["1872-9495"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102421}, abstractNote={Renewed attention to the role of subnational efforts in addressing myriad environmental challenges necessitates a greater understanding of the factors associated with program adoption. Given observed relationships between adoption of sustainability practices and the presence of carbon-intensive industry, and separately the observed persistence of industrial history in a given place, we explore the link between historical manufacturing employment volatility and current sustainability plan adoption at the local level. Our analysis suggests that the magnitude of changes in manufacturing employment is inversely related to the likelihood of sustainability plan adoption. Our analysis further suggests that, given the same pace of change, counties with shrinking manufacturing employment are more likely to adopt sustainability plans than those with growing employment. Lastly, we find that the link between past industrial transitions and local sustainability commitment is moderated by local disaster experience and priority for environmental protection. Collectively, the findings also shed light on potential—and otherwise unobservable—barriers to transitions to sustainable practices at the local level. In particular, the inverse relationship between pace of employment change and plan adoption suggests that minimizing the rapidity of contemporary transitions may counterintuitively ease the eventual adoption of sustainability-related policies.}, journal={GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS}, author={Ba, Yuhao and Galik, Christopher S.}, year={2022}, month={Jan} }
 @article{abt_galik_baker_2022, title={When burning wood to generate energy makes climate sense}, volume={78}, ISSN={["1938-3282"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2022.2062941}, DOI={10.1080/00963402.2022.2062941}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Over the last 20 years, IPPC reports have made it clear that the world must move beyond simply reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere to actively removing it from the skies. (Solar and wind can reduce carbon emissions, but they do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere). New BioEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) technologies have been emerging that can remove carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere and sequester them permanently underground. Indeed, many long-term scenarios for transitioning from today’s fossil fuel-dependent society to a future net zero society hinge on BECCS. But a key question is what bioenergy feedstock to use. In some cases, powering these facilities by burning biomass that comes from plantations in the US South is an option. Consequently, the study of the origins, production, and use of the fuel consumed by the world’s largest biomass-fired power plant in Drax, England, provides a useful case study of the potential advantages and disadvantages of the burning of biomass – wood pellets made from trees, bark, roots, stumps, millwaste, sawdust, and other woody vegetation – in place of fossil fuel to generate power for processes such as BECCS.}, number={3}, journal={BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS}, author={Abt, Robert and Galik, Christopher and Baker, Justin}, year={2022}, month={May}, pages={152–157} }
 @article{godlevskaya_galik_kaufman_2021, title={Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third}, volume={4}, ISSN={["2590-3322"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.11.008}, DOI={10.1016/j.oneear.2021.11.008}, abstractNote={The power sector represents 25% of US total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the absence of comprehensive federal climate policies, numerous US electric utilities have announced GHG reduction pledges. The extent to which they can mitigate emissions beyond existing state and regional policies remains unclear, however. Here we compile 36 major utility pledges in place as of December 2020 across more than 80 utility subsidiaries and operating territories and compare pledged reductions with those achievable under existing state and regional renewable energy production or emission reduction requirements. We show that one-seventh of utility pledged reductions may already occur under existing state and regional policies but nonetheless have the potential for substantial net emissions reductions, an amount equivalent to one-third of 2018 US power sector emissions. Although challenges remain to tracking achievement of pledged reductions, voluntary reduction efforts could play a vital role in climate change mitigation.}, number={12}, journal={ONE EARTH}, author={Godlevskaya, Diana and Galik, Christopher S. and Kaufman, Noah}, year={2021}, month={Dec}, pages={1741–1751} }
 @article{galik_benedum_kauffman_becker_2021, title={Opportunities and barriers to forest biomass energy: A case study of four U. S. states}, volume={148}, ISSN={["1873-2909"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106035}, DOI={10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106035}, abstractNote={Forest bioenergy is discussed in the literature as a potential mechanism to achieve multiple forest management and energy policy goals, and remains the subject of state and federal policy deliberations. In practice, forest bioenergy faces challenges from wavering public support and the availability of increasingly lower cost natural gas, wind, and solar energy. Here, we investigate the experience of stakeholders with forest bioenergy systems in four states—California, Florida, Minnesota, and New Hampshire—to better understand present-day barriers to and opportunities for continued operation of existing facilities and the potential deployment of new capacity. Building on insight generated from interviews with key informants at the national level, we conducted a comparative case study based on facility documents and interviews with facility managers, utility representatives, federal agency representatives, clean energy advocates, and other relevant stakeholders. We find that forest bioenergy often lacks a natural constituency willing or able to advocate on its behalf in policy deliberations, and that even proven facilities are vulnerable to fluctuations in state and federal policy. We conclude that shifting, uneven support for forest bioenergy impedes durable policy solutions, a condition that likely translates to limited opportunities for additional large, utility-scale facilities at the present time.}, journal={BIOMASS & BIOENERGY}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Benedum, Michelle E. and Kauffman, Marcus and Becker, Dennis R.}, year={2021}, month={May} }
 @book{yoder_manfra_galik_duckworth_2021, place={Raleigh, NC}, title={Report on the Impact of the Covid Crisis on Academic Research at North Carolina State University, Inequalities During COVID-19 Sub-Committee, University Research Committee}, institution={North Carolina State University}, author={Yoder, J. and Manfra, M. and Galik, C. and Duckworth, O.}, year={2021} }
 @misc{galik_chelbi_2021, title={Revisiting institutional stability: A systematic review and distillations of dominant modes}, volume={31}, ISSN={["1756-9338"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1941}, DOI={10.1002/eet.1941}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={5}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND GOVERNANCE}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Chelbi, Leila}, year={2021}, month={Sep}, pages={463–473} }
 @article{galik_widiss_lowe_2021, title={U.S. State-Commissioned Energy Storage Studies: A Case Study of Research and Practice in a Rapidly Evolving Field}, volume={39}, ISSN={["2352-152X"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.est.2021.102590}, abstractNote={Energy storage comprises a transformative suite of technologies. Questions remain as to how best to integrate these technologies into existing infrastructure under existing policy and market frameworks. As a result, several U.S. states recently embarked, separately, to investigate the role of energy storage in meeting a variety of objectives. These state studies thus provide a series of natural case studies to assess how energy research is being conducted and incorporated, real-time, into policy. We assess three such state studies—Maryland, Massachusetts, and North Carolina—to compare the origin of each study, the methodological approach used, the findings generated by the study, and the eventual reception by policy-makers and other stakeholders. In each of the three energy storage studies evaluated, we observe the influence of state-commissioned processes in facilitating external information directly into policy deliberations. Though the scope, timeline, output, and ultimate policy implications varied across the three studies reviewed, our findings generally validate the benefits of a collaborative, co-production model of engagement. Given the pace of technological change recently experienced and the continued need to facilitate transformative change in energy systems, we anticipate that co-production models of research-policy engagement will be both increasingly common and relevant in the future.}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENERGY STORAGE}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Widiss, Rebecca and Lowe, Benjamin}, year={2021}, month={Jul} }
 @article{galik_2020, title={A continuing need to revisit BECCS and its potential}, volume={10}, ISSN={["1758-6798"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0650-2}, DOI={10.1038/s41558-019-0650-2}, number={1}, journal={NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Galik, Christopher S.}, year={2020}, month={Jan}, pages={2–3} }
 @article{mason_olander_grala_galik_gordon_2020, title={A practice-oriented approach to foster private landowner participation in ecosystem service conservation and restoration at a landscape scale}, volume={46}, ISSN={["2212-0416"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101203}, abstractNote={Large landscape conservation planning often requires managers to coordinate with private landowners, especially in regions like the southern and western U.S. where private landownership dominates. It is often difficult to design conservation programs that incorporate varying landowner perceptions, values, and ownership objectives. Simple and transferable methods are needed to inform the design of landscape-scale conservation and restoration programs, and we propose that this can be done by targeting ecosystem services (ES) of interest to private landowners. Targeting multiple ecosystem benefits can identify areas that provide cost-effective conservation investments. The approach described here consists of three complementary steps: mapping potential ES provision, assessing landowner interest in these ES, and determining which institutions are most effective for engaging landowners. We integrate these three streams of information to identify areas where landowner and conservation priorities align with ES benefits, and where interaction with familiar organizations is likely increase landowner engagement in conservation practices. Though we applied the approach to a landscape in the U.S., the methods are designed to be transferable to other regions. Creating transferable and replicable methods can help accelerate deployment by conservation and restoration organizations interested in ES and landowner engagement.}, journal={ECOSYSTEM SERVICES}, author={Mason, Sara A. and Olander, Lydia P. and Grala, Robert K. and Galik, Christopher S. and Gordon, Jason S.}, year={2020}, month={Dec} }
 @article{decarolis_jaramillo_johnson_mccollum_trutnevyte_daniels_akin-olcum_bergerson_cho_choi_et al._2020, title={Leveraging Open-Source Tools for Collaborative Macro-energy System Modeling Efforts}, volume={4}, ISSN={["2542-4351"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85097654384&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.joule.2020.11.002}, abstractNote={The authors are founding team members of a new effort to develop an Open Energy Outlook for the United States. The effort aims to apply best practices of policy-focused energy system modeling, ensure transparency, build a networked community, and work toward a common purpose: examining possible US energy system futures to inform energy and climate policy efforts. Individual author biographies can be found on the project website: https://openenergyoutlook.org/. The authors are founding team members of a new effort to develop an Open Energy Outlook for the United States. The effort aims to apply best practices of policy-focused energy system modeling, ensure transparency, build a networked community, and work toward a common purpose: examining possible US energy system futures to inform energy and climate policy efforts. Individual author biographies can be found on the project website: https://openenergyoutlook.org/. Many nations have committed to mitigating climate change by designing and implementing policy solutions that enable deep decarbonization of their energy systems. Due to global reliance on fossil fuels, appropriate action requires fundamental and coordinated changes in the way societies generate and use energy. Policy makers face the monumental challenge of crafting effective energy and climate policy in the face of a highly uncertain future. The stakes are high because energy infrastructure often involves large, up-front investments in long-lived assets. Macro-energy system models, which are distinguished from other energy models by their energetic, temporal, and spatial scales,1Levi P.J. Kurland S.D. Carbajales-Dale M. Weyant J.P. Brandt A.R. Benson S.M. Macro-Energy Systems: Toward a New Discipline.Joule. 2019; 3: 2282-2286Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (29) Google Scholar provide a systematic way to examine future decarbonization pathways, evaluate technology choices, test the effects and consequences of proposed policies, and explore decisions under future uncertainty. Analyses using these models yield critical insights that inform energy and climate policymaking around the world and underpin influential reports, including the World Energy Outlook by the International Energy Agency,2International Energy AgencyWorld Energy Outlook 2019.https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019Date: 2019Google Scholar the Annual Energy Outlook by the US Energy Information Administration,3US Energy Information AdministrationAnnual Energy Outlook 2020.https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/Date: 2020Google Scholar the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,4Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jacob, D., Bindi, M., Brown, S., Camilloni, I., Diedhiou, A., Djalante, R., Ebi, K., Engelbrecht, F., Guiot, J., and Hijioka, Y. (2018). Impacts of 1.5 C global warming on natural and human systems. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.Google Scholar and many others. It is an ongoing challenge for macro-energy system modeling teams to meet the universal and unprecedented policy needs associated with climate change mitigation. We envision a paradigm shift in the process of conducting model-based analysis from single-institution modeling teams to distributed, collaborative teams, allowing access to a much wider array of disciplinary and domain expertise to inform a given analysis. While some European efforts are already moving in this direction, the potential for collaborative, model-based analysis has yet to be realized. Energy system models vary considerably in their scope and complexity, and the choice of model should always be based on the research questions driving the analysis.5DeCarolis J. Daly H. Dodds P. Keppo I. Li F. McDowall W. Pye S. Strachan N. Trutnevyte E. Usher W. Winning M. Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling.Appl. Energy. 2017; 194: 184-198Crossref Scopus (159) Google Scholar Here, we focus attention on employing macro-energy system models that cover the whole energy system and are used to inform policy at scales ranging from national to global. In this broadest macro-scale context, the boundaries of the modeled systems present numerous challenges for modeling deep decarbonization pathways. First, many supply- and demand-side technologies at varying stages of development could help decarbonize energy systems. Many of these technologies are novel (e.g., direct air capture and hydrogen-based steel production), have rapidly changing costs (e.g., solar photovoltaics, lithium-ion batteries, and electrolyzers), or have location-specific attributes (e.g., heat pumps and wind farms). These qualities make the projection of technology cost and performance characteristics over the multi-decade timescale of deep decarbonization very challenging. Second, the many decision makers across the energy system, each with their own objectives and preferences, make it difficult to model technology uptake, behavioral change, and public acceptance. Third, there is a need for modeling with high spatiotemporal resolution and multiple years of weather data in order to properly represent high penetrations of renewables with energy storage and other options for flexibility, since the modeled spatial variation in resource availability and temporal variation in supply and demand can have a significant impact on results. Fourth, policy-relevant insights should account for key underlying uncertainties affecting the modeled energy system. Neglecting any of these four challenges can lead to oversimplified model representations of the energy system with misleading conclusions; yet, including them increases model complexity, data requirements, and computational burden. Resolving this tension, given available resources, is difficult. Addressing the technical challenges of modeling decarbonization pathways requires considerable coordination of effort and broad domain expertise. When the effort is centralized at a single institution, institutional and governance structures can limit its effectiveness. Energy system modeling efforts housed within a single research group can suffer from a limited breadth of expertise. At the other extreme, some of the oldest and most established energy system models have been produced by government agencies and intergovernmental organizations that have the scale to draw on deep internal expertise across the energy system, but model-based analyses produced by these organizations can be subject to political considerations that limit the range of technologies or policies they will consider. In addition, commercial modeling efforts often rely on proprietary models and data that are not available to the broader expert community or interested stakeholders and therefore result in outcomes that cannot be easily reproduced and scientifically verified. To help address these shortcomings, distributed modeling teams can utilize existing open-source models, datasets, and tools to conduct collaborative, model-based analysis. Open-source efforts in the macro-energy space have proliferated over the last decade, and the resultant models, tools, and datasets serve as an important foundation for distributed modeling efforts because they enable transparency, accessibility, and replicability among team members and with the broader modeling community. Distributed efforts focused on model-based analysis allow for the flexible arrangement of teams to conduct different macro-energy modeling exercises, with each team configured to meet project-specific research objectives. The flexible arrangement of teams, in turn, means that specific modeling efforts can include participants with different disciplinary backgrounds and domain expertise who contribute to the diversity of ideas that can be explored in the analysis. The collective consideration of those ideas better reflects the system being modeled. For example, participants with a background in public policy, public administration, or economics can assist with the formulation, execution, and interpretation of more realistic policy scenarios, informed by debates and discussions in their respective communities. Modeling teams with collectively broad expertise across a range of issues and disciplines permit a more comprehensive analysis of the technical, social, economic, and policy features of deep decarbonization pathways, which are difficult to encode in models. In fact, all team members need not write code—the purposeful inclusion of non-modelers can lead to new insights and approaches associated with the model-based analysis.6Trutnevyte E. Hirt F.L. Bauer N. Cherp A. Hawkes A. Edelenbosch O.Y. Pedde S. van Vuuren D.P. Societal transformations in models for energy and climate policy: The ambitious next step.One Earth. 2019; 1: 423-433Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (52) Google Scholar Diverse teams participating across the full project life cycle—from the formulation of key research questions, to the decision on how to represent a particular concept quantitatively, and then to the interpretation of model results as policy-relevant insights—can more effectively capture and assimilate novel ideas compared to conventional system modeling approaches that seek feedback at the end of the project or at discrete points during the project life cycle. These insights and ideas can range widely and may include the identification and proper use of a new dataset, a new model feature that captures a system dynamic critical to the issue under analysis, or the use of more efficient algorithms or methods that improve computational performance. Modeling teams that lack the appropriate depth and breadth are less able to effectively search, select, and incorporate new ideas from the broader macro-energy idea space into the analysis. Model parsimony should also be a design objective in order to avoid needless complexity,5DeCarolis J. Daly H. Dodds P. Keppo I. Li F. McDowall W. Pye S. Strachan N. Trutnevyte E. Usher W. Winning M. Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling.Appl. Energy. 2017; 194: 184-198Crossref Scopus (159) Google Scholar and thus, distributed modeling teams must judiciously filter new ideas for incorporation into the analysis. Furthermore, the expanding scope enabled by distributed teams must be balanced with limited time, funding, and computational resources. The European Union is already pioneering a distributed and collaborative approach under the €80 billion Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Projects such as SET-NAV (https://www.set-nav.eu/), openENTRANCE (https://openentrance.eu/), SENTINEL (https://sentinel.energy/), Spine (http://www.spine-model.org/), and EMP-E (http://www.energymodellingplatform.eu/) involve large teams variously working to integrate different models into larger frameworks, solicit input from a wide array of stakeholders, and perform model-based analysis that informs European energy and climate policy. The European Union is uniquely positioned to lead such efforts, given its ambitious energy-climate policy portfolio, well-funded scientific research programs, and ambitions for pan-national integration. While many other nations and regions—including the US—cannot easily replicate the top-down European approach without a significant change in policy priorities, we nonetheless assert that it is possible for researchers to organize similar efforts from the bottom up by leveraging existing resources within the scientific community. While distributed efforts focused on model-based analysis present unique logistical challenges, they also provide the flexibility to organize teams that capture diverse domain expertise and disciplinary approaches. All of the necessary elements exist to coordinate distributed model-based analysis: open-source energy models, well-established software development tools, a wide range of collaborative communication tools, and an increasing number of publicly available datasets on which to build. First, the open energy modeling initiative (“openmod”), an active and vibrant community of energy modelers committed to open-source practices, has cataloged a large array of open-source models7Openmod InitiativeOpen Models.https://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Open_ModelsDate: 2020Google Scholar and helped to promulgate best practice standards for model developers that include licensing, documentation, reproducibility, and user support.8DeCarolis J.F. Hunter K. Sreepathi S. The case for repeatable analysis with energy economy optimization models.Energy Econ. 2012; 34: 1845-1853Crossref Scopus (82) Google Scholar, 9Pfenninger S. Hirth L. Schlecht I. Schmid E. Wiese F. Brown T. Davis C. Gidden M. Heinrichs H. Heuberger C. Hilpert S. Opening the black box of energy modelling: Strategies and lessons learned.Energy Strategy Reviews. 2018; 19: 63-71Crossref Scopus (129) Google Scholar, 10Pfenninger S. DeCarolis J. Hirth L. Quoilin S. Staffell I. The importance of open data and software: Is energy research lagging behind?.Energy Policy. 2017; 101: 211-215Crossref Scopus (192) Google Scholar, 11Morrison R. Energy system modeling: Public transparency, scientific reproducibility, and open development.Energy Strategy Reviews. 2018; 20: 49-63Crossref Scopus (52) Google Scholar Second, many energy modelers are using modern software development tools, which enable distributed control of code and data, with changes archived in publicly accessible web repositories. Third, a variety of communication options, including traditional email, cloud-based collaboration platforms, and videoconferencing software, make it possible for distributed teams to collaborate on highly technical issues in near-real time and at low cost. These modes of communication have indeed become an increasingly familiar part of our lives given how the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted normal meeting patterns. In addition, social media represents a particularly effective way to crowdsource new ideas and approaches from the broader stakeholder community. Fourth, the volume of available data to populate energy models has grown over time and can be used to better parameterize models. The challenge, however, is that modelers are not aware of all relevant datasets, particularly those curated outside of the energy modeling community, nor do they always understand the underlying assumptions and limitations. Diversity in expertise among the modeling team can help ensure the proper identification and use of such datasets. In the long run, by using open-source tools and drawing on the expertise of non-modelers who are typically disconnected from the modeling process, distributed modeling teams may counteract the “incumbency advantage” of “long-lived and dominant” energy models12Strachan N. Fais B. Daly H. Reinventing the energy modelling–policy interface.Nat. Energy. 2016; 1: 1-3Crossref Google Scholar by helping redefine the way energy models operate. We view this approach as a critical element in the reinvention of the modeling-policy interface.12Strachan N. Fais B. Daly H. Reinventing the energy modelling–policy interface.Nat. Energy. 2016; 1: 1-3Crossref Google Scholar As with any new approach, there will be attendant challenges. Macro-energy modeling efforts face the same funding and coordination challenges confronted by other large scientific endeavors. Funding challenges are more logistically difficult with teams spanning multiple institutions. There is no single solution: financial arrangements will necessarily be a product of the funding agency, team composition, and objectives of the analysis. While there may be circumstances where funding can be equitably distributed among all participants, there might be other times when one or two lead organization(s) take the bulk of the responsibility, with smaller support grants and in-kind contributions from other members of the distributed team. Furthermore, funding need not always be a requirement for participation: limited but strategic input from a broad constellation of team members delivered at the right time in the process can have a large, positive impact on the direction of the project. While the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (https://emf.stanford.edu/) is focused on inter-model comparison, its long-term success demonstrates that participants are willing to contribute their time, often without financial compensation, in return for the opportunity to collaborate with others and produce new scholarly research. Another challenge is the incentive structure within academia. It takes significant upfront effort to establish a common language and align project goals among team members from different academic disciplines. In addition, receiving credit for work completed is an important aspect of scholarly work. Credit often takes the form of co-authorship on reports and journal articles, and it is important to track the contributions of team members to ensure their efforts are recognized in an appropriate way, commensurate with their own institutional and disciplinary incentive structures. Furthermore, academic institutions should formally recognize the effort required to develop the open-source models, tools, and datasets that underpin the model-based analysis. The CRediT taxonomy, used by this publisher (https://www.cell.com/pb/assets/raw/shared/guidelines/CRediT-taxonomy.pdf), provides an excellent way to track the various contributions to distributed macro-energy modeling efforts. New modeling efforts that leverage these emerging opportunities can fulfill a unique niche within the global energy modeling community. We have begun to see the benefits of such an approach in our own effort to develop an Open Energy Outlook for the US (https://openenergyoutlook.org/). In addition to using an open-source modeling platform to perform the analysis (https://temoacloud.com/), we have established an interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral team of experts who are working collaboratively on the project with a unified vision. Our international team involves a number of experts drawn from academia, non-profits, and government labs and includes both experienced macro-energy system modelers and domain experts. Funding is distributed across two institutions that have primary responsibility for the deliverables, while participants from the remaining 20+ institutions make in-kind contributions of their time to the effort. Our project has a fraction of the funding associated with the large European efforts referenced above, and thus relies heavily on our collective interest in the project objectives and the opportunity to collaboratively produce scholarly work. Because participants are already working in related areas, they are able to leverage ongoing research activities and resources for this project. Our current team is meant to be a starting point for this long-term effort. Just as open-source tools foster collaborative development, democratization of the team building process can ensure a greater diversity of perspectives and make the effort more adaptable to new challenges. To this end, we are currently working on a formal and open nomination process for team membership. In addition, we are building a broader network of contributors to the project, and have sought input through a variety of online outlets, including social media, virtual workshops, and mailing lists. While still in the early stages, the project has already benefited from the diverse perspectives of the participants. For example, the electricity experts have pushed for a novel approach to increase the model’s temporal resolution while maintaining computational tractability and also identified opportunities to leverage existing open-source tools (https://github.com/gschivley/PowerGenome) and datasets (https://github.com/catalyst-cooperative/pudl). Likewise, the building experts are pushing the project to consider building thermodynamics more explicitly in order to better represent building thermal performance. The value here is bidirectional: systems modelers gain more familiarity with tools and data within particular sectors, while domain experts gain a better understanding of how their expertise can influence long-term energy scenarios. If done well, such an approach allows us to rethink and redefine common modeling approaches, potentially leading to innovative methods that result in new insights that are rigorously grounded by careful consideration of how the energy system—and all its myriad connections and feedbacks—is modeled. We would like to thank the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for supporting this work. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers whose detailed and insightful feedback significantly strengthened the manuscript. Leveraging Open-Source Tools for Collaborative Macro-energy System Modeling EffortsDeCarolis et al.JouleFebruary 17, 2021In Brief(Joule 4, 2523–2531; December 16, 2020) Full-Text PDF Open Access}, number={12}, journal={JOULE}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={DeCarolis, Joseph F. and Jaramillo, Paulina and Johnson, Jeremiah X. and McCollum, David L. and Trutnevyte, Evelina and Daniels, David C. and Akin-Olcum, Gokce and Bergerson, Joule and Cho, Soolyeon and Choi, Joon-Ho and et al.}, year={2020}, month={Dec}, pages={2523–2526} }
 @book{benedum_galik_kauffman_becker_2019, place={Washington, D.C}, title={Evaluating Policy and Market Barriers for Forest Biomass Energy Development. Report prepared for the Office of the Chief Economist, United States Department of Agriculture}, institution={United States Department of Agriculture}, author={Benedum, M.E. and Galik, C.S. and Kauffman, M. and Becker, D.R.}, year={2019} }
 @article{galik_latta_gambino_2019, title={Piecemeal or combined? Assessing greenhouse gas mitigation spillovers in US forest and agriculture policy portfolios}, volume={19}, ISSN={["1752-7457"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1663719}, DOI={10.1080/14693062.2019.1663719}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Forest and agricultural sector response to comprehensive climate policy is well represented in the literature. Less analysis has been devoted to piecemeal solutions. We use the Forest and Agriculture Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG) to project the individual and combined effect of three existing U.S. Department of Agriculture programmes with potential to increase greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. We find that a combined policy scenario may achieve greater mitigation than individual constituent programmes, suggesting the possibility of complementary spillover effects in some periods. Mitigation varies over time, however, and some periods experience net emissions as markets and management practices respond to initial policy shocks. The regional distribution of GHG mitigation also varies between policy scenario. Differences in the magnitude and imputed cost of mitigation under each scenario, generating negative values for some programmes and time periods, reinforces the need to evaluate portfolio design to cost-effectively achieve near-term GHG mitigation. Key policy insights Increased near-term GHG mitigation in the forest and agriculture sectors in the US may be possible by expanding or refocusing the emphasis of existing programmes. Implementing several such forest and agricultural programmes simultaneously may lead to greater GHG mitigation than when implemented separately, indicating the possibility of positive spillover effects. Programmes targeted to agricultural management may hold outsized potential to achieve near-term GHG mitigation; Policies aimed at influencing land use conversion appear to be more vulnerable to reversion and subject to larger inter-annual swings. The staged implementation of programmes could also be useful, helping to encourage increased mitigation (or the retention of already achieved mitigation) over time as markets re-equilibrate to initial shocks. Though the particular scenarios assessed here are unique to the US, our findings may be applicable to other locations outside the US where land management is influenced by individual market actors and there is competition between forest and agricultural land uses.}, number={10}, journal={CLIMATE POLICY}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Latta, Gregory S. and Gambino, Christopher}, year={2019}, month={Nov}, pages={1270–1283} }
 @article{ba_galik_2019, title={Polycentric Systems and Multiscale Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in the Built Environment Palabras clave}, volume={36}, ISSN={["1541-1338"]}, DOI={10.1111/ropr.12342}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={4}, journal={REVIEW OF POLICY RESEARCH}, author={Ba, Yuhao and Galik, Christopher}, year={2019}, month={Jul}, pages={473–496} }
 @book{decarolis_dulaney_fell_galik_johnson_kalland_lu_lubkeman_panzarella_proudlove_et al._2018, place={Raleigh, NC}, title={Energy Storage Options for North Carolina}, institution={Energy Policy Council, Joint Legislative Commission on Energy Policy}, author={DeCarolis, J. and Dulaney, K. and Fell, H. and Galik, C. and Johnson, J. and Kalland, S. and Lu, N. and Lubkeman, D. and Panzarella, I. and Proudlove, A. and et al.}, year={2018} }
 @article{galik_olander_2018, title={Facilitating markets and mitigation: A systematic review of early-action incentives in the US}, volume={72}, DOI={10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.032}, abstractNote={Early action refers to activities undertaken prior to a regulatory program or generation of services prior to mitigation of impacts elsewhere. In U.S. environmental markets, early action could reduce lags in environmental performance, improve outcomes, and encourage innovation in mitigation approaches. Multiple tools have emerged for encouraging early action in environmental markets. Several tools have also been deployed in markets, providing valuable insight into their function. This paper presents a systematic review of early action tools and describes their use in wetland and stream mitigation, species and habitat banking, greenhouse gas mitigation, and water quality trading. It finds that incentives necessary to motivate sellers differ from those motivating buyers. The tool or approach best suited to encourage early action also varies as conditions change. Anecdotal evidence suggests the potential for benefits to accrue from early action, but additional data are needed to inform the use of specific tools.}, journal={Land Use Policy}, author={Galik, C. S. and Olander, L. P.}, year={2018}, pages={1–11} }
 @book{abt_becker_galik_kauffman_latta_malmsheimer_2018, place={Washington, D.C.}, title={Projecting landscape forest carbon emissions from changes in forest biomass electricity generation and forest products markets from 2014 to 2035: An analysis in Minnesota, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington}, institution={Office of the Chief Economist, United States Department of Agriculture}, author={Abt, R.C. and Becker, D.R. and Galik, C.S. and Kauffman, M.J. and Latta, G.S. and Malmsheimer, R.J.}, year={2018} }
 @article{galik_grala_2017, title={Conservation program delivery in the southern US: Preferences and interactions}, volume={198}, ISSN={["1095-8630"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.043}, DOI={10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.043}, abstractNote={A lingering challenge in implementation of ecosystem-based planning is translating high-level conservation objectives to discrete management initiatives. Recent research underscores this, emphasizing the importance of the processes by which plans are developed and how programs to implement plans are delivered to stakeholders. This study contributes to the existing program design, research methodology, and conservation practice literature through an assessment of landowner and conservation practitioner relationships in the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks (GCPO) region of the southern U.S. The study utilizes online and mail surveys to gather data on landowner interactions with conservation practitioner organizations and interactions between practitioner organizations themselves. Data from the surveys suggest different patterns of interaction as reported by landowners and those reported by practitioner organizations working in the region, with landowners generally interacting more with extension and industry organizations and conservation practitioners interacting more with state and federal agencies. Key informant data also allows for analysis of the conservation practitioner network in the GCPO region. Resulting analysis suggests a well-connected network among the state and federal organizations critical to development and delivery of conservation programs in the GCPO LCC region. Though such configurations may be beneficial for the diffusion of innovative practices across a network, they may nonetheless require continued efforts to coordinate activities at the regional scale, an important component of practice-driven, ecosystem-level management.}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Grala, Robert K.}, year={2017}, month={Aug}, pages={75–83} }
 @article{galik_decarolis_fell_2017, title={Evaluating the US Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization amidst early century uncertainty}, volume={17}, ISSN={1469-3062 1752-7457}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1340257}, DOI={10.1080/14693062.2017.1340257}, abstractNote={The recent change in US presidential administrations has introduced significant uncertainty about both domestic and international policy support for continued reductions in GHG emissions. This brief analysis estimates the potential climate ramifications of changing US leadership, contrasting the Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization (MCS) released under the Obama Administration, with campaign statements, early executive actions, and prevailing market conditions to estimate potential emission pathways under the Trump Administration. The analysis highlights areas where GHG reductions are less robust to changing policy conditions, and offers brief recommendations for addressing emissions in the interim. It specifically finds that continued reductions in the electricity sector are less vulnerable to changes in federal policy than those in the built environment and land use sectors. Given the long-lived nature of investments in these latter two sectors, however, opportunities for near-term climate action by willing cities, states, private landowners, and non-profit organizations warrant renewed attention in this time of climate uncertainty. Key policy insights The recent US presidential election has already impacted mitigation goals and practices, injecting considerable uncertainty into domestic and international efforts to address climate change. A strategic assessment issued in the final days of the Obama Administration for how to reach long-term climate mitigation objectives provides a baseline from which to gauge potential changes under the Trump Administration. Though market trends may continue to foster emission declines in the energy sector, emission reductions in the land use sector and the built environment are subject to considerable uncertainty. Regardless of actions to scale back climate mitigation efforts, US emissions are likely to be flat in the coming years. Assuming that emissions remain constant under President Trump and that reductions resume afterwards to meet the Obama Administration mid-century targets in 2050, this near-term pause in reductions yields a difference in total emissions equivalent to 0.3–0.6 years of additional global greenhouse gas emissions, depending on the number of terms served by a Trump Administration.}, number={8}, journal={Climate Policy}, publisher={Informa UK Limited}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and DeCarolis, Joseph F. and Fell, Harrison}, year={2017}, month={Jul}, pages={1046–1056} }
 @article{galik_bendor_demeester_wolfe_2017, title={Improving habitat exchange planning through theory, application, and lessons from other fields}, volume={73}, ISSN={["1873-6416"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.003}, abstractNote={New tools are being deployed to address the continued decline of species at risk of becoming threatened or endangered. One approach receiving increased attention is the habitat exchange, or the use of a market-based, landscape-scale approach to protect or restore habitat in one place to offset impacts elsewhere. Although considerable resources have been devoted to the establishment of habitat exchanges over the past several years, actual implementation of transactions through habitat exchanges have been limited. As we argue here, important lessons have been slow to translate to habitat exchanges from other planning arenas. We briefly outline how the decision sciences, particularly structured decision making, and other planning processes − such as those governing electricity infrastructure development − can provide examples to facilitate the use of habitat exchanges as a viable and scalable conservation tool. We emphasize the challenge of translating theory to application, and note the importance of cross-fertilization of knowledge and experience across traditional disciplinary bounds.}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and BenDor, Todd K. and DeMeester, Julie and Wolfe, David}, year={2017}, month={Jul}, pages={45–51} }
 @article{galik_murray_parish_2017, title={Near-Term Pathways for Achieving Forest and Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in the U.S.}, volume={5}, ISSN={["2225-1154"]}, DOI={10.3390/cli5030069}, abstractNote={U.S. forests and agriculture present unique opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. U.S. forests currently remove a large amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year and store it as a terrestrial carbon sink, a trend that is projected to continue, although at a decreasing rate over time. Agriculture is and will continue to be a net source of GHGs. To encourage additional mitigation, analyses suggest addressing forest loss, forest aging, wildfire, and encouraging greater forest growth. In agriculture, analyses suggest addressing animal operation methane emissions and nitrous oxide from fertilizer use. Absent new targeted policies to encourage mitigation practices such as these, existing programs may need to be better leveraged for GHG mitigation, even if that is not their explicit objective. Leveraging existing programs requires coordinated outreach efforts to ensure that practices are not cross-purposed. Development of standards and verification practices is also necessary to ensure desirable outcomes. Finally, greater mitigation may be possible by maximizing the effectiveness of voluntary efforts from private and non-governmental organizations, and not necessarily the implementation of new policies. This conclusion represents a departure from traditional commentary on the subject, but arguably represents a more realistic path forward to achieving climate mitigation objectives in the near-term.}, number={3}, journal={CLIMATE}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Murray, Brian C. and Parish, Meredith C.}, year={2017}, month={Sep} }
 @article{galik_mcadams_2017, title={Supply, Demand, and Uncertainty: Implications for Prelisting Conservation Policy}, volume={137}, ISSN={["1873-6106"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.009}, abstractNote={The Endangered Species Act (ESA) faces a shortage of incentives to motivate the scale of conservation activities necessary to address and reverse the decline of at-risk species. A recent policy proposal attempts to change this by allowing landowners to generate credits for voluntary prelisting conservation activities. We explore the proposed policy from the perspective of potential participants. We find that uncertainty present in species listing processes complicates the decision to undertake conservation activities, leading to less conservation being supplied than when a listing decision is certain, while also delaying implementation until late in the listing determination process. Incentives created by the prelisting policy may likewise push species status closer to a listing threshold and thus exacerbate uncertainty in the listing process. To counter this tendency and encourage a more efficient allocation of conservation activity, early-actor bonuses, weighted credits, or limited windows of eligibility could be used to target or place increased premiums on early conservation activity. Though these findings are most directly applicable to the specific prelisting policy considered here, they are nonetheless relevant to a wider array of conservation policies that seek to encourage voluntary early action in advance of a regulatory alternative.}, journal={ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and McAdams, David}, year={2017}, month={Jul}, pages={91–98} }
 @book{mcglynn_galik_tepper_myers_demeester_2016, place={Washington, D.C}, title={Building carbon in America’s farms, forests, and grasslands: Foundations for a policy roadmap}, publisher={Forest Trends}, author={McGlynn, E. and Galik, C.S. and Tepper, D. and Myers, J. and DeMeester, J.}, year={2016} }
 @book{galik_2016, place={Durham, NC}, title={Contributions of LiDAR to Ecosystem Service Planning and Markets: Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Investment}, number={NI WP 16-06}, institution={Duke University}, author={Galik, C.S.}, year={2016} }
 @misc{galik_rupert_starkman_threadcraft_baker_2016, title={Enhancing Home Energy Efficiency Through Natural Hazard Risk Reduction: Linking Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in the Home}, ISBN={9781934831151}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2015.bk.0015.1512.6}, DOI={10.3768/rtipress.2015.bk.0015.1512.6}, abstractNote={As a collection of essays that explore innovations to encourage reduction in homeowner energy use, this volume reflects a confluence of ideas and initiatives rather than a narrow look at what a single, particular line of academic literature suggests might be possible to shape homeowner behavior.}, journal={Innovations in Home Energy Use: A Sourcebook for Behavior Change}, publisher={RTI Press}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Rupert, Douglas and Starkman, Kendall and Threadcraft, Joseph and Baker, Justin S.}, year={2016}, month={Jan}, pages={111–140} }
 @article{galik_abt_latta_méley_henderson_2016, title={Meeting renewable energy and land use objectives through public–private biomass supply partnerships}, volume={172}, ISSN={0306-2619}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.03.047}, DOI={10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.047}, abstractNote={Bioenergy is a significant source of renewable energy in the U.S. and internationally. We explore whether creation of localized bioenergy markets near existing military installations in the southeastern U.S. could simultaneously address military renewable energy generation objectives while reducing urban encroachment. We model the use of public–private partnerships to stimulate the creation of these markets, in which stable installation demand is paired with stable supply from surrounding landowners. We employ two economic models – the SubRegional Timber Supply (SRTS) model and the Forest and Agricultural Sector Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG) – to assess how markets influence forest and agriculture land use, renewable energy production, and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation at the regional and national levels. When all selected installations increase bioenergy capacity simultaneously, we find increased preservation of forest land area, increased forest carbon storage in the region, and increased renewable energy generation at military installations. Nationally, however, carbon stocks are depleted as harvests increase, increasing GHG emissions even after accounting for potential displaced emissions from coal- or natural gas-fired generation. Increasing bioenergy generation on a single installation within the southeast has very different effects on forest area and composition, yielding greater standing timber volume and higher forest carbon stock. In addition to demonstrating the benefits of linking two partial equilibrium models of varying solution technique, sectoral scope, and resource detail, results suggest that a tailored policy approach may be more effective in meeting local encroachment reduction and renewable energy generation objectives while avoiding negative GHG mitigation consequences.}, journal={Applied Energy}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Abt, Robert C. and Latta, Gregory and Méley, Andréanne and Henderson, Jesse D.}, year={2016}, month={Jun}, pages={264–274} }
 @book{galik_byl_langpap_sorice_2016, place={Durham, NC}, title={Researching a reimagined ESA: The continued need and opportunity for voluntary conservation}, number={NI WP 16-03}, institution={Duke University}, author={Galik, C.S. and Byl, J.P. and Langpap, C. and Sorice, M.G.}, year={2016} }
 @article{galik_abt_2016, title={Sustainability guidelines and forest market response: an assessment of European Union pellet demand in the southeastern United States}, volume={8}, ISSN={["1757-1707"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84930267745&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/gcbb.12273}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={3}, journal={GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY BIOENERGY}, publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Abt, Robert C.}, year={2016}, month={May}, pages={658–669} }
 @article{murray_galik_vegh_2015, title={Biogas in the United States: estimating future production and learning from international experiences}, volume={22}, ISSN={1381-2386 1573-1596}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S11027-015-9683-7}, DOI={10.1007/s11027-015-9683-7}, number={3}, journal={Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Murray, Brian C. and Galik, Christopher S. and Vegh, Tibor}, year={2015}, month={Sep}, pages={485–501} }
 @article{galik_jagger_2015, title={Bundles, duties, and rights: A revised framework for analysis of natural resource property rights regimes}, volume={91}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84902099021&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={1}, journal={Land Economics}, author={Galik, C.S. and Jagger, P.}, year={2015}, pages={76–90} }
 @article{galik_2015, title={Exploring the determinants of emerging bioenergy market participation}, volume={47}, ISSN={1364-0321}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.03.005}, DOI={10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.005}, abstractNote={Individual biomass producers will play a strong role in the emergence of robust and sustainable bioenergy markets. Research on what drives their participation, however, is substantial but fragmented. Despite a recognition of producer heterogeneity, there have also been few comparative analyses of drivers of bioenergy market participation across feedstock types, producer groups, and geographic regions. Through narrative review and network analysis, the following review of the bioenergy market participation literature generates both an increased appreciation of how bioenergy market participation is assessed in existing research and how social network analysis may be further employed as a tool for literature review. Across 41 studies selected for qualitative review and a subset of 22 selected for quantitative review, the analysis reaches two central conclusions. The first pertains to the findings of the literature itself, suggesting that a variety of non-production objectives, structural and social constraints, and market-related attributes influence bioenergy market participation decisions. A second conclusion is that the assessment of these factors varies significantly across the literature for both user group and feedstock type. Further examination of the individual variables within these segments of the literature, as well as of authorship patterns across them, suggests that this variation may rise from differences in the subject matter itself and not from differing perspectives of the researchers undertaking the work. Should disparities in the literature be reflective of actual socio-economic differences in their respective markets, policies or programs targeted to individual feedstock types or user groups may be more effective in encouraging participation than uniform national policy initiatives.}, journal={Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S.}, year={2015}, month={Jul}, pages={107–116} }
 @article{galik_abt_latta_vegh_2015, title={The environmental and economic effects of regional bioenergy policy in the southeastern U.S.}, volume={85}, ISSN={0301-4215}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2015.05.018}, DOI={10.1016/j.enpol.2015.05.018}, abstractNote={The unique generation, landownership, and resource attributes of the southeastern United States make the region an important test bed for implementation of novel renewable energy policy interventions. This study evaluates the environmental and economic implications of one such intervention, a hypothetical region-wide renewable portfolio standard (RPS) with biomass carve-outs. It utilizes the Forest and Agriculture Sector Optimization Model with Greenhouse Gases (FASOMGHG) to assess the multi-sector and interregional allocation of forest harvest activity, and then uses the Sub-Regional Timber Supply (SRTS) model to assess intraregional variation in forest composition and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential. The analysis finds that existing resource conditions influence the regional distribution of land use and harvest changes, resulting in a spatially and temporally diverse forest carbon response. Net forest carbon in the Southeast is greater in the RPS Scenario than in the No RPS Scenario in all but the final years of the model run. Accounting for displaced fossil emissions yields net GHG reductions in all time periods. Both research methodology and findings are also applicable to a broader suite of domestic and international policies, including European Union renewable energy initiatives and GHG mitigation under Section 111 of the U.S. Clean Air Act.}, journal={Energy Policy}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Abt, Robert C. and Latta, Gregory and Vegh, Tibor}, year={2015}, month={Oct}, pages={335–346} }
 @article{galik_murray_mitchell_cottle_2014, title={Alternative approaches for addressing non-permanence in carbon projects: an application to afforestation and reforestation under the Clean Development Mechanism}, volume={21}, ISSN={1381-2386 1573-1596}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S11027-014-9573-4}, DOI={10.1007/s11027-014-9573-4}, number={1}, journal={Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change}, publisher={Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Murray, Brian C. and Mitchell, Stephen and Cottle, Phil}, year={2014}, month={May}, pages={101–118} }
 @book{murray_galik_vegh_2014, place={Durham, NC}, title={Biogas in the United States: An assessment of market potential in a carbon-constrained future}, number={NI R 14-02}, institution={Duke University}, author={Murray, B.C. and Galik, C.S. and Vegh, T.}, year={2014} }
 @book{abt_abt_galik_skog_2014, title={Effect of policies on pellet production and forests in the U.S. South: a technical document supporting the Forest Service update of the 2010 RPA Assessment}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/srs-gtr-202}, DOI={10.2737/srs-gtr-202}, institution={U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station}, author={Abt, Karen L. and Abt, Robert C. and Galik, Christopher S. and Skog, Kenneth E.}, year={2014} }
 @book{galik_bowman_2014, place={Durham, NC}, title={Empirical insight into Section 10 permitting under the Endangered Species Act}, number={NI WP 14-02}, institution={Duke University}, author={Galik, C.S. and Bowman, J.T.}, year={2014} }
 @book{galik_abt_2013, place={Durham, NC}, title={An Initial Assessment of the Economics, Carbon Scores, and Market Impacts of Selected Woody Feedstock Biomass Systems}, number={NI WP 13-06}, institution={Duke University}, author={Galik, C.S. and Abt, R.C.}, year={2013} }
 @article{galik_murray_mercer_2013, title={Where is the carbon? carbon sequestration potential from private forestland in the southern United States}, volume={111}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84872825063&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.5849/jof.12-055}, abstractNote={Uncertainty surrounding the future supply of timber in the southern United States prompted the question, “Where is all the wood?” (Cubbage et al. 1995). We ask a similar question about the potential of southern forests to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by sequestering carbon. Because significant carbon sequestration potential occurs on individual nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands owned by individuals, the accuracy of projections depends on how NIPF landowners respond to prices and their ability and willingness to participate in carbon offset programs. Striving to produce a more realistic assessment of the potential for southern forests to sequester carbon in response to future markets or policies, we use National Woodland Owner Survey data from the Forest Inventory and Analysis program to link landowner demographic and behavioral data with forest conditions. We also examine barriers to NIPF participation in carbon offset programs and offer recommendations for overcoming those barriers.}, number={1}, journal={Journal of Forestry}, publisher={Society of American Foresters}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Murray, Brian C. and Mercer, D. Evan}, year={2013}, pages={17–25} }
 @article{galik_cooley_baker_2012, title={Analysis of the production and transaction costs of forest carbon offset projects in the USA}, volume={112}, ISSN={0301-4797}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.045}, DOI={10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.045}, abstractNote={Forest carbon offset project implementation costs, comprised of both production and transaction costs, could present an important barrier to private landowner participation in carbon offset markets. These costs likewise represent a largely undocumented component of forest carbon offset potential. Using a custom spreadsheet model and accounting tool, this study examines the implementation costs of different forest offset project types operating in different forest types under different accounting and sampling methodologies. Sensitivity results are summarized concisely through response surface regression analysis to illustrate the relative effect of project-specific variables on total implementation costs. Results suggest that transaction costs may represent a relatively small percentage of total project implementation costs - generally less than 25% of the total. Results also show that carbon accounting methods, specifically the method used to establish project baseline, may be among the most important factors in driving implementation costs on a per-ton-of-carbon-sequestered basis, dramatically increasing variability in both transaction and production costs. This suggests that accounting could be a large driver in the financial viability of forest offset projects, with transaction costs likely being of largest concern to those projects at the margin.}, journal={Journal of Environmental Management}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Cooley, David M. and Baker, Justin S.}, year={2012}, month={Dec}, pages={128–136} }
 @book{galik_2012, place={Durham, NC}, title={Biogenic carbon accounting: Key considerations to a revised framework}, number={NI WP 12-06}, institution={Duke University}, author={Galik, C.S.}, year={2012} }
 @article{abt_abt_galik_2012, title={Effect of Bioenergy Demands and Supply Response on Markets, Carbon, and Land Use}, volume={58}, ISSN={["0015-749X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84867414646&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.5849/forsci.11-055}, abstractNote={An increase in the demand for wood for energy, including liquid fuels, bioelectricity, and pellets, has the potential to affect traditional wood users, forestland uses, management intensities, and, ultimately, carbon sequestration. Recent studies have shown that increases in bioenergy harvests could lead to displacement of traditional wood-using industries in the short run and intensive management, land use change, and sawtimber market impacts in the long-run. We simulate timber markets, as well as land use response and carbon outcomes resulting from projections of both traditional and bioenergy wood use in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida under differing levels of market supply responses. Increased logging residue recovery had a moderating effect on prices, although increased planting response led to higher carbon sequestration, and smaller effects on prices. Increased forest productivity led to lower prices, but also led to reduced timberland and thus lower forest carbon sequestration. Supply responses will be crucial to moderating market responses to increases in bioenergy wood demands. FOR. SCI. 58(5):523–539.}, number={5}, journal={FOREST SCIENCE}, publisher={Society of American Foresters}, author={Abt, Karen L. and Abt, Robert C. and Galik, Christopher}, year={2012}, month={Oct}, pages={523–539} }
 @inbook{galik_abt_2012, place={Asheville, NC}, title={Forest biomass supply for bioenergy in the southeast: evaluating assessment scale}, number={e-GTR SRS-157}, booktitle={Monitoring across borders: Proceedings of the 2010 joint meeting of the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) symposium and the southern mensurationists}, publisher={U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station}, author={Galik, C.S. and Abt, R.C.}, editor={McWilliams, W. and Roesch, F.A.Editors}, year={2012}, pages={255–263} }
 @article{cooley_galik_holmes_kousky_cooke_2012, title={Managing dependencies in forest offset projects: Toward a more complete evaluation of reversal risk}, volume={17}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-82955163174&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11027-011-9306-x}, number={1}, journal={Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Cooley, David M. and Galik, Christopher S. and Holmes, Thomas P. and Kousky, Carolyn and Cooke, Roger M.}, year={2012}, pages={17–24} }
 @article{olander_galik_kissinger_2012, title={Operationalizing REDD+: Scope of reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation}, volume={4}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84869236958&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.cosust.2012.07.003}, abstractNote={This paper discusses the operational issues associated with the expanding scope of reduced emissions from deforestation (RED) as forest degradation, conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) and other sectors and activities are added. The review looks to the ideas of countries, observers, and experts, as well as to the experience of those moving toward implementation through country REDD+ plans and voluntary offset markets. While not all countries may be ready to implement programs or policies across all REDD+ activities, expanding RED to REDD+ can bring significant benefits for strategic planning, coordination across sectors and activities, and increasing mitigation opportunities.}, number={6}, journal={Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Olander, Lydia P and Galik, Christopher S and Kissinger, Gabrielle A}, year={2012}, pages={661–669} }
 @article{galik_abt_2012, title={The effect of assessment scale and metric selection on the greenhouse gas benefits of woody biomass}, volume={44}, ISSN={["1873-2909"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84862747547&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.04.009}, abstractNote={Recent attention has focused on the net greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of using woody biomass to produce energy. In particular, a great deal of controversy has erupted over the appropriate manner and scale at which to evaluate these GHG effects. Here, we conduct a comparative assessment of six different assessment scales and four different metric calculation techniques against the backdrop of a common biomass demand scenario. We evaluate the net GHG balance of woody biomass co-firing in existing coal-fired facilities in the state of Virginia, finding that assessment scale and metric calculation technique do in fact strongly influence the net GHG balance yielded by this common scenario. Those assessment scales that do not include possible market effects attributable to increased biomass demand, including changes in forest area, forest management intensity, and traditional industry production, generally produce less-favorable GHG balances than those that do. Given the potential difficulty small operators may have generating or accessing information on the extent of these market effects, however, it is likely that stakeholders and policy makers will need to balance accuracy and comprehensiveness with reporting and administrative simplicity.}, journal={BIOMASS & BIOENERGY}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Abt, Robert C.}, year={2012}, month={Sep}, pages={1–7} }
 @article{olander_cooley_galik_2012, title={The potential role for management of U.S. Public lands in greenhouse gas mitigation and climate policy}, volume={49}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84863561505&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s00267-011-9806-1}, abstractNote={Management of forests, rangelands, and wetlands on public lands, including the restoration of degraded lands, has the potential to increase carbon sequestration or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beyond what is occurring today. In this paper we discuss several policy options for increasing GHG mitigation on public lands. These range from an extension of current policy by generating supplemental mitigation on public lands in an effort to meet national emissions reduction goals, to full participation in an offsets market by allowing GHG mitigation on public lands to be sold as offsets either by the overseeing agency or by private contractors. To help place these policy options in context, we briefly review the literature on GHG mitigation and public lands to examine the potential for enhanced mitigation on federal and state public lands in the United States. This potential will be tempered by consideration of the tradeoffs with other uses of public lands, the needs for climate change adaptation, and the effects on other ecosystem services.}, number={3}, journal={Environmental Management}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Olander, Lydia P. and Cooley, David M. and Galik, Christopher S.}, year={2012}, pages={523–533} }
 @article{galik_cooley_2012, title={What makes carbon work? A sensitivity analysis of factors affecting forest offset viability}, volume={58}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84867423076&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.5849/forsci.11-046}, abstractNote={Early implementation experience and a handful of empirical analyses in the literature indicate that the supply of forest carbon offsets may be constrained by, among other factors, transaction costs, access to markets, and carbon accounting rules and regulations. To more fully explore this issue, we use a forest growth and carbon accounting model to assess the relative influence of several key accounting, financial, and market variables on forest carbon offset project viability. We find that project performance, indicated by sequestration rate and project profitability, varies widely across the three project/forest type combinations evaluated here. The effects of carbon price and project length vary in both magnitude and direction from project to project. Project accounting considerations, including baseline establishment method and deductions for “leakage” and other factors, tend to figure prominently in each project, but vary in their absolute effect. These initial results suggest that choice of accounting protocol is a critical decision facing landowners considering forest offset projects. Results also suggest that a one-size-fits-all accounting approach may fail to maximize either landowner participation or the representation of forest types or management systems.}, number={5}, journal={Forest Science}, publisher={Society of American Foresters}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Cooley, David M.}, year={2012}, pages={540–548} }
 @book{schneck_murray_galik_jenkins_2011, place={Durham, NC}, title={Demand for REDD carbon credits: A primer on buyers, markets, and factors impacting prices}, number={NI WP 11-01}, institution={Duke University}, author={Schneck, J.D. and Murray, B.C. and Galik, C.S. and Jenkins, W.A.}, year={2011} }
 @book{olander_profeta_galik_2010, place={Durham, NC}, title={Sticking Points in Offsets Policy}, number={NI PR OF-2}, institution={Duke University}, author={Olander, L.P. and Profeta, T. and Galik, C.S.}, year={2010} }
 @book{abt_galik_henderson_2010, place={Durham, NC}, title={The near-term market and greenhouse gas implications of forest biomass utilization in the southeastern United States}, number={CCPP 10-01}, institution={Duke University}, author={Abt, R.C. and Galik, C.S. and Henderson, J.D.}, year={2010} }
 @book{galik_grinnell_cooley_2010, place={Durham, NC}, title={The role of public lands in a low-carbon economy}, institution={Duke University}, author={Galik, C.S. and Grinnell, J.L. and Cooley, D.M.}, year={2010} }
 @article{galik_mobley_richter_2009, title={A virtual "field test" of forest management carbon offset protocols: The influence of accounting}, volume={14}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-79961178965&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1007/s11027-009-9190-9}, number={7}, journal={Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change}, publisher={Springer Science \mathplus Business Media}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Mobley, Megan L. and Richter, Daniel}, year={2009}, pages={677–690} }
 @article{foley_richter_galik_2009, title={Extending rotation age for carbon sequestration: A cross-protocol comparison of North American forest offsets}, volume={259}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-70449718706&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.foreco.2009.10.014}, abstractNote={Through carbon offset programs, forest owners can be offered financial incentives to enhance the uptake and storage of carbon on their lands. The amount of carbon that can be claimed by an individual landowner will ultimately depend on multiple factors, including the productivity of the forest, the management history of the stand, and the program in which the landowner is participating. This project presents a modeling framework for forest carbon accounting which is driven by forest yield curves and carbon pool partitioning. Within this model the amount of creditable carbon generated from adjusting the rotation age of multiple forest stands can be estimated for 46 distinct North American forest types. The model also provides a comparison of total creditable carbon generated under three carbon accounting methodologies: the Department of Energy 1605b Registry, the Chicago Climate Exchange, and the Voluntary Carbon Standard. In our evaluation of a 5-year rotation extension across 102 unique modeling scenarios, we find large differences among the carbon accounting schemes. This has implications for both forest landowners and policymakers alike. In particular, methodologies to account for such issues as leakage, permanence, additionality, and baseline establishment, while potentially increasing the overall legitimacy of any forest carbon offset program, can reduce creditable carbon to the forest owner (by up to 70%). Regardless of the protocol used, we also note strong regional differences, with Pacific Northwest forests of fir, spruce, hemlock, alder and maple being the most effective at sequestering carbon on a per area basis.}, number={2}, journal={Forest Ecology and Management}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Foley, Timothy G. and Richter, Daniel and Galik, Christopher S.}, year={2009}, pages={201–209} }
 @article{galik_abt_wu_2009, title={Forest biomass supply in the southeastern United States - Implications for industrial roundwood and bioenergy production}, volume={107}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-67449127138&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Forestry}, author={Galik, C.S. and Abt, R. and Wu, Y.}, year={2009}, pages={69–77} }
 @book{baker_galik_2009, place={Durham, NC}, title={Policy Options for the Conservation Reserve Program in a Low-Carbon Economy}, institution={Duke University}, author={Baker, J.S. and Galik, C.S.}, year={2009} }
 @article{galik_jackson_2009, title={Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate}, volume={257}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-64149104972&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.017}, abstractNote={When included as part of a larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction program, forest offsets may provide low-cost opportunities for GHG mitigation. One barrier to including forest offsets in climate policy is the risk of reversal, the intentional or unintentional release of carbon back to the atmosphere due to storms, fire, pests, land use decisions, and many other factors. To address this shortcoming, a variety of different strategies have emerged to minimize either the risk or the financial and environmental implications of reversal. These strategies range from management decisions made at the individual stand level to buffers and set-asides that function across entire trading programs. For such strategies to work, the actual risk and magnitude of potential reversals need to be clearly understood. In this paper we examine three factors that are likely to influence reversal risk: natural disturbances (such as storms, fire, and insect outbreaks), climate change, and landowner behavior. Although increases in atmospheric CO2 and to a lesser extent warming will likely bring benefits to some forest ecosystems, temperature stress may result in others. Furthermore, optimism based on experimental results of physiology and growth must be tempered with knowledge that future large-scale disturbances and extreme weather events are also likely to increase. At the individual project level, management strategies such as manipulation of forest structure, age, and composition can be used to influence carbon sequestration and reversal risk. Because some management strategies have the potential to maximize risk or carbon objectives at the expense of the other, policymakers should ensure that forest offset policies and programs do not provide the singular incentive to maximize carbon storage. Given the scale and magnitude of potential disturbance events in the future, however, management decisions at the individual project level may be insufficient to adequately address reversal risk; other, non-silvicultural strategies and policy mechanisms may be necessary. We conclude with a brief review of policy mechanisms that have been developed or proposed to help manage or mitigate reversal risk at both individual project and policy-wide scales.}, number={11}, journal={Forest Ecology and Management}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Galik, Christopher S. and Jackson, Robert B.}, year={2009}, pages={2209–2216} }
 @book{galik_baker_grinnell_2009, place={Durham, NC}, title={Transaction costs and forest management carbon offset potential}, institution={Duke University}, author={Galik, C.S. and Baker, J.S. and Grinnell, J.L.}, year={2009} }
 @book{olander_galik_2009, place={Durham, NC}, title={Understanding H.R. 2454: Offsets}, number={NI PR HR-6}, institution={Duke University}, author={Olander, L.P. and Galik, C.S.}, year={2009} }
 @article{malmsheimer_heffernan_brink_crandall_deneke_galik_gee_helms_mcclure_mortimer_et al._2008, title={Forest management solutions for mitigating climate change in the United States}, volume={106}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-49349097569&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={3}, journal={Journal of Forestry}, author={Malmsheimer, R.W. and Heffernan, P. and Brink, S. and Crandall, D. and Deneke, F. and Galik, C. and Gee, E.A. and Helms, J.A. and McClure, N. and Mortimer, M. and et al.}, year={2008}, pages={115–171} }