Effects of different thinning systems on the economic value of ecosystem services: A case-study in a black pine peri-urban forest in Central Italy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2017.799Keywords:
Forest management, Silvicultural treatments, Ecosystem services, Biophysical accounting, Trade-off, Economic valuation.Abstract
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) should be able to produce an optimal level of bundle of Ecosystem Services (ES), thus ensuring more resilient forest ecosystems also creating benefits for local population and human well-being. Yet, choosing between alternative forest management practices is not straightforward as it necessarily involves ES trade-offs. Forest management decisions have to reconcile the socio-economic and ecological contributions of forest ecosystems by fostering a synergistic relation between multiple ES while lowering ES trade-offs. The aim of the study is to analyze different forest management practices (selective and traditional thinning) in black pine peri-urban forest in Central Italy, by investigating their contribution in terms of provisioning (wood production), cultural (recreational benefits), regulating (climate change mitigation) ES. For each management option was performed: (1) the biophysical assessment of selected ES by using primary data and calculating indicators for wood production with special regard to biomass for energy use (living trees and deadwood volume harvested), recreational benefits (tourists’ preferences for each forest management practice), climate change mitigation (carbon sequestration in above-ground and below-ground biomass), and (2) the economic valuation of wood production, recreational benefits and climate change mitigation ES using direct and indirect methods (environmental evaluation techniques). The results show that the effects of the selective thinning on ES is higher that the effects of the traditional thinning. The economic value of the three ES provided by traditional and selective thinning are respectively: bioenergy production 154.2 € ha-1 yr-1 and 223.3 € ha-1 yr-1; recreational benefits 193.2 € ha-1 yr-1 and 231.9 € ha-1 yr-1; carbon sequestration 29.0 € ha-1 yr-1and 36.2 € ha-1 yr-1. The integrated (biophysical and economic) assessment of ES in addition to the trade-off analysis can provide multi-perspective insights for forest policy makers and can be included as a part of the local forest management plans.References
Bellu L.G., Cistulli V., 1997. Economic valuation of forest recreation facilities in the Liguria region (Italy). CSERGE Working Paper GEC, 97–08. Bettinazzi R., 1995. Valutazione e Remunerazione dei Benefici Ambientali del Parco Naturale Regionale della Lessinia. Università degli studi di Padova, Padova. Blazevska A., Miceva K., Stojanova B., Stojanovska M., 2012. Perception of the Local Population toward Urban Forests in Municipality of Aerodrom. South-East European Forests 3(2): 87-96. Boatto V., Defrancesco E., Merlo M., 1984. La Funzione Turistico-Ricreativa della Foresta di Tarvisio. Università degli studi di Padova, Padova. Bravi M., Curto R., 1996. Stima di beni pubblici con il metodo della valutazione contingente: finalità d’uso e valori. Genio Rurale 2: 56-62. Carnol M., Baeten L., Branquart E., Grégoire J.C., Heughebaert A., Muys B., Ponette Q., Verheyen K., 2014. Ecosystem services of mixed species forest stands and monocultures: comparing practitioners’ and scientists’ perceptions with formal scientific knowledge. Forestry 87: 639-653. Cesaro L., 1991. La Funzione Turistico-Ricreativa dei Bacini del Fiume Misa e del Torrente Novella. NIER S.c.r.l., Analisi costi-benefici e valutazione d’impatto ambientale della viabilità forestale. Pubblicazioni Nier, pp. 18. Costanza R., d’Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O’Neill R., Paruelo J., Raskin R., Sutton P., van den Belt M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(15): 253–260 De Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological economics 41(3): 393-408. Fernandes T.J.G., Del Campo A.D., Herrera R., Molina A.J., 2016. Simultaneous assessment, through sap flow and stable isotopes, of water use efficiency (WUE) in thinned pines shows improvement in growth, tree-climate sensivity and WUE, but not in WUEi. Forest Ecology and Management 361: 298-308. Filyushkina A., 2016. Ecosystem Services and Forest Management in the Nordic Countries. Doctoral Thesis University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen & Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68(3): 643–653. Führer E., 2000. Forest functions, ecosystem stability and management. Forest Ecology and Management 132: 29-38. Garrido A., Gomez J., De Lucio J.V., Mùgica M., 1994. Aplicacion del metodo del coste del viaje a la valoracion de "La Pedriza" en el Parque Regional de la Cuenca Alta del Manzanares en la provincia de Madrid. Valoracion economica de la calidad ambiental. McGrow-Hill, Madrid. Garrod G., Willis K., 1999. Economic Valuation of the Environment. Methods and Case Studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Getzner M., 2010. Ecosystem services, financing, and the regional economy: A case study from Tatra National Park, Poland. Biodiversity 11(2): 56–61. Glück P., Kuen H. 1977. Der Erholungswert des großen. Allgemeine Forstzeitung 8(1): 7-11. Goio I., Gios G., Pollini C. 2008. The development of forest accounting in the province of Trento (Italy). Journal of Forest Economics 14(3): 177-196. Greene W.H., 2003. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Grilli G., Nikodinoska N., Paletto A., De Meo I., 2015. Stakeholders' Preferences and Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: an Example in the Italian Alps. Baltic Forestry 21(2): 298-307. Grilli G., Paletto A., De Meo I., 2014. Economic Valuation of Forest Recreation in an Alpine Valley. Baltic Forestry 20(1): 167–75. Hamrick K., Goldstein A., 2016. Raising ambition: State of the voluntary carbon markets 2016. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC. Hanley N., Barbier E., 2009. Pricing Nature: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Hein L., 2011. Economic benefits generated by protected areas: the case of the Hoge Veluwe forest, the Netherlands. Ecology and Society 16(2): 13. Hein L., van Koppen K., de Groot R.S., van Ierland E.C., 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57(2): 209-228. Hellerstein D.M., 1991. Using Count Data Models in Travel Cost Analysis with Aggregate Data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(3): 860–66. Herath G., Kennedy J., 2004. Estimating the Economic Value of Mount Buffalo National Park with the Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Models. Tourism Economics 10(1): 63–78. Hilbe J., Martinez-Espineira R., 2005. NBSTRAT: Stata Module to Estimate Negative Binomial with Endogenous Stratification. Boston College Department of Economics, Boston. Kimmins J.P., Welham C., Seely B., Meitner M., Rempe R., Sullivan T., 2005. Science in forestry: why does it sometimes disappoint or even fail us? The Forestry Chronicle 81: 723–734. Kumar P., Wood M.D., 2010. Valuation of Regulating Services of Ecosystems. Methodology and applications. Routledge, Abingdon and New York. Löwenstein W. 1994. Reisekostenmethode und Bedingte Bewertungsmethode als Instrumente zur monetären Bewertung der Erholungsfunktion des Waldes - Ein ökonomischer und ökonometrischer Vergleich. Schriften zur Forstökonomie 6. Luckert M.K., Williamson T., 2005. Should sustained yield be part of sustainable forest management? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35(2): 356-364. MEA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington. Martínez-Espiñeira R., Amoako-Tuffour J., 2008. Recreation Demand Analysis under Truncation, Overdispersion, and Endogenous Stratification: An Application to Gros Morne National Park. Journal of Environmental Management 88(4): 1320–32. Martínez-Espiñeira R., Loomis J.B., Amoako-Tuffour J., Hilbe J.M., 2008. Comparing Recreation Benefits from on-Site versus Household Surveys in Count Data Travel Cost Demand Models with Overdispersion. Tourism Economics 14(3): 567–76. McFadden D., 1979. Quantitative Methods for Analysing Travel Behaviour of Individuals. In: Hensher D.A., Storper P.R., (eds.) "Behavioural travel modelling". Croom Helm, London. Merlo M. 1992. Una Valutazione della Funzione Ricreazionale dei Boschi. Rivista di Economia Agraria 2: 385-398. Montagné C., Peyron J.L., Niedzwiedz A. 2005. La valeur économique totale de la forêt méditerranéenne française. Foret méditerranéenne 4: 287-298. NIER S.c.r.l., 1991. Studio per l’Introduzione di un Ticket di Accesso ai Boschi: Relazione Finale. Pubblicazioni Nier, Rome. Paletto A., De Meo I., Di Salvatore U., Ferretti F., 2014. Perceptions of Sustainable Forest Management practices: an application from the forestry sector in southern Italy. International Forestry Review 16(1): 55-66. Paletto A., Geitner C., Grilli G., Hastik R., Pastorella F., Rodrìguez Garcìa L., 2015. Mapping the value of ecosystem services: A case study from the Austrian Alps. Annals of Forest Research 58(1):157-175. Putz F.E., 1994. Approaches to Sustainable Forest Management. Working Paper 4, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bangor. Ram K.S., Seidl A.F., Moraes A.S., 2002. Value of Recreational Fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: A Travel Cost Analysis Using Count Data Models. Ecological Economics 42(1–2): 289–99. Ricketts T.H., Daily G.C., Ehrlich P.R., Michener C.D., 2004. Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 12579–12582. Rodríguez García L., Curetti G., Garegnani G., Grilli G., Pastorella F., Paletto A., 2016. La valoración de los servicios ecosistémicos en los ecosistemas forestales: un caso de estudio en Los Alpes Italianos. Bosque 37(1): 41-52. Romano D., Carbone F., 1993. La Valutazione Economica dei Benefici Ambientali: un Confronto fra Approcci non di Mercato. Rivista di Economia Agraria 1: 19-62. Saaty R.W., 1987. The Analytic Hierarchy Process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling 3-5: 161-76. Shaw D., 1988. On-Site Samples’ Regression: Problems of Non-Negative Integers, Truncation, and Endogenous Stratification. Journal of Econometrics 37(2): 211–23. Sing L., Ray D., Watts K., 2015. Ecosystem services and forest management. Research Note, Forestry Commission. Šišak L., 2013. Differentiated valuation of forest services by their relationships to the market and its implementation in the Czech Republic. In: Šišak, L., Dudik, R. and Hrib, M. (eds.) Socio-economic analysis of Sustainable Forest Management, Czech University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Prague: 116-122. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Tempesta T., 1995. La Stima del Valore Ricreativo del Territorio: Un’Analisi Comparativa delle Varie Metodologie. Genio Rurale 12: 15-34. Tosi V., 1989. I servizi Turistico-Ricreativi dei Boschi: Esperienze nel Triveneto. Annali ISAFA 10, Trento. UK NEA, 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge. Walker B., Carpenter S., Anderies J., Abel N., Cumming G., Janssen M., Lebel L., Norberg J., Peterson G.D., Pritchard R., 2002. Resilience management in social–ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6(1): 14. Wunder S., Abildtrup J., Thorsen B.J., 2014. Quantification of management measures and ecosystem services provision. In: Thorsen B.J., Mavsar R., Tyrväinen L., Prokofieva I., Stenger A. (eds) "The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services", European Forest Institute (EFI), Joensuu: 21-25.
Published
Issue
Section
License
All the papers published in Annals of Forest Research are available under an open access policy (Gratis Gold Open Access Licence), which guaranty the free (of taxes) and unlimited access, for anyone, to entire content of the all published articles. The users are free to “read, copy, distribute, print, search or refers to the full text of these articles”, as long they mention the source.
The other materials (texts, images, graphical elements presented on the Website) are protected by copyright.
The journal exerts a permanent quality check, based on an established protocol for publishing the manuscripts. The potential article to be published are evaluated (peer-review) by members of the Editorial Board or other collaborators with competences on the paper topics. The publishing of manuscript is free of charge, all the costs being supported by Forest Research and Management Institute.
More details about Open Access:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
