Can Existing Estimates for Ecosystem Service Values Inform Forest Management?

Abstract

: This paper aims at analyzing whether existing economic value estimates for forest ecosystem services (ES) might be transferred and used for valuation purposes elsewhere, and whether these data are appropriate for application in forest management. Many forest ES are public goods or positive externalities, and as a consequence they do not have a market price. The valuation of forest ES can provide important information for decision making in forest management and planning as well as in political processes, especially by allowing the comparison of different alternatives and helping set priorities for practical actions, as well as developing financial incentives or support mechanisms. We analyze whether an integrated economic valuation model for forest ES can be developed based on existing published data. To achieve this, we assess to which extent a benefit transfer could be expedient, and which challenges must be addressed. Based on a literature search, we compiled an extensive database of forest ES values. Given that these values vary substantially for the same ES, such a database alone does not seem useful to serve as a decision and management support tool. In addition, the available information mainly focuses on forests as such, and does not include desirable forest composition and management targets. If existing estimates should be transferred and used for forest management decisions, both the background conditions of the primary studies and the indicators used for valuation need to be specified in detail. The most expedient approach in this context seemed to be a valuation function transfer based on a broad set of indicators, offering the possibility to adapt the valuation function to changing background conditions.

Modelling and Evaluation of the Effect of Afforestation on the Runoff Generation Within the Glinščica River Catchment (Central Slovenia)

“…We used and transferred the results of existing studies to generate and determine monetary values for our case study. As stated in the extensive review by Müller et al [12], a basic requirement is the similarity of background conditions. However, since similar studies with respect to scale, perspective, and dimension are rare, we tried to focus on studies of temperate European forests.…”

“…As one of the core elements of ecosystems, biodiversity influences multiple aspects of ES, which makes them difficult to evaluate [13]. Nevertheless, Müller et al [12] saw it as necessary to quantify even single components if the valuation should contribute to forest management and planning. After Dittrich et al [4], biodiversity services to be valued are divided into use and nonuse values.…”

“…Recreational benefits stem from direct contact between people and natural resources. They are to a huge extent dependent on local characteristics and societal perceptions about nature as well as on the size of the afforested landscape [12]. Recreational values of small forests may be marginal and initially increase with size.…”

A Natural Capital Approach to Agroforestry Decision-Making at the Farm Scale

“…Farmers are the primary decision-makers and creating tools that cater for them and the types of decisions that they face is crucial. The farm-scale value of services provided by agroforestry assets may be highly dependent on the location of the farm, the objectives of the farm enterprise, and the context of the asset within the farm [100]. Farmers require tools that enable them to make decisions about investing in agroforestry systems and designing them in such a way that maximises benefits to their particular enterprise.…”

How does wood mobilization depend on marketing decisions? A country comparison based on choice experiments

“…The European Forest-based Sector Technology Platform has targeted an increase of wood availability of about 30% by 2030 through optimizing forest management and increasing growth rates of forests (FTP 2013). However, forests are seen not only as a source of diverse material uses and energy production, but also as providers of protection services and recreational opportunities, as well as carbon sinks and habitats to conserve biological diversity (Thompson and Hansen 2012;Jacobsen et al 2008;Meyerhoff et al 2009;Bernath and Roschewitz 2008;Thees and Olschewski 2017;Müller et al 2019). Consequently, competition among different services of forests is expected to widen the gap between timber supply and demand (GSTA 2015).…”