Valuing forest ecosystem services and disservices – Case study of a protected area in India

Abstract

This study seeks to estimate the value of forest ecosystem services provided by a protected area in a biodiversity hotspot in India. The novelty of the study rests in that it addresses some of the shortcomings identified in existing literature by also estimating the value of several intangible benefits ignored in most valuation studies as well as estimating the value of disservices of forests such as wild life damages and forest fires, and the added value obtained by forests as compared to from alternative landscapes for selected services.Evidence presented here suggests that the total net value of ecosystem services provided by the Nagarhole national park in Karnataka, India is quite high and significant. The total net value of benefits (i.e. value of services minus disservices) provided by the park ranges between US$13-148 million per annum or US$204-2296 per ha per annum using alternate valuation methods. More significant is that the added value of benefits from the park is higher as compared to from alternative landscapes considering just three ecosystem services i.e. water and soil conservation, and carbon sequestration services.The estimates also provide support for the viability of markets for particular ecosystem services. If these are internalised in decision making it could strengthen the economic case for conserving forests in developing countries such as India where there is great pressure to relax forest laws and divert forests to non-forest uses to fuel economic growth.

Farmland abandonment decreases the fire regulation capacity and the fire protection ecosystem service in mountain landscapes

“…Conversely, the fire regulation ES estimated for Spanish ecosystems (Román et al, 2013) using revealed preferences techniques is much higher (2229 T€ ha −1 on average) than our estimates. Ninan and Kontoleon (2016), using an ESD conceptual approach, reported a value of 2.1 € ha −1 per year (1US Dollar = 0.94€) for the compensation paid by state forest authorities for wildfire damage and the social damage value of carbon emissions by fires, which is much lower than our estimates. Overall, differences found among studies may be partially explained by different valuation methods applied, but also due to different conceptual basis of the assessment and the different Â.…”

“…Although some efforts have been made to identify potential indicators (Maes et al, 2011;Pettorelli et al, 2017), the inclusion of wildfires in ES-based (or EDS-based) assessment frameworks remains limited. Exceptions include case studies using fire metrics in ES assessment (Azevedo et al, 2011a;Halofsky et al, 2017;Madureira et al, 2013), or econometric approaches to assess the resulting service (Bernués et al, 2014;Madureira et al, 2013;Ninan and Kontoleon, 2016;Parthum et al, 2017;Román et al, 2013).…”

Mapping Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review

“…Forests are also valued for the many recreational benefits they afford, such as viewing wildlife and nature, safari hunting, boating and angling, hiking, etc (Ninan et al 2016). These services are not traded in regular markets and do not have a market price to be used in the economic valuation exercise.…”

Revisiting Ecosystem Services: Assessment and Valuation as Starting Points for Environmental Politics

“…Benefit transfer carries forward measurement errors inherent in any primary study on which it relies, and should not replace methodical and meticulous on-the-ground study. We note, however, that more robust studies often still rely on estimates, approximations, models, simplifications or secondary valuations [68,79]. Meanwhile, local detailed studies in at least some …”