IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p4224-d183205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biodiversity Observation for Land and Ecosystem Health (BOLEH): A Robust Method to Evaluate the Management Impacts on the Bundle of Carbon and Biodiversity Ecosystem Services in Tropical Production Forests

Author

Listed:
  • Kanehiro Kitayama

    (Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwake-cho, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan)

  • Shogoro Fujiki

    (Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwake-cho, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan)

  • Ryota Aoyagi

    (Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwake-cho, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
    Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancón, Panamá, Panama)

  • Nobuo Imai

    (Department of Forest Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Sakuragaoka 1-1-1, Setagaya, Tokyo 156-8502, Japan)

  • John Sugau

    (Sabah Forestry Department, Locked Bag 68, Sandakan 90009, Malaysia)

  • Jupiri Titin

    (Sabah Forestry Department, Locked Bag 68, Sandakan 90009, Malaysia)

  • Reuben Nilus

    (Sabah Forestry Department, Locked Bag 68, Sandakan 90009, Malaysia)

  • Peter Lagan

    (Sabah Forestry Department, Locked Bag 68, Sandakan 90009, Malaysia)

  • Yoshimi Sawada

    (Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwake-cho, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan)

  • Robert Ong

    (Sabah Forestry Department, Locked Bag 68, Sandakan 90009, Malaysia)

  • Frederick Kugan

    (Sabah Forestry Department, Locked Bag 68, Sandakan 90009, Malaysia)

  • Sam Mannan

    (Sabah Forestry Department, Locked Bag 68, Sandakan 90009, Malaysia)

Abstract

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) has initiated a new sustainability mechanism, the ecosystem-services certification. In this system, management entities who wish to be certified for the maintenance of ecosystem services (carbon, biodiversity, watershed, soil and recreational services) must verify that their activities have no net negative impacts on selected ecosystem service(s). Developing a robust and cost-effective measurement method is a key challenge for establishing a credible certification system. Using a single method to evaluate a bundle of ecosystem services will be more efficient in terms of transaction costs than using multiple methods. We tested the efficiency of a single method, “biodiversity observation for land and ecosystem health (BOLEH)”, to simultaneously evaluate biodiversity and carbon density on a landscape scale in FSC-certified tropical production forests in Sabah, Malaysia. In this method, forest intactness based on the tree-generic compositional similarity with that of a pristine forest was used as an index of biodiversity. We repeated BOLEH in 2009 and 2014 in these forests. Our analysis could detect significant spatiotemporal changes in both carbon and forest intactness during these five years, which reflected past logging intensities and current management regimes in these forests. Enhancement of these ecosystem services occurred in the forest where sustainable management with reduced-impact logging had long been implemented. In this paper, we describe the procedure of the BOLEH method, and results of the pilot test in these forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Kanehiro Kitayama & Shogoro Fujiki & Ryota Aoyagi & Nobuo Imai & John Sugau & Jupiri Titin & Reuben Nilus & Peter Lagan & Yoshimi Sawada & Robert Ong & Frederick Kugan & Sam Mannan, 2018. "Biodiversity Observation for Land and Ecosystem Health (BOLEH): A Robust Method to Evaluate the Management Impacts on the Bundle of Carbon and Biodiversity Ecosystem Services in Tropical Production Fo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4224-:d:183205
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4224/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4224/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    2. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Sumaila, Ussif Rashid, 2016. "Estimating demand for certification of forest ecosystem services: A choice experiment with Forest Stewardship Council certificate holders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 193-201.
    3. Shogoro Fujiki & Ryota Aoyagi & Atsushi Tanaka & Nobuo Imai & Arif Data Kusma & Yuyun Kurniawan & Ying Fah Lee & John Baptist Sugau & Joan T. Pereira & Hiromitsu Samejima & Kanehiro Kitayama, 2016. "Large-Scale Mapping of Tree-Community Composition as a Surrogate of Forest Degradation in Bornean Tropical Rain Forests," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    5. Pettenella, Davide & Brotto, Lucio, 2012. "Governance features for successful REDD+ projects organization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 46-52.
    6. Muradian, Roldan & Rival, Laura, 2012. "Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 93-100.
    7. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Elliott, Chris, 2016. "Forest Stewardship Council certification for forest ecosystem services: An analysis of stakeholder adaptability," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 91-98.
    8. Savilaakso, Sini & Guariguata, Manuel R., 2017. "Challenges for developing Forest Stewardship Council certification for ecosystem services: How to enhance local adoption?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 55-66.
    9. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    10. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Sumaila, Ussif Rashid, 2016. "Estimating demand for certification of forest ecosystem services: A choice experiment with Forest Stewardship Council certificate holders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 193-201.
    2. Molina Murillo, Sergio A. & Pérez Castillo, Juan Pablo & Herrera Ugalde, María Elena, 2014. "Assessment of environmental payments on indigenous territories: The case of Cabecar-Talamanca, Costa Rica," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 35-43.
    3. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    4. Rosa da Conceição, Hugo & Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Why were upscaled incentive programs for forest conservation adopted? Comparing policy choices in Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 243-252.
    5. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    6. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    7. Vignola, Raffaele & McDaniels, Tim L. & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Negotiation analysis for mechanisms to deliver ecosystem services: The case of soil conservation in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 22-31.
    8. Savilaakso, Sini & Guariguata, Manuel R., 2017. "Challenges for developing Forest Stewardship Council certification for ecosystem services: How to enhance local adoption?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 55-66.
    9. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & à vila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    10. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    11. Duong, Ngoc T.B. & de Groot, Wouter T., 2018. "Distributional risk in PES: Exploring the concept in the Payment for Environmental Forest Services program, Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 22-32.
    12. Bremer, Leah L. & Farley, Kathleen A. & Lopez-Carr, David & Romero, José, 2014. "Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for ‘win–win’?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 148-165.
    13. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
    14. Izquierdo-Tort, Santiago & Ortiz-Rosas, Fiorella & Vázquez-Cisneros, Paola Angélica, 2019. "‘Partial’ participation in Payments for Environmental Services (PES): Land enrolment and forest loss in the Mexican Lacandona Rainforest," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    16. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    17. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    18. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    19. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    20. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4224-:d:183205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.