Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction

Contents:

Author Info

  • Aline Chiabai
  • Chiara Travisi
  • Anil Markandya
  • Helen Ding
  • Paulo Nunes

Abstract

This paper presents a bottom-up methodological framework for estimating some of the key ecosystem services provided by forests biomes worldwide. We consider the provision of wood and non-wood forest products, recreation and passive use, and forests’ contribution to climate regulation in terms of carbon sequestration capacity. The valuation framework derives per hectare estimates by applying meta-analysis, value transfer and scaling up procedures in order to control for existing heterogeneities across world regions and forest biomes. The first part of the study estimates stock values per hectare for each forest ecosystem service in the baseline year 2000 and in the year 2050. Carbon stocks represent, in general, the highest value per hectare, followed by provisioning services, passive use and recreational values. The second part provides an estimation of the welfare loss (or gain) associated with policy inaction in the period 2000-2050 leading to a change in the forest area. Welfare results are mixed and require a careful interpretation. In different world regions, no policy initiative can results in both gains and losses, which appear to be sensitive to the use of lower or upper bounds values per hectare.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.bc3research.org/index.php?option=com_wpapers&task=downpubli&iddoc=23&repec=1&Itemid=279
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by BC3 in its series Working Papers with number 2010-13.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2010
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published
Handle: RePEc:bcc:wpaper:2010-13

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.bc3research.org/

Related research

Keywords: forest ecosystem goods and services; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; value-transfer; meta-analysis; market and non-market valuation;

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Loomis, John & Ekstrand, Earl, 1998. "Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 29-41, October.
  2. Toman, Michael, 1998. "SPECIAL SECTION: FORUM ON VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: Why not to calculate the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 57-60, April.
  3. Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & W. George Hutchinson & Joseph Buongiorno, 1999. "Valuing the Recreational Benefits From the Creation of Nature Reserves in Irish Forests," Working Papers 1999.11, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  4. Woodward, Richard T. & Wui, Yong-Suhk, 2001. "The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 257-270, May.
  5. Martin L. Weitzman, 2001. "Gamma Discounting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 260-271, March.
  6. Chomitz, Kenneth M. & Alger, Keith & Thomas, Timothy S. & Orlando, Heloisa & Nova, Paulo Vila, 2005. "Opportunity costs of conservation in a biodiversity hotspot: the case of southern Bahia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(03), pages 293-312, June.
  7. Valentina Bosetti & Emanuele Massetti & Massimo Tavoni, 2007. "The WITCH Model. Structure, Baseline, Solutions," Working Papers 2007.10, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  8. Ian J. Bateman & Guy D. Garrod & Julii S. Brainard & Andrew A. Lovett, 1996. "Measurement Issues In The Travel Cost Method: A Geographical Information Systems Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1-4), pages 191-205.
  9. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
  10. Andreas Kontoleon & Timothy Swanson, 2003. "The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be an Instrument for Nature Conservation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 483-499.
  11. Enrica De Cian & Valentina Bosetti & Alessandra Sgobbi & Massimo Tavoni, 2009. "The 2008 WITCH Model: New Model Features and Baseline," Working Papers 2009.85, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  12. Bostedt, Göran & Mattsson, Leif, 2006. "A note on benefits and costs of adjusting forestry to meet recreational demands," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 75-81, March.
  13. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
  14. Lisa C. Chase & David R. Lee & William D. Schulze & Deborah J. Anderson, 1998. "Ecotourism Demand and Differential Pricing of National Park Access in Costa Rica," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(4), pages 466-482.
  15. Andrea Ghermandi & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & Luke M. Brander & Henri L.F. de Groot & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2009. "The Values of Natural and Constructed Wetlands: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-080/3, Tinbergen Institute.
  16. Elena Ojea & Paulo Nunes & Maria Loureiro, 2010. "Mapping Biodiversity Indicators and Assessing Biodiversity Values in Global Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 329-347, November.
  17. Kniivilä, Matleena & Ovaskainen, Ville & Saastamoinen, Olli & Kniivilä, Matleena, 2002. "Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 131-150.
  18. M. Shechter & B. Reiser & N. Zaitsev, 1998. "Measuring Passive Use Value: Pledges, Donations and CV Responses in Connection with an Important Natural Resource," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 457-478, December.
  19. Naidoo, Robin & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2005. "Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(02), pages 159-178, May.
  20. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
  21. Garrod, G. D. & Willis, K. G., 1997. "The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 45-61, April.
  22. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Elena Ojea & Maria Loureiro, 2009. "Mapping of Forest Biodiversity Values: A Plural Perspective," Working Papers 2009.4, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Stefan Baumgaertner & Alexandra M. Klein & Denise Thiel & Klara Winkler, 2013. "Ramsey discounting of ecosystem services," Working Paper Series in Economics 281, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
  2. Jan Philipp Schägner & Luke Brander & Joachim Maes & Volkmar Hartje, 2012. "Mapping Ecosystem Services’ Values: Current Practice and Future Prospects," Working Papers 2012.59, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  3. Aline Chiabai & Dirk Rübbelke & Lisa Maurer, 2013. "ICT applications in the research into environmental sustainability: a user preferences approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 81-100, February.
  4. Helen Ding & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, . "Modeling the Links between Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Human Wellbeing in the Context of Climate Change: Results from an Econometric Analysis on the European Forest Ecosystems," Working Papers 2012-12, BC3.
  5. World Bank, 2013. "India : Diagnostic Assessment of Select Environmental Challenges, Volume 3. Valuation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in India," World Bank Other Operational Studies 16029, The World Bank.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bcc:wpaper:2010-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sergio Faria).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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