IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mtu/wpaper/22_11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing forest ecosystem services in New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Kotula

    (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research)

Abstract

Society depends on services and benefits provided by ecosystems. Yet, many of our actions affect ecosystems in ways that undermine long-term human wellbeing. Although ecosystems provide many services to society, many of these services are not accounted for in land-use decisions. The concept of “ecosystem services” offers a framework for understanding our dependence on nature and can encourage decision makers to consider broader impacts of land-use decisions beyond short-term economic rewards. Furthermore, economic valuation of ecosystem services offers a potential strategy for including the value of ecosystem services in decision making. Here I describe several ecosystem service frameworks and outline how these frameworks can inform land-use decisions, with a particular focus on those involving forests. I then describe methods for valuing ecosystem services. Following this, I provide examples relating to forest ecosystem services and draw conclusions based on existing valuation studies in New Zealand. My intention is to convey how an ecosystem service approach could be used in New Zealand to capture benefits provided by ecosystems that are often not accounted for in land-use decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Kotula, 2022. "Valuing forest ecosystem services in New Zealand," Working Papers 22_11, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:mtu:wpaper:22_11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/22_11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pamela Kaval & Richard Yao, 2007. "New Zealand Outdoor Recreation Benefits," Working Papers in Economics 07/14, University of Waikato.
    2. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    3. James Tee & Riccardo Scarpa & Dan Marsh & Graeme Guthrie, 2014. "Forest Valuation under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme: A Real Options Binomial Tree with Stochastic Carbon and Timber Prices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 44-60.
    4. Bradley J. Cardinale & J. Emmett Duffy & Andrew Gonzalez & David U. Hooper & Charles Perrings & Patrick Venail & Anita Narwani & Georgina M. Mace & David Tilman & David A. Wardle & Ann P. Kinzig & Gre, 2012. "Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7401), pages 59-67, June.
    5. Alan Woodfield & Don Cowie, 1977. "The Milford Track: Valuation Estimates Of A Recreation Good," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 21(2), pages 97-110, August.
    6. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    7. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    8. Sven Wunder & Jan Börner & Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sarah Feder & Stefano Pagiola, 2020. "Payments for Environmental Services: Past Performance and Pending Potentials," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 209-234, October.
    9. Cullen, Ross & Fairburn, Geoffrey A. & Hughey, Kenneth F. D., 2001. "Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 53-66, October.
    10. Dymond, John R. & Ausseil, Anne-Gaelle & Shepherd, James D. & Janssen, Helmut, 2007. "A landscape approach for assessing the biodiversity value of indigenous forest remnants: Case study of the Manawatu/Wanganui region of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 82-91, October.
    11. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Roldan Muradian & Murat Arsel & Lorenzo Pellegrini & Fikret Adaman & Bernardo Aguilar & Bina Agarwal & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine de Blas & Joshua Farley & Géraldine Froger & Eduardo Garcia-Frapoll, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions," Post-Print hal-03067404, HAL.
    13. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    14. Muñoz-Piña, Carlos & Guevara, Alejandro & Torres, Juan Manuel & Braña, Josefina, 2008. "Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 725-736, May.
    15. Marten Scheffer & Steve Carpenter & Jonathan A. Foley & Carl Folke & Brian Walker, 2001. "Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6856), pages 591-596, October.
    16. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    17. Pamela Kaval & Richard Yao & Terry Parminter, 2007. "The Value of Native Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand: A Case Study of the Greater Wellington Area," Working Papers in Economics 07/22, University of Waikato.
    18. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    19. Cullen, Ross & Moran, Emma & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2005. "Measuring the success and cost effectiveness of New Zealand multiple-species projects to the conservation of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 311-323, May.
    20. Von Thaden, Juan & Manson, Robert H. & Congalton, Russell G. & López-Barrera, Fabiola & Jones, Kelly W., 2021. "Evaluating the environmental effectiveness of payments for hydrological services in Veracruz, México: A landscape approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    21. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O'Connor, Eamonn, 2021. "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    22. Lee, Peter & Cassells, Sue M. & Holland, John, 2013. "The Non-Market Value of Abel Tasman National Park, New Zealand: A Choice Modelling Application," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152163, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    23. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    24. 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).
    25. Bradley J. Cardinale & J. Emmett Duffy & Andrew Gonzalez & David U. Hooper & Charles Perrings & Patrick Venail & Anita Narwani & Georgina M. Mace & David Tilman & David A.Wardle & Ann P. Kinzig & Gret, 2012. "Correction: Corrigendum: Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 326-326, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    3. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    4. Pettinotti, Laetitia & de Ayala, Amaia & Ojea, Elena, 2018. "Benefits From Water Related Ecosystem Services in Africa and Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 294-305.
    5. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    6. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    8. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    9. Nelson Grima & Lisa Ringhofer & Simron J. Singh & Barbara Smetschka & Christian Lauk, 2017. "Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development Practice: Can the Concept of PES Deliver?," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 17(4), pages 267-281, October.
    10. Benra, F. & Nahuelhual, L. & Felipe-Lucia, M. & Jaramillo, A. & Jullian, C. & Bonn, A., 2022. "Balancing ecological and social goals in PES design – Single objective strategies are not sufficient," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    11. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Santiago Peredo Parada & Claudia Barrera Salas, 2023. "Multifunctional Plants: Ecosystem Services and Undervalued Knowledge of Biocultural Diversity in Rural Communities—Local Initiatives for Agroecological Transition in Chile," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    14. Alexia Stokes & Géraldine Bocquého & Pascal Carrère & Raphaël Conde Salazar & Marc Deconchat & Léo Garcia & Antoine Gardarin & Christian Gary & Cédric Gaucherel & Mamadou Gueye & Mickael Hedde & Franç, 2023. "Services provided by multifunctional agroecosystems : Questions, obstacles and solutions," Post-Print hal-04056486, HAL.
    15. Fabio Pranovi & Gianluca Sarà & Piero Franzoi, 2013. "Valuing the Unmarketable: An Ecological Approach to the Externalities Estimate in Fishing Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-11, February.
    16. Shanafelt, David W. & Serra-Diaz, Josep M. & Bocquého, Géraldine, 2023. "Measuring uncertainty in ecosystem service correlations as a function of sample size," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    17. Marco Marcelli & Sergio Scanu & Francesco Manfredi Frattarelli & Emanuele Mancini & Filippo Maria Carli, 2018. "A Benthic Zonation System as a Fundamental Tool for Natural Capital Assessment in a Marine Environment: A Case Study in the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    18. Dymond, John R. & Ausseil, Anne-Gaelle E. & Overton, Jacob McC., 2008. "A landscape approach for estimating the conservation value of sites and site-based projects, with examples from New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 275-281, June.
    19. Tharaka A. Jayalath & Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Marcus Becker, 2023. "Biodiversity Benefits of Birdwatching Using Citizen Science Data and Individualized Recreational Demand Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(1), pages 83-107, October.
    20. Zhou, Peng & Zhang, Haijie & Huang, Bei & Ji, Yongli & Peng, Shaolin & Zhou, Ting, 2022. "Are productivity and biodiversity adequate predictors for rapid assessment of forest ecosystem services values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ecosystem services; nonmarket valuation methods;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mtu:wpaper:22_11. 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: Maxine Watene (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/motuenz.html .

    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.