IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v70y2024i3id281-2023-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indirect use value of improved soil health as natural capital that supports essential ecosystem services: A case study of cacao agroforestry

Author

Listed:
  • Yudha Kristanto

    (Natural Resources and Environmental Management Science, Graduate School, Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB University), Bogor, Indonesia)

  • Suria Tarigan

    (Department of Soil Science and Land Resources, Faculty of Agriculture, Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB University), Bogor, Indonesia)

  • Tania June

    (Department of Geophysics and Meteorology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB University), Bogor, Indonesia)

  • Bambang Sulistyantara

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Agriculture, Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB University), Bogor, Indonesia)

  • Pini Wijayanti

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB University), Bogor, Indonesia)

Abstract

Multifunctional landscapes, such as agroforestry, that improve soil health are essential in sustaining terrestrial life by supporting various ecosystem services (ESs). However, decision-making often requires more attention to soil health because its parameters have no market value. In this study, we aim to evaluate soil health parameters in cacao agroforestry and monoculture and their degradation due to erosion and to estimate their indirect use value (IUV). We develop a soil health economic valuation approach bridged by ESs because the economic valuation of ESs tends to be better studied. We estimated the IUVs of the eight soil health parameters by using the direct proxy revealed prevalence valuation method on the basis of the valuation of the four ESs they support: water regulation, climate regulation, nutrient retention and biodiversity. The total IUVs for cacao agroforestry were USD 633 with Endoaquepts and USD 723 with Dystrudepts and for cacao monoculture were USD 415 with Endoaquepts and USD 575 with Dystrudepts. Soil carbon has the highest contribution to IUV, followed by soil nitrogen. Agroforestry not only increases IUV but also minimises its decrease due to erosion. Despite economic valuations being subject to uncertainty, these results encourage the internalisation of soil health values in sustainable land management design.

Suggested Citation

  • Yudha Kristanto & Suria Tarigan & Tania June & Bambang Sulistyantara & Pini Wijayanti, 2024. "Indirect use value of improved soil health as natural capital that supports essential ecosystem services: A case study of cacao agroforestry," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 70(3), pages 137-154.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:70:y:2024:i:3:id:281-2023-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/281/2023-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/281/2023-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/281/2023-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/281/2023-AGRICECON?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    2. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Craig R. Elevitch & D. Niki Mazaroli & Diane Ragone, 2018. "Agroforestry Standards for Regenerative Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Pascual, Unai & Termansen, Mette & Hedlund, Katarina & Brussaard, Lijbert & Faber, Jack H. & Foudi, Sébastien & Lemanceau, Philippe & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv, 2015. "On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 11-18.
    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. repec:caa:jnlage:v:preprint:id:281-2023-agricecon is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    3. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    4. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    5. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    6. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Xujie Gong & Chein-chi Chang, 2025. "Correlation and trade-off analysis of ecosystem service value and human activity intensity: a case study of Changsha, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 3081-3102, February.
    8. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    9. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    10. 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.
    11. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(01), pages 1-21, April.
    12. Villamagna, Amy M. & Angermeier, Paul L. & Niazi, Nicholas, 2014. "Evaluating opportunities to enhance ecosystem services in public use areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 167-176.
    13. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    14. Dardonville, Manon & Legrand, Baptiste & Clivot, Hugues & Bernardin, Claire & Bockstaller, Christian & Therond, Olivier, 2022. "Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    15. De la Varga Pastor, Aitana & Pons Solé, Joan, 2018. "Innovative legal tools applied in land stewardship for the conservation of ecosystem services in Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 395-403.
    16. Correa, Alicia & Forero, Jorge & Marco Renau, Jorge & Lizarazo, Ivan & Mulligan, Mark & Codato, Daniele, 2023. "Advancing spatial decision-making in a transboundary catchment through multidimensional ecosystem services assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    17. Costanza, Robert & Howarth, Richard B. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Liu, Shuang & Ma, Chunbo & Plumecocq, Gaël & Stern, David I., 2016. "Influential publications in ecological economics revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 68-76.
    18. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    19. Bagdon, Benjamin A. & Huang, Ching-Hsun & Dewhurst, Stephen, 2016. "Managing for ecosystem services in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests using a novel simulation-to-optimization methodology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 324(C), pages 11-27.
    20. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    21. van den Belt, Marjan & Blake, Daniella, 2014. "Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 115-132.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:caa:jnlage:v:70:y:2024:i:3:id:281-2023-agricecon. 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: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    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.