IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v11y2009i3p174-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: A case study of Tapantí National Park, Costa Rica

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard, Florence
  • de Groot, Rudolf S.
  • Campos, José Joaquín

Abstract

The Tapanti National Park in Costa Rica comprises a precious but vulnerable tropical rain forest area. The monetary values of ecosystem services that are provided by this park are estimated in order to assess the mechanisms to finance the park's conservation and sustainable use. The main ecosystem services provided by the park are water supply (for drinking and electricity generation), maintenance of biodiversity and opportunities for recreation and tourism. Based on interviews with over 300 stakeholders, the study identified the main beneficiaries of these ecosystem services. The monetary benefits of the three services combined were estimated at approx. US$2.5Â million/year, equivalent to an average of US$43/year for the total park area (58.323Â ha). Compared to other, similar areas, the recreation values are relatively low (approx. 0.6Â million US$/year) while the water-supply service is very high: approx. 1.7Â million US$/year for hydro-electricity and approx. 0.2Â million US$/year for drinking water. Both the low recreation and high water supply values can be correlated with the high rainfall of over 6500Â mm/year. To develop payment-mechanisms for the conservation and sustainable use of Tapantí National Park, the main stakeholders were asked about their willingness to pay for the maintenance of the services they benefited from. Different financing mechanisms have been explored, such as taxes, user fees, individual and corporate donations, friends' schemes, and voluntary contractual arrangements. In general, most of the stakeholders were willing to pay for the ecosystem services they received. These potential payments amounted to at least 400,000Â US$/year, which excludes the hydro-electricity beneficiary. Even without payments from the hydro-electricity company, this amount suffices to cover the current (245,000Â US$) and urgently needed additional budget (100,000Â US$) for the National Park management.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard, Florence & de Groot, Rudolf S. & Campos, José Joaquín, 2009. "Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: A case study of Tapantí National Park, Costa Rica," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 174-183, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:11:y:2009:i:3:p:174-183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(09)00026-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerardo Mery & René I. Alfaro & Markku Kanninen & Steven Bernstein & Doris Capistrano & Karl Hogl & Bernd-Markus Liss & Constance McDermott & Jagmohan S. Maini & Tapani Oksanen & Pekka Ollonqvist & He, 2005. "Forests in the global balance - changing paradigms," Selected Books, CIRAD, Forest department, UPR40, edition 1, volume 17, number 12 edited by Gerardo Mery & René Alfaro & Markku Kanninen & Maxim Lobovikov.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Robin Naidoo & Taylor H Ricketts, 2006. "Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(11), pages 1-12, October.
    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. Sáenz, Leonardo & Mulligan, Mark & Arjona, Fabio & Gutierrez, Tatiana, 2014. "The role of cloud forest restoration on energy security," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 180-190.
    2. Ninan, K.N. & Inoue, Makoto, 2013. "Valuing forest ecosystem services: What we know and what we don't," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 137-149.
    3. Ojea, Elena & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2015. "Understanding the economic value of water ecosystem services from tropical forests: A systematic review for South and Central America," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 97-106.
    4. Namhee Kim & Miju Kim & Sangkwon Lee & Chi-Ok Oh, 2023. "Comparing Stakeholders’ Economic Values for the Institution of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Espécie, Mariana de Assis & de Carvalho, Pedro Ninô & Pinheiro, Maria Fernanda Bacile & Rosenthal, Vinicius Mesquita & da Silva, Leyla A. Ferreira & Pinheiro, Mariana Rodrigues de Carvalhaes & Espig, , 2019. "Ecosystem services and renewable power generation: A preliminary literature review," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 39-51.
    6. Fotakis, Dimitris G. & Sidiropoulos, Epameinondas & Myronidis, Dimitriοs & Ioannou, Kostas, 2012. "Spatial genetic algorithm for multi-objective forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 12-19.
    7. Nitanan Koshy Matthew & Ahmad Shuib & Nitya Ganeshwaari Raja Gopal & Goh Ie Zheng, 2022. "Economic Value of Recreation as an Ecosystem Service in Ayer Keroh Recreational Forest, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2010. "Visitors' satisfaction, perceptions and gap analysis: The case of Dadia-Lefkimi-Souflion National Park," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 163-172, March.
    9. Voltaire, Louinord, 2017. "Pricing Future Nature Reserves Through Contingent Valuation Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 66-75.
    10. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    11. Hao Li & Xiaohui Yang & Xiao Zhang & Yuyan Liu & Kebin Zhang, 2018. "Estimation of Rural Households’ Willingness to Accept Two PES Programs and Their Service Valuation in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    12. Arsić, Sanela & Nikolić, Djordje & Živković, Živan, 2017. "Hybrid SWOT - ANP - FANP model for prioritization strategies of sustainable development of ecotourism in National Park Djerdap, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 11-26.
    13. Manoela Sacchis Lopes & Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil & Dejanira Luderitz Saldanha, 2019. "Assessment of Small-Scale Ecosystem Conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: A Study from Rio Canoas State Park, Southern Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, May.
    14. Liu, Peng & Jiang, Shiwei & Zhao, Lianjun & Li, Yunxi & Zhang, Pingping & Zhang, Li, 2017. "What are the benefits of strictly protected nature reserves? Rapid assessment of ecosystem service values in Wanglang Nature Reserve, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 70-78.
    15. López-Mosquera, Natalia & Sánchez, Mercedes, 2013. "Income effects on visitors' decision structure in a suburban natural area," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 102-110.
    16. Yunxiao Bai & Moucheng Liu & Lun Yang, 2021. "Calculation of Ecological Compensation Standards for Arable Land Based on the Value Flow of Support Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Erin C. Pischke & Adam M. Wellstead, 2020. "Reimagining instrument constituencies: the case of conservation policy in Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 371-388, June.
    18. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Barrio, Melina, 2016. "Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 246-261.
    19. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    20. Halkos, George & Jones, Nikoleta, 2011. "Social factors influencing the decision to pay for the protection of biodiversity: A case study in two national parks of Northern Greece," MPRA Paper 34581, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Gaaff, Aris & Reinhard, Stijn, 2012. "Incorporating the value of ecological networks into cost–benefit analysis to improve spatially explicit land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-74.
    2. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    3. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    4. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    5. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    6. de Groot, R. & Stuip, M. & Finlayson, Max & Davidson, N., 2006. "Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services," IWMI Research Reports H039735, International Water Management Institute.
    7. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    9. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    10. Angelos Alamanos & Phoebe Koundouri, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2211, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    11. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    12. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    13. Richardson, Robert B., 2011. "Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability," Food Security International Development Working Papers 98782, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Natacha LASKOWSKI, 2013. "Optimal allocation of wetlands: Study on conflict between agriculture and fishery," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2013-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    15. 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.
    16. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    17. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2017. "Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: The role of participatory systems mapping," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 28-42.
    18. Anca Ionascu & Costel Negrei & Marian Tudor, 2015. "Benefits of the ecosystems restoration in the Danube Delta – theoretical approach," International Conference on Competitiveness of Agro-food and Environmental Economy Proceedings, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 4, pages 107-114.
    19. Sandra Notaro & Alessandro Paletto, 2008. "Natural disturbances and natural hazards in mountain forests: a framework for the economic valuation," Department of Economics Working Papers 0808, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    20. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.

    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:eee:forpol:v:11:y:2009:i:3:p:174-183. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.