IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i7p984-d1428644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impacts of Land Ownership and Forest Fragmentation on Water-Related Ecosystem Services Provision, Dynamics and Their Economic Valuation in Kentucky

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Bai

    (Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Kentucky, 730 Rose St., Lexington, KY 40546-0073, USA)

  • Jian Yang

    (Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Kentucky, 730 Rose St., Lexington, KY 40546-0073, USA)

  • Thomas O. Ochuodho

    (Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Kentucky, 730 Rose St., Lexington, KY 40546-0073, USA)

  • Bobby Thapa

    (Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Kentucky, 730 Rose St., Lexington, KY 40546-0073, USA)

Abstract

Ecosystem services assessment is vital for sustainable land management decision-making. However, ecosystem service responses to land ownership and forest fragmentation have rarely been incorporated into landscape management decision-making contexts. Such knowledge gaps pose a challenging conservation issue: how to incentivize landowners to ensure the sustainability of ecosystem services provision? This study provides new insights into integrating ecosystem services into landscape planning by illustrating the significant changes in ecosystem service value among different landowner types. The net ecological and economic consequences of forest land cover transition in Kentucky, USA, were assessed, as were the details of how each landowner type was affected, and the driving factors were analyzed. The results showed that the total value of water-related ecosystem services was USD 745.83 million in 2011, which had decreased by USD 19.38 million compared to the value in 2001. Forestland owned by family landowners contributed 75% of the total loss. Public landowners lost USD 0.08 million, corporate landowners lost USD 0.19 million and family landowners lost USD 0.55 million in terms of water retention value. In terms of nitrogen retention value, there was a loss of USD 1.57 million, USD 7.65 million and USD 1.69 million for public, family and corporate landowners, respectively. Family-owned forestland presented the highest mean value of water retention and the lowest mean value of soil, nitrogen and phosphorus retention. All landowners experienced a noticeable loss in water-related ecosystem services value. Land ownership and forest fragmentation exerted significant impacts on ecosystem services provision and change. Integrating land ownership into ecosystem service assessment may improve the landscape and regional planning, through which scientifically sound decision-making can be promoted by natural resource management agencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Bai & Jian Yang & Thomas O. Ochuodho & Bobby Thapa, 2024. "Impacts of Land Ownership and Forest Fragmentation on Water-Related Ecosystem Services Provision, Dynamics and Their Economic Valuation in Kentucky," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:7:p:984-:d:1428644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/7/984/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/7/984/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruben N. Lubowski & Andrew J. Plantinga & Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 529-550.
    2. Hansen, LeRoy & Ribaudo, Marc, 2008. "Economic Measures of Soil Conservation Benefits: Regional Values for Policy Assessment," Technical Bulletins 184312, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Goldman, Rebecca L. & Thompson, Barton H. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2007. "Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 333-343, December.
    5. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Grebner, Donald L., 2016. "Family forest land availability for the production of ecosystem services in Mississippi, United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 18-24.
    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. 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.
    2. Joël Houdet & Charlotte Pavageau & Michel Trommetter & Jacques Weber, 2009. "Accounting for changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services from a business perspective," Working Papers hal-00434450, HAL.
    3. 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.
    4. Claassen, Roger & Bowman, Maria & Breneman, Vince & Wade, Tara & Williams, Ryan & Fooks, Jacob & Hansen, LeRoy & Iovanna, Rich & Loesch, Chuck, 2017. "Conservation Compliance: How Farmer Incentives Are Changing in the Crop Insurance Era," Economic Research Report 261814, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    6. Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    8. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Pranab K Roy Chowdhury & James C Robertson & Phillip S Levin & Michael J Case & Daniel G Brown, 2025. "Opportunities and challenges to community-level adoption of natural climate solutions in Washington State," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(2), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    12. Changchun Feng & Hao Zhang & Liang Xiao & Yongpei Guo, 2022. "Land Use Change and Its Driving Factors in the Rural–Urban Fringe of Beijing: A Production–Living–Ecological Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    14. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    15. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso & Guci, Ledia, 2018. "An estimator for discrete-choice models with spatial lag dependence using large samples, with an application to land-use conversions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 77-93.
    16. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    17. Chakir, Raja & Lungarska, Anna, 2015. "Agricultural land rents in land use models: a spatial econometric analysis," 150th Seminar, October 22-23, 2015, Edinburgh, Scotland 212641, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. 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.
    19. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    20. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.

    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:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:7:p:984-:d:1428644. 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.