IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v14y2012i5p691-724.html

Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System

Author

Listed:
  • Elliott Campbell

  • Mark Brown

Abstract

The National Forests of the United States encompass 192.7 million acres (78 million hectares) of land, which is nearly five percent of the total land area of the nation. These lands are managed by the US Forest Service (USFS) for multiple uses, including extraction of timber, production of fossil fuels and minerals, public recreation, and the preservation of biodiversity, clean air, water, and soils. The USFS is interested in valuing the natural capital within, and the ecosystem services provided by, their lands. This is in part to justify expenditures in a time of limited resources. We used emergy and an environmental accounting approach, to quantify the ecosystem services, the exported environmental goods and information provided by National Forest System (NFS) lands, and the natural capital residing on those lands. Environmental accounting using emergy provides a method to value these flows of services and storages of capital using a common biophysical unit, the solar emjoule and its monetary equivalent the emdollar. We compare emdollar values to economic values gleaned from the literature. In 2005, the ecosystem services provided by USFS lands were equivalent to 197 billion emdollars, and the value of NFS natural capital was 24.3 trillion emdollars. Our evaluation suggests that the Federal Government budget allocation for the NFS ($5.55E+09 in 2005) was well spent, protecting 24.3 trillion emdollars in natural capital and insuring annual ecosystem services totaling 197 billion emdollars. Monetary values for some natural capital and ecosystem services are similar to emergy-derived values (resources like fish, wildlife, water, and firewood extracted from forests), and others are widely different (biodiversity, fossil, and mineral resources). There is large uncertainty associated with computing the environment’s contributions to society whether using emergy or accepted economic techniques; yet, the magnitude of these emergy-derived estimates suggests that even with the uncertainty, the values are significant and monetary expenditures for the Forest Service are justified. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Elliott Campbell & Mark Brown, 2012. "Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 691-724, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:14:y:2012:i:5:p:691-724
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-012-9348-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10668-012-9348-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-012-9348-6?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. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 169-187, October.
    2. Brown, Mark T. & Martínez, Amaya & Uche, Javier, 2010. "Emergy analysis applied to the estimation of the recovery of costs for water services under the European Water Framework Directive," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(17), pages 2123-2132.
    3. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    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. William K Jaeger, 2025. "Accounting for Income and Population Dynamics in Benefit-Cost Analysis: An Application to Dam Removal," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(9), pages 2403-2428, September.
    2. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2010. "Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef," Research Reports 107583, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    3. Brooks, Wesley R. & Newbold, Stephen C., 2013. "Ecosystem damages in integrated assessment models of climate change," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280912, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    4. Wingenroth, Jordan & Prest, Brian C. & Rennels, Lisa & Rennert, Kevin & Errickson, Frank & Anthoff, David, 2024. "Accounting for Biodiversity Loss Raises the Social Cost of CO2," RFF Working Paper Series 24-23, Resources for the Future.
    5. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2010. "Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1084, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    6. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    7. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
    8. repec:dav:journl:y:2016:v:7:i:11:p:1272-1289 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Hanley, Nick & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley-Nickolls, Rose & Redpath, Steve, 2010. "Economic values of species management options in human-wildlife conflicts: Hen Harriers in Scotland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 107-113, November.
    10. Leslie Richardson & Lynne Lewis, 2022. "Getting to know you: individual animals, wildlife webcams, and willingness to pay for brown bear preservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 673-692, March.
    11. Arbault, Damien & Rugani, Benedetto & Tiruta-Barna, Ligia & Benetto, Enrico, 2014. "A first global and spatially explicit emergy database of rivers and streams based on high-resolution GIS-maps," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 281(C), pages 52-64.
    12. Weber, Matthew A. & Meixner, Thomas & Stromberg, Juliet C., 2016. "Valuing instream-related services of wastewater," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 59-71.
    13. Richardson, Leslie, 2022. "The Economic Benefits of Wildlife: The Case of Brown Bears in Alaska," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(01), May.
    14. Wang, Chao & Sun, Qiyuan & Wang, Peifang & Hou, Jun & Qu, Aiyu, 2013. "An optimization approach to runoff regulation for potential estuarine eutrophication control: Model development and a case study of Yangtze Estuary, China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 251(C), pages 199-210.
    15. Haefele, Michelle A. & Loomis, John B. & Lien, Aaron M. & Dubovsky, James A. & Merideth, Robert W. & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Huang, Ta-Ken & Mattsson, Brady J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Thogmartin, Wayne E, 2019. "Multi-country Willingness to Pay for Transborder Migratory Species Conservation: A Case Study of Northern Pintails," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 321-331.
    16. Keeler, Bonnie L. & Wood, Spencer A. & Polasky, Stephen & Kling, Catherine L. & Filstrup, Christopher T. & Downing, John A., 2015. "Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes," ISU General Staff Papers 201501290800001557, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Prellezo, Raúl & Corrales, Xavier & Andonegi, Eider & Bald, Carlos & Fernandes-Salvador, Jose A. & Iñarra, Bruno & Irigoien, Xabier & Martin, Adrian & Murillas-Maza, Arantza & Tasdemir, Deniz, 2024. "Economic trade-offs of harvesting the ocean twilight zone: An ecosystem services approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    19. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    20. 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.
    21. Wang, Yangyang & Atallah, Shady & Shao, Guofan, 2016. "Nutrient retention return on investment in private forest conservation: the case of the Classified Forest and Wildlands Program in Indiana," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236154, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:spr:endesu:v:14:y:2012:i:5:p:691-724. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.