Evaluating the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare through linking dynamic ecosystem modelling with economic valuation

• Published in: Ecosystem services Vol. 39; p. 101011
• Main Authors: Zanchi, Giuliana, Brady, Mark V.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier B.V 01.10.2019
• Subjects: Annan samhällsvetenskap; Biodiversity; Carbon; Cost-benefit analysis; Dynamic modelling; Earth and Related Environmental Sciences; Economics; Environmental Sciences; Geovetenskap och miljövetenskap; Miljövetenskap; Nationalekonomi; Natural Sciences; Naturvetenskap; Other Social Sciences; Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified; Policy; Samhällsvetenskap; Social Sciences; Water quality; Övrig annan samhällsvetenskap; Policy; Cost-benefit analysis; Dynamic modelling; Biodiversity; Carbon; Water quality
• ISSN: 2212-0416; 2212-0416
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101011

•We evaluate the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare.•We link dynamic ecosystem modelling to valuation and benefit-cost analysis.•We demonstrate welfare conflicts in the optimal choice of forestry practices.•Our approach can inform of the welfare impacts of alternative forestry practices. Trade-offs exist among the multiple ecosystem services (ES) generated by forests. Generally, wood production conflicts with the provisioning of public-good ES such as the storage of carbon, nutrient retention and conservation of biodiversity. Recognizing that forests generate both private- and public-good ES implies that forestry should be optimized to maximize the contribution of forests to societal welfare. Here we develop an integrated approach for evaluating the contribution of forest ES to welfare. Our approach links the results from dynamic ecosystem modelling to economic valuation and benefit-cost analysis to evaluate the impacts of alternative forestry practices on welfare. We apply the approach to a Norway spruce forest in southern Sweden. We show that current practices are not maximizing societal welfare, because of conflicts in the optimal choice of practices from society’s and forest owners’ perspectives, and the distribution of welfare between generations. In particular, intensifying biomass production is shown to reduce welfare due to the concomitant degradation of public-good ES, while welfare would improve through expansion of continuous cover forestry. We anticipate that this type of approach will aid the sustainable development of forestry, by informing decision makers of the impacts of alternative forestry practices on societal welfare.