Spatial Valuation of Forests’ Environmental Assets: An Application to Andalusian Silvopastoral Farms

Article Figures & Data

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1
Components of the Environmental Asset Valuation Model
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2
Distribution of Silvopastoral Provisioning Services, Carbon, and Water Environmental Asset Values in the Municipalities Where the Studied Farms Are Located
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3
Trade-offs between the Environmental Asset Values of Silvopastoral Provisioning Services, Carbon, and Water in Quercus suber, Q. ilex, and Pinus sp. Forest Units
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 4
Sensitivity of the Environmental Asset Value for Silvopastoral Provisioning Services, Carbon, and Water to Discount Rates and Changes in Output Prices
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 5
Share of Land Expected to Remain as Forest in Next Rotation by Species, Discount, and Price Scenarios When Only Private Benefits (top panels) and Private Benefits and Carbon Payments (bottom panels) Are Considered

TABLE 1

Average Environmental Asset Value by Ecosystem Service, Vegetation, and Silvicultural Model

Species	Environmental Asset Value by Species and Silvicultural Model (euros/ha, year 2010)					Std. Dev.
Species	S1	S2	S3	S4	Total Mean	Std. Dev.
Quercus ilex	2,580	3,543	2,744	3,238	2,951	1,467
Firewood	0	442	0	131	107	181
Grazing resources	888	766	521	728	712	296
Carbon trees	403	898	976	804	702	508
Carbon shrub	234	257	242	232	240	140
Water	1,055	1,181	919	1,046	1,031	1,228
Q. suber	6,236	6,383			6,307	4,150
Cork	3,060	2,846			2,957	3,806
Grazing resources	1,002	997			999	275
Carbon trees	523	909			710	416
Carbon shrub	494	514			504	430
Water	1,156	1,118			1,137	1,092
Pinus pinea	2,077	1,704	1,794		1,858	594
Timber	8	9	1		6	7
Pinenuts	109	57	152		106	90
Grazing resources	492	593	486		524	312
Carbon trees	660	261	236		386	374
Carbon shrub	426	483	447		452	130
Water	384	301	472		385	273
P. halepensis	2,125	969			1,516	1,149
Timber	46	9			26	28
Grazing resources	323	312			317	335
Carbon trees	1,456	357			877	897
Carbon shrub	203	202			202	57
Water	97	90			93	287
P. nigra	2,478	5,847			3,826	1,978
Timber	24	30			27	17
Grazing resources	640	640			640	0
Carbon trees	558	3,976			1,925	1,964
Carbon shrub	125	125			125	12
Water	1,131	1,075			1,109	804
P. pinaster	112	4,081	2,615	2,053	3,150	1,902
Timber	1	171	101	8	121	105
Grazing resources	54	820	753	640	711	389
Carbon trees	11	1,670	637	566	1,110	1,026
Carbon shrub	33	789	823	411	742	404
Water	13	631	301	398	466	616
Eucalyptus sp.	2,235	2,251			2,389	710
Timber	0	0			0	0
Grazing resources	957	800			859	414
Carbon trees	290	249			386	271
Carbon shrub	839	1,100			1,029	602
Water	149	103			115	256
Other vegetation^{^a}					1,694	1,243
Grazing resources					676	392
Carbon shrub					964	1,025
Water					54	210
All species					2,813	2,383
Timber					2	53
Cork					262	818
Firewood					23	53
Pinenuts					4	27
Grazing resources					781	946
Carbon trees					635	593
Carbon shrub					452	480
Water					654	779

Note: Environmental asset results are provided for the main scenario (discount rate 3% and average prices of 2010), considering the average results of 567 silvopastoral farms. S1_j to S4_j refer to the four potential silvicultural models applied to each one of the j species.
↵^a Other vegetation includes grazing resources in treeless shrubs, grassland, crops, and other forest species.

TABLE 2

Environmental Asset Functions for the Farms Sample for the Main Scenario (Number of Observations = 567)

Variable^{^a}	Main Scenario (Discount Rate = 3%, Price Level: 2010 = 1.0)
	EAPr^{^b}		EAC^{^c}		EAW^{^d}
	Coef.	Std. Err.^{^e}	Coef.	Std. Err.^{^e}	Coef.	Std. Err.^{^e}
Constant	67.52	47.37	−208.34^***	70.76	178.09	122.24
Slope	−34.11	70.10	416.90^***	102.10	780.70^***	204.14
Density (BA)	−14.47^***	1.24	49.15^***	2.13	50.87^***	2.32
SQI	966.87^***	60.76	−110.35	78.32	−380.32^***	111.80
SQS	1,248.82^***	82.57	−393.02^***	101.97	−270.82^**	150.83
SPP	705.27^***	97.37	726.54^**	279.21	179.35	329.18
SSP	−43.88	58.50	50.17	74.76	676.65^***	210.16
R²	0.68		0.78		0.49

↵^a The functions estimate the environmental asset value (in euros per hectare). Slope is estimated as a percentage value, density (BA) refers to the initial basal area (in square meters per hectare). The share (S) variables indicate the proportion of the farm area occupied by different land use classes (in percentage): SQI, share of Quercus ilex; SQS, share of Q. suber; SPP, share of Pinus sp.; SSP, share of shrublands and grasslands.
↵^b EAPr: environmental asset value of silvopastoral provisioning services.
↵^c EAC: environmental asset value of carbon sequestration.
↵^d EAW: environmental asset value of water provisioning service.
↵^e Robust standard error.
* p< 0.10;
↵** p< 0.05;
↵*** p<0.01.

TABLE 3

Environmental Asset Functions for Pinus sp., Quercus ilex, and Q. suber for the Main Scenario

Note: EAPr, environmental asset value of silvopastoral provisioning services; EAC, environmental asset value of carbon sequestration; EAW, environmental asset value of water provisioning service. Data for the main scenario: discount rate = 3%; price level 2010 = 1.0. Robust standard error.
↵^a Slope gradient is estimated as a percentage; density (BA) is the basal area in m²/ha. The remainder are dummies: HMQ is high-medium quality; EAF is even-aged forest; Suber, Halep, Nigra, and Pinst are Quercus suber, Pinus halepensis, P. nigra, and P. pinaster forests, respectively; and Q1, Q2, and Q4 are the cork quality indexes (Q1 being the lowest and Q4 the highest).
↵* p<0.10;
↵** p<0.05;
↵*** p<0.01.