IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v324y2016icp11-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing for ecosystem services in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests using a novel simulation-to-optimization methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Bagdon, Benjamin A.
  • Huang, Ching-Hsun
  • Dewhurst, Stephen

Abstract

Forest managers are faced with the difficulty of promoting multiple ecosystem services (ES) with an incomplete understanding of the complex ways these ES interact. We developed a quantitative model to help managers better understand the effect of different management options on eight ES over time. These ES were (1) Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) habitat, (2) the harvest of merchantable timber, (3) the harvest of woody biomass for potential conversion to bioenergy, (4) northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) habitat, (5) scenic beauty, (6) fire hazard reduction, (7) carbon storage, and (8) restoration of pre-European settlement forest structure represented through larger quadratic mean diameters (QMD). We integrated production functions for these eight ES with a forest growth-and-yield model to simulate the effects of three management actions over a 45-year period in northern Arizona, USA. We scaled ES values based on their observed maximum and minimum values as a means to compare achievement levels between ES. These scaled ES values were input into a goal-programming model to identify the optimal management regimes given a corresponding set of five different management objectives. The combination of simulation modeling with goal-programming is a novel approach for evaluating ES responses to management and for optimizing ES attainment objectives. To illustrate the value of this novel approach, we designed management objectives to reflect the likely goals a forest manager may choose for each ES in this region. ES goals were distinguished at the forest- and stand-level spatial extents. Results demonstrate the flexibility of the ES optimization model to plan for a variety of situations and preferences. For instance, two ES management goals viewed as conflicting are the protection of Mexican Spotted Owl habitat and the reduction of fire hazard risk. One ES optimization scenario (Scenario 5) produces a plan that reduces area considered as having a high fire hazard from 56% to 7% of the study area in 2015 without any reduction in owl habitat quality throughout the time horizon. We recommend that our methodology be applied and developed further by those in both the research and applied fields of ecosystem sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Bagdon, Benjamin A. & Huang, Ching-Hsun & Dewhurst, Stephen, 2016. "Managing for ecosystem services in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests using a novel simulation-to-optimization methodology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 324(C), pages 11-27.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:324:y:2016:i:c:p:11-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.12.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380015005803
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.12.012?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Egan, Dave & Stoddard, Michael & Formanack, Alicia, 2015. "Ecological and social implications of employing diameter caps at a collaborative forest restoration project near Flagstaff, Arizona, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 39-45.
    3. Ralph E. Steuer & Albert T. Schuler, 1978. "An Interactive Multiple-Objective Linear Programming Approach to a Problem in Forest Management," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 254-269, April.
    4. Wainger, Lisa A. & King, Dennis M. & Mack, Richard N. & Price, Elizabeth W. & Maslin, Thomas, 2010. "Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 978-987, March.
    5. Huggett Jr., Robert J. & Abt, Karen L. & Shepperd, Wayne, 2008. "Efficacy of mechanical fuel treatments for reducing wildfire hazard," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 408-414, August.
    6. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    7. K Deb, 2001. "Nonlinear goal programming using multi-objective genetic algorithms," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 52(3), pages 291-302, March.
    8. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    9. Badri, Masood A., 1999. "Combining the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for global facility location-allocation problem," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 237-248, September.
    10. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    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. Huang, Ching-Hsun & Bagdon, Benjamin A., 2018. "Quantifying environmental and health benefits of using woody biomass for electricity generation in the Southwestern United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 123-134.
    2. Bagdon, Benjamin A. & Huang, Ching-Hsun & Dewhurst, Stephen & Meador, Andrew Sánchez, 2017. "Climate Change Constrains the Efficiency Frontier When Managing Forests to Reduce Fire Severity and Maximize Carbon Storage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 201-214.
    3. Marta Ezquerro & Marta Pardos & Luis Diaz-Balteiro, 2019. "Sustainability in Forest Management Revisited Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-24, July.
    4. Jiang, Weiguo & Deng, Yue & Tang, Zhenghong & Lei, Xuan & Chen, Zheng, 2017. "Modelling the potential impacts of urban ecosystem changes on carbon storage under different scenarios by linking the CLUE-S and the InVEST models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 345(C), pages 30-40.
    5. Edgars Jūrmalis & Arta Bārdule & Jānis Donis & Linda Gerra-Inohosa & Zane Lībiete, 2023. "Forest Inventory Data Provide Useful Information for Mapping Ecosystem Services Potential," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Helenice de Oliveira Florentino & Chandra Irawan & Angelo Filho Aliano & Dylan F. Jones & Daniela Renata Cantane & Jonis Jecks Nervis, 2018. "A multiple objective methodology for sugarcane harvest management with varying maturation periods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 267(1), pages 153-177, August.

    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. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Ho¨lzinger, Oliver & Horst, Dan van der & Sadler, Jon, 2014. "City-wide Ecosystem Assessments—Lessons from Birmingham," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 98-105.
    6. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
    7. Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Weyland, Federico & Herrera, Lorena Paola & Villarino, Sebastián Horacio & Barral, María Paula & Auer, Alejandra Denise, 2015. "Ecosystem services research in contrasting socio-ecological contexts of Argentina: Critical assessment and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 63-73.
    8. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    9. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    10. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    11. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    12. 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.
    13. Syndhia Mathé & Helene Rey-Valette, 2018. "Perceptions of the role played by aquaculture and the services it provides for territories: complementarity of survey types," Post-Print hal-01950060, HAL.
    14. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    15. 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.
    16. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    17. Johnston, Robert J. & Russell, Marc, 2011. "An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2243-2249.
    18. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O. , 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    19. Vrebos, Dirk & Staes, Jan & Vandenbroucke, Tom & D׳Haeyer, Tom & Johnston, Robyn & Muhumuza, Moses & Kasabeke, Clovis & Meire, Patrick, 2015. "Mapping ecosystem service flows with land cover scoring maps for data-scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 28-40.
    20. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.

    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:ecomod:v:324:y:2016:i:c:p:11-27. 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.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    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.