IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1387-d896155.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geospatial Analysis of Nonmarket Values to Prioritize Forest Restoration

Author

Listed:
  • Adrienne B. Soder

    (School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA)

  • Julie M. Mueller

    (School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
    W.A. Franke College of Business, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA)

  • Abraham E. Springer

    (School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA)

  • Katelyn E. LaPine

    (School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA)

Abstract

Forest restoration is necessary for maintaining healthy watersheds and the ecological spatial networks that provide environmental goods and services. Consideration of the dollar value of these provided benefits in restoration planning is essential to the efficient use of limited resources available to project implementation. Nonmarket valuation is a methodology of economics commonly used to estimate monetary values for environmental goods and services that are not typically bought or sold in a traditional market. Valuation studies are prolific within the restoration literature; however, the use of nonmarket values as decision support is not well represented. We introduce a method using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to spatially analyze the results from a nonmarket valuation study that estimated dollar values for the attributes of forest restoration characteristic of a semi-arid watershed in the Southwest United States. Map layers were created for the five attributes valued by the study and represent areas in the watershed that are designated as critical habitats, determined to influence surface water quality, prone to high-severity wildfire, representative of culturally significant areas, and contribute to aquifer recharge. A series of overlay analyses were performed to create a composite benefit map that spatially displays nonmarket values throughout the watershed. The per acre benefit values range from USD 0 to USD 104 where all five attributes are present.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrienne B. Soder & Julie M. Mueller & Abraham E. Springer & Katelyn E. LaPine, 2022. "Geospatial Analysis of Nonmarket Values to Prioritize Forest Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1387-:d:896155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1387/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1387/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    2. Troy, Austin & Wilson, Matthew A., 2006. "Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 435-449, December.
    3. Fitch, Ryan A. & Kim, Yeon Su & Waltz, Amy E.M. & Crouse, Joe E., 2018. "Changes in potential wildland fire suppression costs due to restoration treatments in Northern Arizona Ponderosa pine forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 101-114.
    4. Grischa Perino & Barnaby Andrews & Andreas Kontoleon & Ian Bateman, 2014. "The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 251-272, February.
    5. Katharine M. Johnson & William B. Ouimet, 2021. "Reconstructing Historical Forest Cover and Land Use Dynamics in the Northeastern United States Using Geospatial Analysis and Airborne LiDAR," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(6), pages 1656-1678, September.
    6. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    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. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    2. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    3. Schägner, Jan Philipp & Brander, Luke & Maes, Joachim & Hartje, Volkmar, 2013. "Mapping ecosystem services' values: Current practice and future prospects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 33-46.
    4. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Andrea Ghermandi & John Agard & Paulo A. L. D. Nunes, 2018. "Applying Geographic Information Systems to ecosystem services valuation and mapping in Trinidad and Tobago," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 289-306, October.
    6. Jan Philipp Schägner & Luke Brander & Joachim Maes & Volkmar Hartje, 2012. "Mapping Ecosystem Services’ Values: Current Practice and Future Prospects," Working Papers 2012.59, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    8. 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).
    9. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Estimating the Benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Atlantic Member States: A Spatial Value Transfer Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 82-94.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Baustert, Paul & Othoniel, Benoit & Rugani, Benedetto & Leopold, Ulrich, 2018. "Uncertainty analysis in integrated environmental models for ecosystem service assessments: Frameworks, challenges and gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 110-123.
    13. Ferdinando Villa & Kenneth J Bagstad & Brian Voigt & Gary W Johnson & Rosimeiry Portela & Miroslav Honzák & David Batker, 2014. "A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    14. Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho & Fitri Nurfatriani & Yonky Indrajaya & Tri Wira Yuwati & Sulistya Ekawati & Mimi Salminah & Hendra Gunawan & Subarudi Subarudi & Markus Kudeng Sallata & Merryana Kid, 2022. "Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services from Indonesia’s Remaining Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-39, September.
    15. Pulighe, Giuseppe & Fava, Francesco & Lupia, Flavio, 2016. "Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 1-10.
    16. Javier Babí Almenar & Claudio Petucco & Tomás Navarrete Gutiérrez & Laurent Chion & Benedetto Rugani, 2022. "Assessing Net Environmental and Economic Impacts of Urban Forests: An Online Decision Support Tool," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    17. Semmens, Darius J. & Sherrouse, Benson C. & Ancona, Zach H., 2019. "Using social-context matching to improve spatial function-transfer performance for cultural ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    19. Valeria M. Toledo‐Gallegos & Jed Long & Danny Campbell & Tobias Börger & Nick Hanley, 2021. "Spatial clustering of willingness to pay for ecosystem services," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 673-697, September.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Maria L. Loureiro & Ståle Navrud & John Rolfe, 2021. "Guidance to Enhance the Validity and Credibility of Environmental Benefit Transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 575-624, July.

    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:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1387-:d:896155. 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.