IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i11p6637-d826787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Pruning-Caused Loss on Ecosystem Services of Air Pollution Removal and Runoff Avoidance

Author

Listed:
  • Shuo Wei

    (School of Forestry & Resource Conservation, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Su-Ting Cheng

    (School of Forestry & Resource Conservation, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

Abstract

Trees provide multiple ecosystem services (ES) and are generally considered an important natural-based approach for climate change adaptation and mitigation. In urban areas, proper pruning practices can help enhance ES provided by trees, but in areas with issues of typhoons or storms, routinely intensive pruning may reduce ES. Therefore, it is critical to determine proper pruning intensity in balancing the ES provision and life/property protection. With the aim of promoting sustainable urban forestry management, we applied the i-Tree Eco to quantify ES and ES values of air pollution removal and runoff avoidance provided by a total of 87,014 Taipei street trees and developed an analytical method to estimate the potential loss caused by different pruning intensities. Based on the i-Tree Eco estimates, the Taipei street trees on average provide ES values of air pollution removal and runoff avoidance at $2.31 and $1.87 USD/tree/y, respectively. By changing the ratio of crown missing as a surrogate for different pruning intensities, we found that with a less than 25% pruning intensity, the decline ratio of ES values was relatively constant, and the potential loss was estimated at $0.47 USD/tree/y at the 25% pruning intensity. As such, in general maintenance situations, we recommend a less than 25% pruning intensity. However, during typhoon or monsoon seasons, a less than 45% pruning intensity is suggested to balance the ES provision and public safety with an estimated loss at $0.96 USD/tree/y. We also suggest creating visualization maps incorporating the potential ES and the local in situ environmental and tree conditions at a community level to support decision making for a more comprehensive management plan. Based on the framework and method developed in this study, the science-based information can be used to assist maintenance practices and highlight the potential ES values to be enhanced by choosing proper pruning intensity for a more sustainable future.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuo Wei & Su-Ting Cheng, 2022. "Estimating Pruning-Caused Loss on Ecosystem Services of Air Pollution Removal and Runoff Avoidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6637-:d:826787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6637/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6637/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence H. Goulder & Andrew R. Schein, 2013. "Carbon Taxes Versus Cap And Trade: A Critical Review," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-28.
    2. Reed, James & van Vianen, Josh & Foli, Samson & Clendenning, Jessica & Yang, Kevin & MacDonald, Margaret & Petrokofsky, Gillian & Padoch, Christine & Sunderland, Terry, 2017. "Trees for life: The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production and livelihoods in the tropics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 62-71.
    3. Xueyan Wang & Jing Yao & Shuai Yu & Chunping Miao & Wei Chen & Xingyuan He, 2018. "Street Trees in a Chinese Forest City: Structure, Benefits and Costs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, 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. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    2. Rohan Best & Paul J. Burke, 2020. "Energy mix persistence and the effect of carbon pricing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 555-574, July.
    3. Ritter, Hendrik & Zimmermann, Karl, 2019. "Cap-and-Trade Policy vs. Carbon Taxation: Of Leakage and Linkage," EconStor Preprints 197796, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Julien Lefevre, 2018. "Modeling the Socioeconomic Impacts of the Adoption of a Carbon Pricing Instrument – Literature review," CIRED Working Papers hal-03128619, HAL.
    5. David M. Newbery & David M. Reiner & Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "When is a carbon price floor desirable?," Working Papers EPRG 1816, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    6. Cristian Mardones, 2021. "Analysis on complementarity between a CO2 tax and an emissions trading system to reduce industrial emissions in Chile," Energy & Environment, , vol. 32(5), pages 820-833, August.
    7. Jung, Suhyun & Hajjar, Reem, 2023. "The livelihood impacts of transnational aid for climate change mitigation: Evidence from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    8. Oleksandr Sushchenko & Reimund Schwarze, 2016. "Carbon taxation and market financial instruments for mobilizing climate finance," Discussion Paper Series RECAP15 23, RECAP15, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
    9. Mardones, Cristian & Flores, Belén, 2018. "Effectiveness of a CO2 tax on industrial emissions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 370-382.
    10. Ahammad, Ronju & Stacey, Natasha & Sunderland, Terry C.H., 2019. "Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 87-98.
    11. Guangxi Shen & Zipeng Song & Jiacong Xu & Lishuang Zou & Lijin Huang & Yingnan Li, 2023. "Are Ecosystem Services Provided by Street Trees at Parcel Level Worthy of Attention? A Case Study of a Campus in Zhenjiang, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-16, January.
    12. Figueroa, Daniela & Galeana-Pizaña, J. Mauricio & Núñez, Juan Manuel & Anzaldo Gómez, Carlos & Hernández-Castro, J. Roberto & Sánchez-Ramírez, María del Mar & Garduño, Andrea, 2021. "Assessing drivers and deterrents of deforestation in Mexico through a public policy tool. The adequacy of the index of economic pressure for deforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    13. Stefano Carattini & Suphi Sen, 2019. "Carbon Taxes and Stranded Assets: Evidence from Washington State," CESifo Working Paper Series 7785, CESifo.
    14. Branger, Frédéric & Quirion, Philippe, 2014. "Price versus Quantities versus Indexed Quantities," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 187277, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Sim, Seung-Gyu & Lin, Hsuan-Chih, 2018. "Competitive dominance of emission trading over Pigouvian taxation in a globalized economy," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 158-161.
    16. Milbank, Charlotte, 2023. "Associating dietary quality and forest cover in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    17. Anja Hansen & Jörn Budde & Yusuf Nadi Karatay & Annette Prochnow, 2016. "CUDe —Carbon Utilization Degree as an Indicator for Sustainable Biomass Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, October.
    18. Yongyang Cai & Khyati Malik & Hyeseon Shin, 2023. "Dynamics of Global Emission Permit Prices and Regional Social Cost of Carbon under Noncooperation," Papers 2312.15563, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    19. Wang, Nan & Akimoto, Keigo & Nemet, Gregory F., 2021. "What went wrong? Learning from three decades of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) pilot and demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    20. Hammerle, Mara & Best, Rohan & Crosby, Paul, 2021. "Public acceptance of carbon taxes in Australia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:11:p:6637-:d:826787. 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.