IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v14y2012i5p691-724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System

Author

Listed:
  • Elliott Campbell
  • Mark Brown

Abstract

The National Forests of the United States encompass 192.7 million acres (78 million hectares) of land, which is nearly five percent of the total land area of the nation. These lands are managed by the US Forest Service (USFS) for multiple uses, including extraction of timber, production of fossil fuels and minerals, public recreation, and the preservation of biodiversity, clean air, water, and soils. The USFS is interested in valuing the natural capital within, and the ecosystem services provided by, their lands. This is in part to justify expenditures in a time of limited resources. We used emergy and an environmental accounting approach, to quantify the ecosystem services, the exported environmental goods and information provided by National Forest System (NFS) lands, and the natural capital residing on those lands. Environmental accounting using emergy provides a method to value these flows of services and storages of capital using a common biophysical unit, the solar emjoule and its monetary equivalent the emdollar. We compare emdollar values to economic values gleaned from the literature. In 2005, the ecosystem services provided by USFS lands were equivalent to 197 billion emdollars, and the value of NFS natural capital was 24.3 trillion emdollars. Our evaluation suggests that the Federal Government budget allocation for the NFS ($5.55E+09 in 2005) was well spent, protecting 24.3 trillion emdollars in natural capital and insuring annual ecosystem services totaling 197 billion emdollars. Monetary values for some natural capital and ecosystem services are similar to emergy-derived values (resources like fish, wildlife, water, and firewood extracted from forests), and others are widely different (biodiversity, fossil, and mineral resources). There is large uncertainty associated with computing the environment’s contributions to society whether using emergy or accepted economic techniques; yet, the magnitude of these emergy-derived estimates suggests that even with the uncertainty, the values are significant and monetary expenditures for the Forest Service are justified. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Elliott Campbell & Mark Brown, 2012. "Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 691-724, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:14:y:2012:i:5:p:691-724
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-012-9348-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10668-012-9348-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-012-9348-6?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. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "The Economic Value of Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 169-187, October.
    2. Brown, Mark T. & Martínez, Amaya & Uche, Javier, 2010. "Emergy analysis applied to the estimation of the recovery of costs for water services under the European Water Framework Directive," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(17), pages 2123-2132.
    3. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    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. Almeida, C.M.V.B. & Mariano, M.V. & Agostinho, F. & Liu, G.Y. & Yang, Z.F. & Coscieme, L. & Giannetti, B.F., 2018. "Comparing costs and supply of supporting and regulating services provided by urban parks at different spatial scales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 236-247.
    2. Dahal, Ram P. & Grala, Robert K. & Gordon, Jason S. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Munn, Ian A., 2018. "Estimating the willingness to pay to preserve waterfront open spaces using contingent valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 614-626.
    3. Campbell, Elliott T., 2015. "Emergy analysis of emerging methods of fossil fuel production," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 57-68.
    4. Agostinho, F. & Oliveira, M.W. & Pulselli, F.M. & Almeida, C.M.V.B. & Giannetti, B.F., 2019. "Emergy accounting as a support for a strategic planning towards a regional sustainable milk production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. Mellino, Salvatore & Ripa, Maddalena & Zucaro, Amalia & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2014. "An emergy–GIS approach to the evaluation of renewable resource flows: A case study of Campania Region, Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 103-112.
    6. Paoli, C. & Povero, P. & Burgos, E. & Dapueto, G. & Fanciulli, G. & Massa, F. & Scarpellini, P. & Vassallo, P., 2018. "Natural capital and environmental flows assessment in marine protected areas: The case study of Liguria region (NW Mediterranean Sea)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 121-135.
    7. Ana Carolina V. Nadalini & Ricardo de Araujo Kalid & Ednildo Andrade Torres, 2021. "Emergy as a Tool to Evaluate Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-14, June.
    8. Paolo Vassallo & Claudia Turcato & Ilaria Rigo & Claudia Scopesi & Andrea Costa & Matteo Barcella & Giulia Dapueto & Mauro Mariotti & Chiara Paoli, 2021. "Biophysical Accounting of Forests’ Value under Different Management Regimes: Conservation vs. Exploitation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Dong, X.B. & Yu, B.H. & Brown, M.T. & Zhang, Y.S. & Kang, M.Y. & Jin, Y. & Zhang, X.S. & Ulgiati, S., 2014. "Environmental and economic consequences of the overexploitation of natural capital and ecosystem services in Xilinguole League, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 767-780.
    10. Yang, Qing & Liu, Gengyuan & Casazza, Marco & Campbell, Elliot T. & Giannetti, Biagio F. & Brown, Mark T., 2018. "Development of a new framework for non-monetary accounting on ecosystem services valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 37-54.
    11. De La Fuente, G. & Asnaghi, V. & Chiantore, M. & Thrush, S. & Povero, P. & Vassallo, P. & Petrillo, M. & Paoli, C., 2019. "The effect of Cystoseira canopy on the value of midlittoral habitats in NW Mediterranean, an emergy assessment," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 404(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Comte, Adrien & Sylvie Campagne, C. & Lange, Sabine & Bruzón, Adrián García & Hein, Lars & Santos-Martín, Fernando & Levrel, Harold, 2022. "Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    13. Grover, Isobella & O'Reilly-Wapstra, Julianne & Suitor, Shaun & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2023. "Not seeing the accounts for the forest: A systematic literature review of ecosystem accounting for forest resource management purposes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    14. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    15. Campbell, Elliott T. & Tilley, David R., 2016. "Relationships between renewable emergy storage or flow and biodiversity: A modeling investigation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 340(C), pages 134-148.
    16. Lee, Dong Joo & Brown, Mark T., 2021. "Estimating the Value of Global Ecosystem Structure and Productivity: A Geographic Information System and Emergy Based Approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 439(C).
    17. Berrios, Fernando & Campbell, Daniel E. & Ortiz, Marco, 2017. "Emergy evaluation of benthic ecosystems influenced by upwelling in northern Chile: Contributions of the ecosystems to the regional economy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 359(C), pages 146-164.
    18. Lulu Qu & Xueyi Shi & Chang Liu & Ye Yuan, 2017. "An Emergy-Based Hybrid Method for Assessing Sustainability of the Resource-Dependent Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, January.
    19. Zijia Zhong & Lei Zhu & Stanley Young, 2020. "Approximation Framework of Embodied Energy of Safety: Insights and Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
    20. Xinwei Guo & Bin Yu & Meiyan Yan & Hui Guo & Junhu Ren & Hanxia Zhang & Zonggang Zhang, 2022. "Endogenous Development Models and Paths Selection of Rural Revitalization from the Perspective of Ecological Environment Advantages: A Case Study of Nanshi Village, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-24, September.
    21. Franzese, Pier Paolo & Buonocore, Elvira & Donnarumma, Luigia & Russo, Giovanni F., 2017. "Natural capital accounting in marine protected areas: The case of the Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano (Central Italy)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 290-299.
    22. Grönlund, Erik & Fröling, Morgan & Carlman, Inga, 2015. "Donor values in emergy assessment of ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 306(C), pages 101-105.
    23. Lu, Hongfang & Campbell, Elliott T. & Campbell, Daniel E. & Wang, Changwei & Ren, Hai, 2017. "Dynamics of ecosystem services provided by subtropical forests in Southeast China during succession as measured by donor and receiver value," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 248-258.
    24. Yu, Xiaoman & Geng, Yong & Dong, Huijuan & Ulgiati, Sergio & Liu, Zhe & Liu, Zuoxi & Ma, Zhixiao & Tian, Xu & Sun, Lu, 2016. "Sustainability assessment of one industrial region: A combined method of emergy analysis and IPAT (Human Impact Population Affluence Technology)," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 818-830.
    25. Jing Ning & Jianjun Jin & Foyuan Kuang & Xinyu Wan & Chenyang Zhang & Tong Guan, 2019. "The Valuation of Grassland Ecosystem Services in Inner Mongolia of China and Its Spatial Differences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-14, December.

    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. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2010. "Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef," Research Reports 107583, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    2. Wesley R. Brooks & Stephen C. Newbold, 2013. "Ecosystem damages in integrated assessment models of climate change," NCEE Working Paper Series 201302, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Mar 2013.
    3. Loomis, John B. & Mueller, Julie M., 2013. "A Spatial Probit Modeling Approach to Account for Spatial Spillover Effects in Dicotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(1), pages 1-11, February.
    4. Horváthová, Eva, 2010. "Does environmental performance affect financial performance? A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 52-59, November.
    5. Lewis, David J. & Kling, David M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Lew, Daniel K., 2022. "Estimating the value of threatened species abundance dynamics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    6. Kim, Ju-Yeon & Mjelde, James W. & Kim, Tae-Kyun & Lee, Choong-Ki & Ahn, Kyung-Mo, 2012. "Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents when correcting hypothetical bias: Case of endangered spotted seal in South Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 123-131.
    7. Rennels, Lisa & Rennert, Kevin & Errickson, Frank & Anthoff, David & Wingenroth, Jordan & Prest, Brian C., 2024. "Accounting for Biodiversity Loss Raises the Social Cost of CO2," RFF Working Paper Series 24-23, Resources for the Future.
    8. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2017. "Nutrient Pollution: A Wicked Challenge for Economic Instruments," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 1-39, April.
    9. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    10. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2010. "Assessing community values for reducing agricultural emissions to improve water quality and protect coral health in the Great Barrier Reef," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1084, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    11. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    12. Christopher Ambrey & Christopher Fleming, 2014. "Valuing Ecosystem Diversity in South East Queensland: A Life Satisfaction Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 45-65, January.
    13. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
    14. Hanley, Nick & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley-Nickolls, Rose & Redpath, Steve, 2010. "Economic values of species management options in human-wildlife conflicts: Hen Harriers in Scotland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 107-113, November.
    15. Leslie Richardson & Lynne Lewis, 2022. "Getting to know you: individual animals, wildlife webcams, and willingness to pay for brown bear preservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 673-692, March.
    16. Arbault, Damien & Rugani, Benedetto & Tiruta-Barna, Ligia & Benetto, Enrico, 2014. "A first global and spatially explicit emergy database of rivers and streams based on high-resolution GIS-maps," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 281(C), pages 52-64.
    17. Weber, Matthew A. & Meixner, Thomas & Stromberg, Juliet C., 2016. "Valuing instream-related services of wastewater," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 59-71.
    18. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    19. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.

    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:spr:endesu:v:14:y:2012:i:5:p:691-724. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.