IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aiea18/275658.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The economic value of fire damages in Tuscan agroforestry areas

Author

Listed:
  • Fagarazzi, C.
  • Fratini, R.
  • Montanino, M.
  • Riccioli, F.

Abstract

The Tuscan Region spends about 12 million euro every year in the prevention and suppression of forest fires. In this context, this study aims to verify the economic and environmental benefits derived from the activities of the prevention and suppression of fires. Starting from a case study of a real fire event in Tuscany, we have simulated three hypothetical scenarios (with different fire durations) without fire extinction activities planned. These hypothetical scenarios have been obtained using the open source software FARSITE, and georeferred data concerning meteorological data, territory and forest characteristics were used to run the three simulations. A monetary approach to the quantification of avoided damage thanks to fire extinction activities has been applied. Quantification of the economic avoided damage has been calculated through the estimation of the total economic value of forest destroyed by fire. Total economic value is represented by the value of economic and environmental benefits provided by the forest (ecosystem services). Total economic values of forest surfaces burned by real event and simulated fire have been calculated: the difference between these values represent the avoided damages (from an environmental point of view) thanks to fire extinction activities. The completely avoided damage was calculated in a second phase by considering the real estate values of buildings that the extinction activities had protected and safeguarded. The results achieved confirm how forest fire services and forest management are important from both economic and environmental points of view.

Suggested Citation

  • Fagarazzi, C. & Fratini, R. & Montanino, M. & Riccioli, F., 2018. "The economic value of fire damages in Tuscan agroforestry areas," 2018 Seventh AIEAA Conference, June 14-15, Conegliano, Italy 275658, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aiea18:275658
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.275658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/275658/files/Fagarazzi_Riccioli_Firesite_5_AIEAA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.275658?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fabio Boncinelli & Gabriele Pagnotta & Francesco Riccioli & Leonardo Casini, 2015. "The Determinants Of Quality Of Life In Rural Areas From A Geographic Perspective: The Case Of Tuscany," Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 104-117, July.
    2. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & González-Cabán, Armando & Paez, Catrina & Chavez, Edgar, 2010. "Spatial allocation of forest recreation value," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 113-126, April.
    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. Boncinelli, Fabio & Bartolini, Fabio & Casini, Leonardo, 2018. "Structural factors of labour allocation for farm diversification activities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 204-212.
    2. Kolstoe, Sonja H. & Kaminski, Abigail R. & Maher, Anna T., 2023. "Viewsheds and Recreation Demand: Approaches for Capturing Visual Qualities of the Landscape Post-Fire," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(2), September.
    3. František Petrovič & František Murgaš, 2021. "Description Relationship between Urban Space and Quality of Urban Life. A Geographical Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Jing Zhang & Bingbing Huang & Xinming Chen & Congmou Zhu & Muye Gan, 2022. "Multidimensional Evaluation of the Quality of Rural Life Using Big Data from the Perspective of Common Prosperity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Evgenia Anastasiou & Stella Manika & Konstantina Ragazou & Ioannis Katsios, 2021. "Territorial and Human Geography Challenges: How Can Smart Villages Support Rural Development and Population Inclusion?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Santos, Eleonora & Khan, Shahed, 2018. "The Impact of Foreign Participation in Outdoor Tourism Activities on Job Creation," EconStor Preprints 183581, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    7. Viccaro, Mauro & Romano, Severino & Prete, Carmelina & Cozzi, Mario, 2021. "Rural planning? An integrated dynamic model for assessing quality of life at a local scale," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    8. Brambert Patryk & Kiniorska Iwona, 2018. "Changes in the Standard of Living in Rural Population of Poland in the Period of the Eu Membership," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 263-279, June.
    9. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    10. Garnache, Cloe & Lupi, Frank, 2018. "The Thomas Fire and the Effect of Wildfires on the Value of Recreation Services in Southern California," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274028, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    12. Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Urška Demšar & Nick Hanley, 2018. "Using Geographically Weighted Choice Models to Account for the Spatial Heterogeneity of Preferences," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 606-626, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Schirpke, Uta & Meisch, Claude & Marsoner, Thomas & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2018. "Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 336-350.
    15. Sánchez, José J. & Baerenklau, Ken & González-Cabán, Armando, 2016. "Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a Kuhn–Tucker model of recreation demand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 63-70.
    16. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Anna Bartczak & Marek Giergiczny & Stale Navrud & Tomasz Żylicz, 2013. "Providing Preference-Based Support for Forest Ecosystem Service Management in Poland," Working Papers 2013-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. 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.
    18. Lorber, Connor & Dittrich, Ruth & Jones, Sharon & Junge, Alex, 2021. "Is hiking worth it? A contingent valuation case study of Multnomah Falls, Oregon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    19. Francesco Riccioli & Roberto Fratini & Claudio Fagarazzi & Mario Cozzi & Mauro Viccaro & Severino Romano & Duccio Rocchini & Salomon Espinosa Diaz & Clara Tattoni, 2020. "Mapping the Recreational Value of Coppices’ Management Systems in Tuscany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.
    20. Marina Vladimirovna Muravyova, 2018. "Socio-Economic and Demographic Motivators of the Life Quality of Rural Population in the Russian Federation," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 211-214:3.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aiea18:275658. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aieaaea.html .

    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.