Trade-offs between ecosystem services: Water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot

Trade-offs between ecosystem services: Water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot
复制标题

DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.013
复制
发表时间:
2010-08-15
影响因子:
7
通讯作者:
Chisholm, Ryan A.
Chisholm, Ryan A.
中科院分区:
经济学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Chisholm, Ryan A.

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

植树造林的碳固存有助于减缓全球气候变化,但在某些地区可能产生不利的环境和经济影响。例如,对碳封存的经济奖励可能会鼓励在南非的Fynbos生物群落中扩大辐射松人工林,对供水和生物多样性产生负面影响。我建立了一个动态生态经济模型,以调查在碳封存和木材生产的潜在收益与供水损失相平衡的情况下,在芬博斯流域种植辐射松在经济上是否可行。我发现,在目前的水费和碳核算立法下,造林对林业来说似乎是可行的,但如果林业要支付人工林用水的真实成本,造林就显得不可行了。我还发现,在各种可能的未来经济情景下。植树造林可能与未来巨大的经济收益或损失有关,这表明未来需要根据处理严重不确定性的决策理论分支进行分析。最后,我提出了一项一般性建议,即气候立法应明确规定,在何种条件下,为固碳而植树造林是一项合法的减缓气候变化战略。(C) 2010 Elsevier B.V.版权所有
Carbon sequestration by afforestation can help mitigate global climate change but may have adverse environmental and economic impacts in some regions. For example, economic incentives for carbon sequestration may encourage the expansion of Pinus radiata timber plantations in the Fynbos biome of South Africa, with negative consequences for water supply and biodiversity. I built a dynamic ecological-economic model to investigate whether afforestation of a Fynbos catchment with Pinus radiata is economically viable when the potential benefits of carbon sequestration and timber production are balanced against the losses to water supply. I found that afforestation appears viable to the forestry industry under current water tariffs and current carbon accounting legislation, but would appear unviable if the forestry industry were to pay the true cost of water used by the plantations. I also found that under various plausible future economic scenarios. afforestation can be associated with either large future economic gains or losses, suggesting a need for future analyses based on branches of decision theory that deal with severe uncertainty. I conclude with a general recommendation that climate legislation should be explicit about the conditions under which afforestation for carbon sequestration of native vegetation is a legitimate climate mitigation strategy. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.