AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (1.3 MB)
Collect
AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Research | Open Access

Integrating beneficiaries into assessment of ecosystem services from managed forests at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, USA

Jesse Caputo1( )Colin M. Beier1Valerie A. Luzadis1Peter M. Groffman2
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Department of Forest and Natural Resources Management, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook 12545, NY, USA
Show Author Information

Abstract

Background

Forests contribute to human wellbeing through the provision of important ecosystem services.

Methods

In this study,we investigated how the perceived importance of ecosystem services may impact the overall benefit provided by managed watersheds at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest over a 45-year period,using standardized measures of service capacity weighted by service importance weights derived from a survey of beneficiaries.

Results

The capacity of watersheds to regulate water flow and quality was high in all watersheds throughout the study period,whereas cultural services such as scenic beauty declined after harvest. Impacts on greenhouse gas regulation depended on the efficiency with which harvested biomass was used. Surveys revealed that stakeholders placed high value on all ecosystem services,with regulating and cultural services seen as more important than provisioning services. When service metrics were weighted by survey responses and aggregated into a single measure,total service provision followed the same overall trend as greenhouse gas regulation. Where biomass use was less efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions,harvesting resulted in an overall "ecosystem service debt"; where use was more efficient,this "ecosystem service debt" was reduced. Beneficiaries' educational backgrounds significantly affected overall assessment of service provision. Beneficiaries with college or university degrees incurred smaller "ecosystem service debts" and were less negatively affected by harvesting overall.

Conclusions

This study highlights the importance of including empirical measures of beneficiary preference when attempting to quantify overall provision of ecosystem services to human beneficiaries over time.

References

 

Asah ST, Blahna DJ, Ryan CM (2012) Involving forest communities in identifying and constructing ecosystem services: Millennium assessment and place specificity. J Forest 110(3):149-156

 
Babbie E (1990) Survey Research Methods, 2nd edn. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA, 395 p
 
Bailey AS, Hornbeck JW, Campbell JL, Eagar C (2003) Hydrometeorological database for Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest: 1955-2000. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-305. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p 36https://doi.org/10.2737/NE-GTR-305
 
Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Batker D, Harrison-Cox J, Voigt B, Johnson GW (2014). From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: Mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecol Soc 19(2)https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06523-190264
 

Beier CM, Caputo J, Groffman P (2015) Measuring ecosystem capacity to provide regulating services: forest removal and recovery at Hubbard Brook (USA). Ecol Appl 25(7):2011-2021

 

Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecological Letters 12(12):1394-1404

 
Birdsey RA (1992) Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. General Technical Report WO-59. U.S. For. Serv. Northeastern Exp. Stn., Radnor, PA. 51 p.https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.94267
 

Braat LC (2012) Ecosystem services-science, policy and practice: Introduction to the journal and the inaugural issue. Ecosystem Services 1(1):1-3

 

Buchholz T, Rametsteiner E, Volk TA, Luzadis VA (2009) Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy 37(2):484-495

 
Butler BJ (2008) Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA
 

Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America's family forest owners. J For 102(7):4-14

 
Campbell JL, Driscoll CT, Eagar C, Likens GE, Siccama TG, Johnson CE, Fahey TJ, Hamburg SP, Holmes RT, Bailey AS, Buso DC (2007) Long-term trends from ecosystem research at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-17. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p 41https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-17
 

Caputo J, Beier CM, Groffman PM, Burns DA, Beall FD, Hazlett PW, Yorks TE (2016) Effects of harvesting forest biomass on water and climate regulation services: a synthesis of long-term ecosystem experiments in eastern North America. Ecosystems 19(2):271-283

 

Díaz S, Quétier F, Cáceres DM, Trainor SF, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Bret-Harte MS, Finegan B, Peña-Claros M, Poorter L (2011) Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature's benefits to society. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(3):895-902

 
Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, 464 p
 

Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 41(3):375-392

 
Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science 319(5867): 1235-1238https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152747
 

García-Llorente M, Martín-Lopéz B, Díaz S, Montes C (2011) Can ecosystem properties be fully translated into service values? An economic valuation of aquatic plant services. Ecol Appl 21(8):3083-3103

 

García-Nieto AP, Quintas-Soriano C, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martín-Lopéz B (2015) Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders׳ profiles. Ecosystem Services 13:141-152

 

Gould RK, Ardoin NM, Woodside U, Satterfield T, Hannahs N, Daily GC (2014) The forest has a story: cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai'i. Ecol Soc 19(3):55

 
Hoffman RE, Palmer JF (1996) Silviculture and forest aesthetics within stands. Publ. No. 2. SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. 31 p.
 

Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50(3):346-363

 
Kari S, Korhonen-Kurki K (2013) Framing local outcomes of biodiversity conservation through ecosystem services: A case study from Ranomafana, Madagascar. Ecosyst Serv 3: e32-e39https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.003
 

Kaye-Zwiebel E, King E (2014) Kenyan pastoralist societies in transition: varying perceptions of the value of ecosystemservices. Ecol Soc 19(3):17

 
Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2014) lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version2.0-6. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
 

Lattimore B, Smith CT, Titus B, Stupak I, Egnell G (2013) Woodfuel Harvesting: A Review of Environmental Risks, Criteria and Indicators, and Certification Standards for Environmental Sustainability. J Sustain For 32(1-2):58-88

 

Lippke B, Gustafson R, Venditti R, Volk T, Oneil E, Johnson L, Puettmann M, Steele P (2011a) Sustainable biofuel contributions to carbon mitigation and energy independence. Forests 2:861-874

 

Lippke B, Oneil E, Harrison R, Skog K, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2011b) Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: Knowns and unknowns. Carbon Manag 2(3):303-333

 

Lippke B, Puettmann ME, Johnson L, Gustafson R, Venditti R, Steele P, Katers JF, Taylor A, Volk TA, Oneil E, Skog K, Budsberg E, Daystar J, Caputo J (2012) Carbon emission reduction impacts from alternative biofuels. Forest Product J 62(4):296-304

 
López-Hoffman L, Wiederholt R, Sansone C, Bagstad KJ, Cryan P, Diffendorfer JE, Goldstein J, LaSharr K, Loomis J, McCracken G, Medellín RA, Russell A, Semmens D (2014) Market forces and technological substitutes cause fluctuations in the value of bat pest- control services for cotton. PLoS ONE 9(2)https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087912
 

Manfreda KL, Bosnjak M, Berzelak J, Haas I, Vehovar V (2008) Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. Intl J Market Res 50(1):79-104

 
Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos-Martín F, Onaindia M, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7(6)https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
 
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C
 

Mika AM, Keeton WS (2013) Factors contributing to carbon fluxes from bioenergy harvests in the U.S. Northeast: An analysis using field data. GCB Bioenergy 5(3):290-305

 

Molnar JL, Kubiszewski I (2012) Managing natural wealth: research and implementation of ecosystem services in the United States and Canada. Ecosyst Serv 2:45-55

 

Muhamad D, Okubo S, Harashina K, Parikesit GB, Takeuchi K (2014) Living close to forests enhances people's perception of ecosystem services in a forest-agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosyst Serv 8:197-206

 

Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219-1227

 

Perez-Garcia J, Lippke B, Briggs D, Wilson J, Bowyer J, Meil J (2005) The environmental performance of renewable building materials in the context of residential construction. Wood Fiber Sci 37(special issue: December 2005):3-17

 

Peterson MJ, Hall DM, Feldpausch-Parker AM, Peterson TR (2010) Obscuring ecosystem function with application of the ecosystem services concept. Conserv Biol 24(1):113-119

 
R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.0.2 -'Frisbee Sailing'. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/.
 

Reed MS, Hubacek K, Bonn A, Burt TP, Holden J, Stringer LC, Beharry-Borg N, Buckmaster S, Chapman D, Chapman PJ, Clay GD, Cornell SJ, Dougill AJ, Evely AC, Fraser EDG, Jin N, Irvine BJ, Kirkby MJ, Kunin WE, Prell C, Quinn CH, Slee B, Stagl S, Termansen M, Thorp S, Worrall F (2013) Anticipating and managing future trade-offs and complementarities between ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 18(1):5

 

Renard D, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM (2015) Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(43):13411-13416

 

Ribe RG (2009) In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: the effects of basal area, retention pattern, and down wood. J Environ Manag 91(1):245-260

 
Schabenberger O, Pierce FJ (2002) Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Sciences. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 738https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420040197
 

Schwenk WS, Donovan TM, Keeton WS, Nunery JS (2012) Carbon storage, timber production, and biodiversity: Comparing ecosystem services with multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecol Appl 22(5):1612-1627

 

Sexton NR, Miller HM, Dietsch AM (2011) Appropriate uses and considerations for online surveying in human dimensions research. Hum Dimens Wildl 16(3):154-163

 
Smail RA, Lewis DJ (2009) Forest-land conversion, ecosystem services, and economic issues for policy: a review. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-797. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. p 40https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-797
 
SurveyMonke (2014) http://www.surveymonkey.com. Accessed 13 Jan 2014
 
TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London, p 410
 
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed 17 Mar 2014
 
U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P30, P32, P33, P43, P46, P49, P50, P51, P52, P53, P58, P62, P63, P64, P65, P67, P71, P72, P73, P74, P76, P77, P82, P87, P90, PCT47, PCT52, and PCT53 http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed 17 Mar 2014
 
U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html#. Accessed 17 Mar 2014
 

Vihervaara P, Marjokorpi A, Kumpula T, Walls M, Kamppinen M (2012) Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: a case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay. Forest Policy Econ 14(1):58-68

 

Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Compl 15:114-121

 

Walker T, Cardellichio P, Gunn JS, Saah DS, Hagan JM (2013) Carbon accounting for woody biomass from Massachusetts (USA) managed forests: a framework for determining the temporal impacts of wood biomass energy on atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. J Sustain Forest 32(1-2):130-158

Forest Ecosystems
Article number: 13
Cite this article:
Caputo J, Beier CM, Luzadis VA, et al. Integrating beneficiaries into assessment of ecosystem services from managed forests at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, USA. Forest Ecosystems, 2016, 3(4): 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016-0072-9

467

Views

3

Downloads

5

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

5

Scopus

1

CSCD

Altmetrics

Received: 12 January 2016
Accepted: 17 May 2016
Published: 24 May 2016
© 2016 The Author(s).

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Return