Value of Ecosystem Services
Attributes
Medium: Animals, Plants and/or Others
Country: Thailand
Analytical Framework(s): Economic Analysis
Study Date: 2010
Publication Date: 2014
Major Result(s)
| Resource/Environmental Good | THB, per ha per annum (2010) |
THB, per ha per annum (2014)1 |
USD, per ha per annum (2014)2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| timber value | 632,974.00 | 703,594.91 | 21,377.09 |
| sequestration value | 12,618.00 | 14,025.79 | 426.14 |
| O2 generation value | 108,518.00 | 120,625.35 | 3,664.92 |
| biodiversity value | 163,836.00 | 182,115.18 | 5,533.15 |
About the Inflation Adjustment: Prices in Thailand (THB) changed by 11.16% from 2010 to 2014 (aggregated from annual CPI data), so the study values were multiplied by 1.11 to express them in 2014 prices. The study values could be expressed in any desired year (for example, to 2026) by following the same inflation calculation and being sensitive to directional (forward/backward) aggregations using your own CPI/inflation data.
Study Note: The authors mentioned that intangible benefits are often taken for granted whereas the tangible ones are more appreciated. As with the case of Kho Hong Hill (KHH), people put more value on the tangible benefits, such as the financial gains from selling forest products, than on the intangible benefits provided by the forest. Thus, forests are cleared and converted into rubber plantations or agricultural lands without realizing that the losses would be far greater than the gains. These are some of the considerations that are often overlooked in the normal decision-making process.
Study Details
Summary: The study analyzed the economic benefits of managing a forest resource to help inform stakeholders of the most economically efficient management option for KHH. The study was done in three parts as follows: a) construction of three resource management strategies for KHH; b) selection of environmental variables and valuation of the ecosystem services from KHH; and c) cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the three management options. Six ecosystem services were selected as the environmental variables for this study: a) the provision of timber, b) carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration, c) oxygen (O2) generation, d) water supply, e) flood control, and f) biodiversity. Market valuation was used to estimate the values of provision of timber, CO2 sequestration, O2 generation, water supply, and flood control. The value transfer approach was used to determine the value of the service derived from KHH biodiversity. The study recommends that rubber farmers be encouraged to re-convert their rubber plantations into forest areas. Implementing a payment for ecosystem services (PES) mechanism is also encouraged to motivate rubber farmers to reforest. However, further studies are needed to establish an effective PES system for KHH. In the long term, plans should include defining the sustainable use of forest products, formulating public policy and regulations to guarantee sustainable use, determining and implementing a systematic monitoring strategy, and promoting the conservation of local species for the next generation.
Site Characteristics: KHH is located in Hat Yai District , Songkhla Province in southern Thailand. KHH is an evergreen forest with a combination of dry and moist forests that grow both deciduous and non-deciduous plants. Thus, organic matter grows throughout the year. Nutrient cycle and energy flow within the forest are high. As the forest is humid due to months of precipitation during the wet season, the growth and performance of the bacteria and microorganisms in the forest are enhanced such that dried leaves, branches, and other forest residues naturally decompose within a year. The nutrients are then recycled back into the soil and absorbed by the trees. The length of the ridge of KHH from north to south is 6.75 km, with its highest point measuring 371 m above sea level. Its total land area is approximately 1,212.42 ha. About 699.70 ha (57.71%) of KHH still remain as primary and secondary forests whereas 441.18 ha (36.40%) have already been converted into rubber plantations.
Comments: The authors noted that that the services evaluated in this study are only a part of the total ecosystem services provided by KHH. For example, services like tourism, prevention of soil erosion, soil fertility, pollination, and microclimate regulation are not accounted for. The authors said that these services are more difficult to evaluate because of their complex nature; evaluating them will require a longer research period, more rigorous examination, physical data, and a deeper understanding of the systems involved. They also mentioned that it would be worthwhile to further analyze the proposed management options.