- Email: [email protected]
What are the benefits of strictly protected nature reserves? Rapid assessment of ecosystem service values in Wanglang Nature Reserve, China
Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser
What are the benefits of strictly protected nature reserves? Rapid assessment of ecosystem service values in Wanglang Nature Reserve, China Peng Liu a, Shiwei Jiang b, Lianjun Zhao b, Yunxi Li b, Pingping Zhang c, Li Zhang a,⇑ a b c
Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China Wanglang National Nature Reserve, Pingwu County, Sichuan Province 622550, China College of Economics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300371, China
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 February 2017 Received in revised form 2 May 2017 Accepted 26 May 2017
Keywords: Beneficiaries Conservation Ecosystem services Nature reserve Natural Forest Protection Project TESSA
a b s t r a c t Despite broad recognition that nature reserves protect local biodiversity and rare species effectively, the wider benefits and costs provided by this conservation approach relative to alternative approaches are not well understood. This study addressed this research gap by quantifying differences in ecosystem services provision of two alternative conservation management approaches in a strictly protected nature reserve in China based on (1) existing strict regulations versus (2) extrapolation of those in an adjacent Natural Forest Protection Project (NFPP) allowing the use of natural resources by local communities. Using a new Toolkit for Ecosystem Services Site-based Assessment (TESSA), we demonstrated the nature reserve provides more valuable ecosystem services than it would have done if managed like the adjacent NFPP. In comparison, the nature reserve provides greater benefits in terms of carbon stock, carbon sequestration, and recreation, at the national and global scale. The monetary benefits of the nature reserve could cover all conservation management costs, making it a more worthwhile approach for conservation and beneficiaries. Thus, our study highlights the importance of strictly protected nature reserves in China, demonstrating the importance of balancing conservation and development to governmental managers and local residents, and could be used to guide eco-compensation for local beneficiaries. Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction China contains several nature reserves designed to conserve rare wildlife, like the giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca and the golden snub-nosed monkey Rhinopithecus roxellanae (Zhang, 2015), which act as umbrella species, protecting many other endangered plant and wildlife. These reserves are strictly regulated, with only a few economic activities being permitted outside their buffer zones. National and local governments invest much labor and money every year to ensure strict conservation measures are maintained. As a result, local residents complain because certain traditional livelihoods are forbidden in nature reserves. However, many of the benefits of this approach are not monetary, making quantification complicated. Thus, it is difficult to demonstrate how much one benefits from nature reserves and whether ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Liu), [email protected] (S. Jiang), [email protected] (L. Zhao), [email protected] (Y. Li), [email protected] (P. Zhang), [email protected] (L. Zhang). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.014 2212-0416/Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
the benefits actually cover the costs (Turner et al., 2003). Few assessments were made before the value of different ecosystem services was defined (Costanza et al., 1997, 2010). Ecosystem services are the benefits that people derive from functioning ecosystems, ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to human wellbeing (Costanza et al., 1997, 2010). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment delineated four types of ecosystem services; namely, provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services (MA, 2005). Bringing ecosystem services into the real world allows us to determine their benefits and costs in different environments. This information allows us to make trade-offs between development and conservation, as well as develop better policies and plans to manage them (Balmford et al., 2011; Kremen and Ostfeld, 2005). In China, ecosystem services are a new concept, with many studies on this subject being preliminary, focusing on static ecosystems (Bao et al., 2007; Xie et al., 2003). However, by applying the results of these studies to policy development, scientists realized that this approach does not aim to put a price tag on the total or particular
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
ecosystem services, rather, it asks how changes to the quantity or quality of various types of ecosystem services might impact on human welfare (Bao et al., 2007; Costanza et al., 1997). Several methods are currently used to estimate or measure ecosystem services, such as InVEST (Nelson et al., 2009), benefit transfer (Kubiszewski et al., 2013), ARIES (Bagstad et al., 2013), ESR (Hanson et al., 2012). Differences exist in the performance of these methods, with certain methods being more appropriate in distinct geographical or decision-making contexts. A toolkit for an ecosystem service sited based assessment (TESSA) was developed in 2013, which considers the changes in ecosystem service values for different scenarios at a high resolution. This toolkit does not require substantial resources or existing data, but is relatively low cost and requires low effort (Peh et al., 2013). Several assessments have been conducted in different landscapes and scenarios using this method (Birch et al., 2014; Blaen et al., 2015; Peh et al., 2014a, 2014b), demonstrating changes in values, with the assimilated information being fed into governmental decisionmaking processes effectively. The assessment of ecosystem service values helps identify the priorities of ecological conservation in heterogeneous regions, as well as providing information on the distribution of benefits from different types of ecosystem services. In fact, resolving benefit disputes represents a major challenge for ecological conservation. Possible mediation strategies have been sought in China after the implementation of the National Forest Protection Project in 1998 and the Grain to Green program in 1999 (Cai et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2005). This study aimed to quantify the benefits of the ecosystem services provided by two different types of conservation practices in China; specifically, a strictly regulated nature reserve (Wanglang National Nature Reserve) versus a protected area in which human use of resources is permitted (Natural Forest Protection Project area). We completed a preliminary appraisal of the two sites at a workshop of local managers to understand the relevant services, pressures and contexts, assessments, and comparison of the ecosystem services provided by the two sites. In addition, we determined the affected stakeholders (beneficiaries) due to state conversion. Our results are expected to provide useful information for policy makers on the planning of nature reserves, persuasive publicity materials to local stakeholders on ecosystem services, and feasible approaches to resolve the distribution of benefits.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area Wanglang National Nature Reserve (WL) was founded in 1965, and is listed as one of earliest founded giant panda nature reserves in China. WL is located in the north of Sichuan Province and is situated on the southeast part of the Tibet Plateau (Fig. 1). The whole reserve covers 32,297 ha. The elevation of WL is 2300–4980 m, and it is surrounded by mountains. It has an average temperature of 2.9 °C. As well as the giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca, many endangered animals are protected within WL, including the golden snubnosed monkey Rhinopithecus roxellanae, the snow leopard Panthera uncia, and the takin Budorcas taxicolor. Dark conifer forest composed of the fir Abies faxoniana and the spruce Picea purpurea are also protected within the reserve. There are no local residents inside the reserve; however, the area outside the reserve supports the Baima people, who have lived in this region for centuries, grazing livestock, hunting animals and collecting natural resources. Since its establishment, the WL has been subject to strict protection by the local government. Hunting, logging, and collection
71
are forbidden, while only some grazing is allowed, which supports the residents living outside the reserve. Nature-based tourism was started in the experiment zone after 2014. The tour route was controlled to allow access to just three scenic spots to prevent the human disturbance. An alternative state was hypothesized for WL based on an actual site, Huangtuliang (HTL), which is adjacent to WL. HTL covers 13,855 ha and has similar geographic conditions. Compared with the status ‘‘strict conservation without exploitation” in WL, HTL is under the status of ‘‘general conservation after exploitation.” Before HTL was protected, it was managed by a local logging company and was subject to intense deforestation before 1998. After the Natural Forest Protection Project was implemented, HTL was protected and restored. HTL is subject to weaker conservation than the nature reserve (WL), with some human activities still occurring. The Baima people herd cattle and horses, collect fuelwood and some edible wildlife from this region. Furthermore, no tourism has been developed in HTL. As an actual reference site, the value of ecosystem services provided by HTL could be transferred proportionally to that provided by WL in an alternative state. 2.2. Assessing ecosystem services 2.2.1. Preliminary appraisal Before the field assessment, a small workshop was conducted with local experts and managers from WL and HTL to learn about the policy and environmental context of the two sites. The participants came from the Management Bureau of WL National Reserve (4 persons), the Forestry Development Corporation of Pingwu County (4 persons), the Forestry Bureau of Pingwu County (2 persons). Ten participants all have worked in this region for more than 10 years so that they were very familiar with the environmental and political context of WL and HTL. Detailed information was presented in Supporting information Table S1. All participants were asked to discuss and describe the policy and habitat status of HTL, consider the possible activities and threats affecting the habitats and biodiversity if WL was converted to an alternative state (i.e., reflecting HTL), and grade the various activities and threats with respect to time, space, and strength scales (i.e., low, medium, and high). We introduced the concept of ecosystem services to participants; namely, 18 specific services from 5 service categories (global climate regulation, water-related services, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods, and nature-based creation). We then invited the participants to predict and evaluate the importance of each service in both the current and alternative state for WL, scoring from 0 to 5 (5 = the most important). Based on this preliminary appraisal, the field assessment and interviews were structured based on the local contexts and differences in the importance of services and disturbances. 2.2.2. Village interview Based on the description from the workshop, local human disturbance mostly originated from a single Baima village, including grazing, cutting fuelwood, and collecting plants and medicine in HTL, but only grazing in WL. The village contained 113 families, and we conducted interviews with 43 families in January and May, 2016. The interviewed families were chosen at random unless the interviewee was too elder or too less-educated to answer our questions (young generations maybe go out for herding, collecting or other works). Data were collected using questionnaires (see Supporting information S2) on grazing, fuelwood, and collection activity. 2.2.3. Global climate regulation A land use/land cover map of WL from the 300 m MERIS sensor on board the ENVISAT satellite mission was derived from the
72
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Fig. 1. Study area for the assessment of ecosystem services values. Wanglang is a national nature reserve with strictly regulated conservation. Huangtuliang is protected under the Natural Forest Protection Project with human use being permitted.
European Space Agency GlobCover Portal (http://due.esrin.esa. int/page_globcover.php). The area of each habitat in WL under the current and alternative states was calculated using ArcGIS 10.2, following the suggestion of the workshop participants. A soil map was extracted from The Soil and Terrain database for China primary data (version 1.0), at a scale of 1:1 million (http://www.isric.org/data/soil-and-terrain-database-china). Carbon (C) stocks in above- and below-ground biomass, litter and dead wood, and mineral soil were calculated using the published literature for each habitat type (Anderson-Teixeira and DeLucia, 2011; IPCC, 2006). Carbon sequestration was calculated from above-ground net biomass growth in natural forests (Penman et al., 2003), but did not account for C sequestration on grassland and scrub because of a lack of data. The loss of vegetation C stock due to fuelwood under the alternative state was derived from HTL based on the village interviews. We calculated the annual loss in C biomass of the removal of fuelwood (LFUELWOOD) in tons C/yr, using the following formula: LFUELWOOD = FG * BCEFR * CF. FG was the annual removal of fuelwood and charcoal expressed in m3/yr. BCEFR was the default value of biomass conversion and the expansion factor for the conversion of removal in merchantable volume to total biomass removal expressed in tons (m3 of biomass removal)-1. CF was the default value of the carbon fraction of dry matter expressed in tons C (tons d.m.) 1 (IPCC, 2006). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated by estimating methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from grazing livestock. Based on the village interviews, we defined the species and number of domestic animals, from which we selected the appropriate emission factor (in kg CH4/head/yr) for each species (IPCC, 2006). We calculated methane emissions from each species
(T) of animal using the following equation: Emissions = EF(T) N (T)/1,000, where: Emissions = methane emissions, t CH4/yr, EF(T) = emission factor for the defined animal population, kg CH4/head/yr, N(T) = the number of animals of species T at the site. Direct and indirect nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions were calculated using a similar method, including direct N2O emissions from urine and dung inputs to grazed soils, the amount of N2O produced from the atmospheric deposition of N volatilized from managed soils, and the amount of N2O produced from the leaching and runoff of N additions to managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs. By converting the influence of climate on all 3 greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)) to CO2 equivalents, the net greenhouse gas flux of the site was calculated. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) is a measure by comparing the fluxes of various greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential (GWP). The GWP100 of methane is 25, the GWP100 of nitrous oxide is 298, and the GWP100 of carbon dioxide is 1. The total monetary value of net carbon sequestration was based on the carbon price, US$5/t CO2 eq, which was delineated by the Emission Trading Scheme of the European Union (EU) in 2016 (Word Bank Group, 2016). 2.2.4. Water-related services WL and HTL are in the watershed of the Huoxi River, which runs for 114 km, before joining the Fujiang River. Combining information from participants at the workshop with field surveys, few residents use this water source directly; however, 1 hydropower plant is operational downstream of WL and HTL, belonging to Sichuanhuaneng Fujiang Hydropower Co., Ltd. We used two models, ‘‘Co $ting Nature” (costingnature v.2 [0.50] [non-commercial use],
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
http://www.policysupport.org/costingnature) and ‘‘Waterworld” (Waterworld version 2 [non-commercial use]. http://www.policysupport.org/waterworld), to scale certain indexes for the waterrelated service. When considering the indexes for different water-related services, we decided to not use less important or less changing services; rather, we assessed the more important services. Hydro power data included the water-collecting area of the plant, water flow through the plant, and the power generating capacity per cubic meter of water. This information was provided by Sichuanhuaneng Fujiang Hydropower Co., Ltd. 2.2.5. Grazing and harvested wild goods A detailed questionnaire survey was conducted on grazing in the village interviews. We collected data about the species and number of livestock grazing in WL and HTL (partial data in WL was provided by Dr. Li, B. Duke University, Philadelphia, USA), the weight and price of livestock at sale, the number of years of grazing before selling, etc. We used this information to estimate the value of grazing under the current and alternative states for WL. Harvested wild goods included the collection of fuelwood, edible wild food, and medicine (like fungi, plants, animals). A similar questionnaire survey was conducted as for grazing. The species, amount, and price of wild goods was recorded by multiplying the mean values from the individual questionnaires by the total number of households in the area. With respect to the value of fuelwood, a shadow price method was implemented to substitute electricity for fuelwood. 2.2.6. Nature-based recreation A questionnaire survey for tourists was conducted in WL, with 201 visitors from different families being interviewed in May, 2016. The questionnaire investigated the financial expenditure in WL per visit, their origin, the reason for visiting WL, and the willingness to travel to WL if it was operated under the alternative state (interviewer described the alternative scenario to every interviewee). Because the tourism project was only initiated in 2014, the total number of visits in 2015 and 2016 only were provided by the local department of tourism management. Based on these data, we estimated the value of tourism in both current and alternative state.
73
and grassland. After 1998, 80% of the logged area would have been restored under the natural forest protection project, and restored to secondary forest, but with only 25% of the growing stock of the natural forest. The top 5 activities that would incur the greatest change under the alternative state include: conservation action, logging/wood harvesting, hunting and trapping, gathering terrestrial plants, and grazing. Based on the importance scores obtained for the specific services, we charted the importance of the 5 service categories in both the current and alternative state (Fig. 2). The alternative state would provide more cultivated goods and harvested wild goods, but less global climate regulation, water-related services, and nature-based recreation. 3.2. Global climate change mitigation The land use and land cover were estimated for the current and alternative states (Table 1). The habitat under the current state was dominated by natural forest, whereas the habitat under the alternative state was also dominated by secondary forest. Grassland and scrub cover slightly increased due to hypothesized deforestation under the alternative state. Bare areas and permanent snow and ice remained unchanged. The above-ground carbon stocks were estimated to be 1,130,000 and 643,000 tons C for the current and alternative states, respectively (Fig. 3). Similarly, the underground carbon stocks were estimated to be 500,000 and 420,000 tons C, respectively. The litter and dead wood C stocks were estimated to be 1,093,000 and 927,000 tons C, respectively. Soil carbon stocks were similar under both states because we did not assess difference in soil type. Overall, the current state provided 730,000 tons more carbon stock than the alternative state. More net GHG sequestration was provided by the current state (Fig. 4). The alternative state produced more GHG emissions by livestock and the loss of vegetation C stock due to disturbance. As a result, net GHG sequestration under the current state was 88,965 tons CO2 eq/yr, whereas it was 58,759 tons CO2 eq/yr under the alternative state. Based on the carbon price, GHG sequestration was estimated to represent US $533,792 and US $352,555, respectively. 3.3. Water-related services
2.2.7. Conservation and management costs Data on the conservation and management costs in WL were provided by Wanglang National Nature Reserve Administration Bureau. Every category was counted separately, including salaries (costs of employing staff), operating costs (costs of running the reserve, e.g., equipment repairs, fuel, casual labor, research, staff training, reserve monitoring and protection), and capital expenditure (cost of purchasing equipment or facilities). The total costs were expressed as the annual average costs for the last 4 years (2012–2015). Similarly, the data on the conservation and management costs in HTL were provided by the Forestry Development Corporation of Pingwu County, China. The costs under the alternative state was calculated by transferring the cost of each item proportionally.
The model simulation results indicated that the realized value of hazard mitigation and water purification in WL were negligible (see Supporting information Table S3). The hydro power service was of relative importance for the current state, being valued at
3. Results 3.1. Primary appraisal The workshop participants determined the land use/land cover changes between the current and alternative states of WL. Under the alternative state, 60% of the conifer and broadleaved forest in WL would have been felled before 1998, and converted to scrub
Fig. 2. Importance scores of ecosystem services appraised by workshop, from 0 to 5.
74
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Table 1 Land cover of Wanglang National Nature Reserve under the current and alternative states. Current
Alternative
Habitat
Area (ha)
Percentage (%)
Area (ha)
Percentage (%)
Grassland Natural forest Secondary forest Scrub Bare area Permanent snow and ice
12,129 16,410 0 2,112 664 752
38 51 0 7 2 2
13,114 6,564 7,877 3,097 664 752
41 20 25 10 2 2
Fig. 3. Carbon stock of Wanglang National Nature Reserve under the current and alternative states.
Fig. 4. GHG Flux of Wanglang National Nature Reserve under the current and alternative states.
US $26,170,000/yr. The benchmark price was $ 0.041/kwh, and the power generated by per cubic meter water was 2.8 kwh. The simulated results showed that the water flow out of WL would decrease by 1,100,000 m3 under the alternative state, due to degraded storage capacity, resulting in the loss of US $ 130,000 electricity/yr.
3.4. Grazing and harvested wild goods A total of 760 cattle and 290 horses grazed within WL under the current state, whereas 2553 cattle and 830 horses would be grazed in WL under the alternative state based on the current intensity of grazing in HTL. Cattle raised for 5.5 years could be sold at US $720, while horses raised for 4 year could be sold at US $680. Thus, the
value of grazing was estimated to be US $149,000/yr under the current state, but US $476,000/yr under the alternative state. Harvested wild goods included fuelwood and wildlife for food and medicine. Fuelwood collection was forbidden under the current state, whereas 1431 tons/yr were estimated to be collected under the alternative state. The value of fuelwood was calculated by considering electricity as a substitute power source, the local price of which was CN ¥0.25/kwh (US $0.036/kwh). Two hotplates of 2,000 watt need to be used for 9.6 months per year to substitute for fuelwood for one household. Thus the shadow price of fuelwood under alternative state would be US $120,925/yr. The wildlife collected for food and medicine included Aralia chinensis, Polyporus umbellatus, Paris polyphylla, Rheum palmatum, and Batrachuperus pinchonii. The value of collected wildlife was estimated to be US $30,000/yr.
75
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
3.5. Nature-based recreation A total of 171 valid questionnaires were completed by 201 visits. The average expenditure per visit was CN ¥532 (US $77). A total of 42.1% of visitors stated that they would still visit the reserve if it was protected under the alternative state. The total number of visits was 30,869 in 2015 and 53,099 in 2016, based on the statistics of the Baima Wanglang Tourism Investment Management Co., Ltd. Thus, the value of nature-based recreation was estimated to be US $4,067,808/yr in 2016 under the current state and US $1,712,572/ yr under the alternative state. Furthermore, most visitors stated that the primary purpose for visiting was to view the forest, nature, or wildlife, followed by the company of family and friends. A total of 90% of visitors came from the local area (Sichuan Province and Chongqing Municipality), with no international visitors being detected during the interviews. 3.6. Conservation and management costs The average conservation and management costs for WL were US $748,000 per year. However, the costs would decline to US $580,000 per year under the alternative state. All costs would be covered by state funding. 3.7. Differences and distribution of the summarized service values Our results show that the current state provides greater service values for C stock, GHG sequestration, hydro power, and recreation than the alternative state. In contrast, there were lower benefits in terms of fuelwood collection, grazing, and the harvesting of wild food and medicine under the current state. Rose plots (Fig. 5) were used to compare ecosystem delivery between the 2 states. Overall, our estimates for all of monetary benefits and costs (excluding C stock services) under the 2 states indicated that the overall net value provided by the current state was US $30,176,104 per year, which was US $2,021,188 more than the alternative state (Table 2). By comparing the current state with the alternative state (Table 3), the main beneficiaries of C stock had a global distribution. GHG sequestration would benefit the mitigation of global climate change at a national and global scale, because of lower C emission pressure. Hydro power could bring considerable economic benefits at the local and national scale. However, the local beneficiaries from fuelwood, grazing, and harvested wild food
Table 2 Comparison of monetary benefits of the ecosystem services and the conservation costs for the current and alternative states. Value of ecosystem services
Current
Alternative
Difference
GHG sequestration ($/yr) Hydro power ($/yr) Fuelwood ($/yr) Grazing ($/yr) Harvested wild food and medicine ($/yr) Nature-based recreation ($/yr) Gross value ($/yr) Conservation and management costs ($/yr) Overall net value ($/yr)
533,792 26,174,223 0 149,081 0
352,555 26,043,352 120,925 476,141 29,691
181,236 130,871 120,925 327,060 29,691
4,067,808 30,924,904 748,800
1,712,572 28,735,236 580,320
2,355,236 2,189,668 168,480
30,176,104
28,154,916
2,021,188
and medicine would be seriously impacted due to these practices being strictly prohibited. Furthermore, nature-based recreation provided under the current state mainly benefited local and national visitors. 4. Discussion The workshop of local experts and managers provided important preliminary information to guide our study and scale our assessment. The experts described the environmental and policy contexts of our study, guiding us towards selecting an actual reference area and a nearby area from which we could model an alternative state to create and compare the different values. The experts also discussed and graded the possible activities and threats affecting the habitats and biodiversity if our study area was converted to the alternative state. This information was used to determine the priority ecosystem services. The experts also informed us on where to access available data to use in our assessment, which helped us to decide the most appropriate methods to use for the different ecosystem service categories. Finally, the experts provided important information on local stakeholders from local villages, corporation, and government departments, which needed to be included in our interview survey. Furthermore, the qualitative ranking of the importance scores of the parameters assessed for the 2 states by the experts was similar to that derived from our quantitative field assessment. Thus, just the expert opinions of participants could have been used to judge the possible impacts of scenarios on ecosystem services (Koenig, 2010). This type of assessment would
Fig. 5. Rose plots presenting the overall balance of services between the current and alternative states. A common scale of 0–1 was used, where 1 represents the maximum value of a given service in either state.
76
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Table 3 Distribution of benefits and the level of confidence for ecosystem services (Bands for setting symbols are: 0–25% = 1, 26–75% = 2, >75% = 3). The magnitude of change in the delivery of different services, if the site was converted from the alternative to the current state, is shown for all beneficiaries at the local, national, and global scale. Location of beneficiaries Ecosystem services C stock (tons C) GHG sequestration ($/yr) Hydro power ($/yr) Fuelwood ($/yr) Grazing ($/yr) Harvested wild food and medicine ($/yr) Nature-based creation ($/yr)
Level of confidence
Local
National
+
++ +
+++
+++
be economical, needing less expenditure on fieldwork effort and being less technically demanding, with a strong local context (Thapa et al., 2014; Liang et al., 2013). In-depth workshops could even be used to quantify and map the values and threats to different types of ecosystems (Raymond et al., 2009). By combining participatory assessments and monetary valuation methods, our study quantified ecosystem services effectively and comprehensively. Our assessment excluded several services that could be provided by nature reserves, because we could not measure them quantitatively, with our results representing an overall conservative estimate (de Groot et al., 2002). Illegal hunting and collection in the nature reserve, as well as the provision of ecosystem services from wildlife (e.g., pollination), were excluded because of technical difficulties in quantifying these items. The amount of harvested wild food and medicine by other long-distance villages and people passing through could not be surveyed either. We overestimated the value of recreation under the alternative state, because it is not possible to develop tourism unless the nature reserve was founded. However, the tourism project in WL was in the initial stages of development (since 2014). Therefore, the $4,067,808 benefits are likely an underestimate of the actual value of naturebased recreation in WL. Annual total visits were predicted to increase to 150,000 people/yr in future, with potential recreation benefits of $11,491,200. We used a simple scale of ‘‘high,” ‘‘medium,” and ‘‘low” to assess the level of confidence (Table 3). Furthermore, variation exists in the valuation of certain assessed services, such as C sequestration, fuelwood, and collected wildlife. The sensitivity of the C sequestration value was analyzed for different carbon prices (Table 4). The C price provided by the China Emission Trading Scheme was lower than that of the EU ETS, at $3.5/ tons CO2-eq. At this price, C sequestration was valued at just $311.378/yr, whereas it was valued at $1,156,548/yr based on US California pricing, with up to $392,679/yr difference between different states. Overall, observed C prices span a wide range, from less than US $1/tCO2e (Mexico, Poland, ShanghaiChina) to US $137/tCO2e (Sweden), globally. However, about three-quarters of emissions are priced at less than US $10/tCO2e (Word Bank Group, 2016). Thus, our estimated C price was based on a mid-range price of $6/ton CO2-eq from the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). For other services, local or national prices were
Global + ++
Low Low High High High Medium Medium
+
adopted in our assessment to reflect the actual value at a national level. Our results showed that under its current state, WL provided more C stock than under the alternative state, even though this difference was not monetarized. The above-ground, underground, and litter and dead wood C stocks would decline by 730,000 tons under the alternative state, due to extensive logging. Short-term (1998–2016) protection and restoration contributed to 7,877-ha of secondary forest, with only 25% of growing stock being available under the alternative state compared to the current state. This result shows that a long period is needed for spontaneous recovery in logged areas. The monetary value of the other services was summarized to reflect US $30,924,904 ($ 958/ha) under the current state, which would cover all conservation and management costs ($23/ha). While hydro power ($26,174,223) and recreation ($4,067,808) accounted for a large part of the gross benefits under the current state, the differences in its value between the 2 states was mainly reflected by recreation ($2,355,236) and grazing ($327,060). Recreation had a higher value under the current state compared to the alternative state, with a total net difference in value of up to $2,021,188. Thus, the establishment of a strictly regulated nature reserve provided more net benefits than general natural forest protection. Previous studies showed that even when only a few ecosystem services are considered, the loss on conversion for economic development typically outweighs any gains in marketed benefits (Balmford et al., 2002; Bateman et al., 2013). Although access to limited data reduce the precision of estimates, our results indicate that the conservation of plants and wildlife in nature reserves represents a strikingly good bargain, with a marketed benefit:cost ratio of 41:1. However, a change from nature reserve conservation to natural forest protection alters both the value of ecosystem services and their distribution. Under the current (i.e., strict conservation state), a broader range of beneficiaries could profit from the nature reserve. Climate mitigation services and recreation services provided both national and global scale benefits, whereas the loss of goods provision only impacted local residents. The mismatch of benefits and costs for local residents has led to complaints about the strictly regulated nature reserve. The prohibition of grazing, and fuelwood and wildlife collection caused local poverty to
Table 4 Sensitivity analysis of GHG sequestration.
Mexico (lower), Poland China ETS EU ETS US California Sweden carbon tax
2016 carbon price (US $/tons CO2-eq)
Current
Alternative
1 3.5 6 13 137
$88,965 $311,378 $533,792 $1,156,548 $12,188,242
$58,759 $205,657 $352,555 $763,870 $8,050,013
Difference $30,206 $105,721 $181,236 $392,679 $4,138,229
Source: ‘‘World Bank Group; ECOFYS. 2016. Carbon Pricing Watch 2016. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ó World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/ 24288 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
increase. Possible mediation mechanisms for local stakeholders should be explored (Bernard et al., 2009), although the loss of benefits from goods provision could be offset by increased benefits from tourism, to some degree. The abundance of tourism resources in WL is sufficient to realize its potential nature-based benefits. Furthermore, HTL represents a good unexploited scenic spot for tourists to view azaleas. Several self-driving tours exist to HTL, but there is no relevant management apartment, resulting in unrealized economic benefits, but also costs, including garbage pollution and fire risks. The natural habitats of the giant panda in China have huge potentials for tourism, but are unevenly distributed with unsustainable development. For example, Jiuzhaigou Reserve is located about 30 km from WL, and is subject to major development and tourism disturbance (Qiao et al., 2014). Moderate exploitation of the surrounding tourism resources could better distribute the benefits and disturbances of tourism, as well as resolve livelihood issues of local residents (Wan et al., 2002), and would improve the nature-based recreation services of the whole region. The ‘‘paying by beneficiaries” principle needs to be followed in ecological compensation schemes. Instead of relying on governmental financial expenditure alone, payments for ecosystem services should be paid by a diversity of beneficiaries, such as the tourism company and hydro power company in our study. The tourism company should provide more job positions (like tour guides, staff, and rural inn employees) to local residents who are prohibited from grazing livestock and collecting natural resources from the reserve. Furthermore, the hydro power company should offer electricity to those who used to cut fuelwood for free. Furthermore, introducing the market mechanism into compensation schemes needs to be applied to expand the sources of funds and facilitate fairness. Cost-effective targeting and discriminative compensation enhance the efficiency of conservation investments (Chen et al., 2010). Therefore, different opportunity costs in households should be quantified to achieve the equitable distribution of compensation, using a similar method to that applied the field village surveys in our study between the current and alternative states. At present, family inns operate in some villages around WL, but are not suitable for all families because of their possible long distance to roads or high costs. Another solution could be community co-management, which has been piloted in Laohegou Public Welfare Reserve, which covers 11,000 ha near to WL (Fig. 1). In this example, the income of products from the customized agriculture system implemented in villages outside the reserve was shared by villagers and reserve management (unpublished data). The governing conception of ‘‘Beautiful China” has been promoted and included in the 13th Five Year Plan, emphasizing the importance of ecological civilization in 2016–2020. Optimal strategies should be considered to gain more net benefits by adjusting them to local conditions. As demonstrated by our study of WL and HTL, many habitats of the giant panda have low agricultural productivity, due to their high elevation and steep slopes. Thus, more net benefits could be obtained by reducing anthropogenic inputs. Aside from nature reserves and natural forest protection areas, a number of areas are under other management schemes, such as collective forests and private forests, which are exploited more intensively for logging, cultivation, and economic forestry. Intensive agricultural activities cause biodiversity to decline (Doxa et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2009), whereas aggregated ecosystem service supply is positively correlated with biodiversity (Maes et al., 2012; Tscharntke et al., 2005). As a hotspot of biodiversity supporting many specific rare species, the region around WL reserve should be considered carefully for the trade-offs among ecosystem services, particularly between goods provisioning and
77
regulating services. A more quantified assessment and comparison with other management schemes could be conducted, as required. Another obstacle of conservation is the lack of participation of residents, particularly with respect to policymaking (Lin et al., 2012). In our study, scientists bridged an important gap between residents and government, providing communicative information about ecosystem services. Furthermore, residents should be permitted to provide useful feedback on to help develop rational policies. Village interviews by third-party scientists might help build trust with residents, and mediate disputes on compensation issues neutrally and professionally. Assessments of ecosystem services need to be fed into governmental management (Schroter et al., 2005; Srinivasan et al., 2008), as a decision-making tool (Daily et al., 2009; TEEB, 2010). Strict conservation schemes, like nature reserves, are considered effective for protecting and restoring the populations of rare flagship species (Guan et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014). The government places much effort and funding to meet the costs of reserve management and eco-compensation (Agarwala et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2014). The development of national parks to protect the giant panda is on the agenda in Sichuan, Shanxi, and Gansu provinces. The reform of current nature reserves, national forests under natural forest protection, collective forests, and other unprotected areas has been debated. Without doubt, a strict conservation scheme will be implemented to include more habitats (Zhu et al., 2013). The conservation priorities for different habits could be assessed using the net value and biodiversity attributes (Naidoo et al., 2008). However, it is essential to ensure both local and national stakeholders benefit from such schemes to realize the societal and economic agreements. Our study demonstrates how more information could be provided to policy-makers on the importance of nature reserves by considering the distribution of benefits. 5. Conclusions This study used a rapid and effective Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to quantify the actual ecosystem services provided by a nature reserve under strict regulations versus that modeled from conditions at a nearby loosely protected area. We showed that the nature reserve provides more net benefits under the strict scheme, and that these benefits exceed the costs of conservation and management. While some financial benefits for local livelihood were lost, plenty of sustainable value from C stock, GHG sequestration, hydro power, and recreation was distributed at the local and global scale. A paying mechanism for ecosystem services should be implemented to ensure conservation and livelihoods are balanced at a local scale. Furthermore, diversified and market-oriented funding and compensation should contribute towards the design and support of strict conservation schemes. In conclusion, we hope that our initial analysis at WL fills a current gap on the dynamic assessment of ecosystem services in the nature reserves of China, providing an informative reference for policy makers. Acknowledgments We appreciate support in the field provided by the Wanglang National Nature Reserve, the Forestry Development Corporation of Pingwu County, and the Baima Wanglang Tourism Investment Management Co., Ltd. We thank Luo C.P., Liang C.P., Tu Z.B., Huang Q.B., Ma X.H., Xu B., Yu L., Yuan D., Liu M.M., Zuo R.W., Li D.D., Feng Y., and Zhang Y.W. for the valuable data and suggestions. Language Editing Service provided by the Office of International Exchange & Cooperation, Beijing Normal University.
78
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05. 014. References Agarwala, M., Kumar, S., Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., 2010. Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2945–2955. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., DeLucia, E.H., 2011. The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 425–438. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., 2013. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 27–39. Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., et al., 2002. Ecology – Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950–953. Balmford, A., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., et al., 2011. Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48, 161–175. Bao, Y., Wu, W., Wang, M., Liu, W., 2007. Disadvantages and future research directions in valuation of ecosystem services in China. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. World Ecol. 14, 372–381. Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., et al., 2013. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50. Bernard, F., de Groot, R.S., Campos, J.J., 2009. Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: a case study of Tapanti National Park, Costa Rica. Forest Policy Econ. 11, 174–183. Birch, J.C., Thapa, I., Balmford, A., et al., 2014. What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 8, 118–127. Blaen, P.J., Jia, L., Peh, K.S.H., et al., 2015. Rapid assessment of ecosystem services provided by two mineral extraction sites restored for nature conservation in an agricultural landscape in Eastern England. PLoS ONE 10, e0121010. Cai, H.S., Zhang, X.L., Zhu, D.H., 2007. Study of ecological capacity change and quantitative analysis of ecological compensation in a nature reserve based on RS and GIS: A case study on Po-yang Lake Nature Reserve China. N. Zealand J. Agric. Res. 50, 757–766. Chen, X., Lupi, F., Viña, A., He, G., Liu, J., 2010. Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conserv. Biol. 24, 1469–1478. Costanza, R., dArge, R., deGroot, R., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Ervin, D. et al., (2010) Valuing ecological systems and services. F1000 Biology Reports 3. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., et al., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393–408. Doxa, A., Bas, Y., Paracchini, M.L., Pointereau, P., Terres, J.-M., Jiguet, F., 2010. Lowintensity agriculture increases farmland bird abundances in France. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 1348–1356. Guan, T., Wang, F., Li, S., McShea, W.J., 2015. Nature reserve requirements for landscape-dependent ungulates: the case of endangered takin (Budorcas taxicolor) in Southwestern China. Biol. Conserv. 182, 63–71. Hanson, C., Finisdore, J., Ranganathan, J., 2012. The corporate ecosystem services review: guidelines for identifying business risks & opportunities arising from ecosystem change. World Resources Institute.. IPCC, 2006. IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan. Koenig, H.J., 2010. Multifunctional forest management in Guyuan: potentials, challenges and trade-offs. J. Resour. Ecol. 1, 300–310.
Kremen, C., Ostfeld, R.S., 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 540–548. Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Dorji, L., Thoennes, P., Tshering, K., 2013. An initial estimate of the value of ecosystem services in Bhutan. Ecosyst. Serv. 3, e11–e21. Liang, Y., Xiang, Y., Takeuchi, K. (2013) Harnessing the ecosystem services for local livelihoods: The case of the tea forests in Yunnan, China. TEEB case. Available from:
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser
What are the benefits of strictly protected nature reserves? Rapid assessment of ecosystem service values in Wanglang Nature Reserve, China Peng Liu a, Shiwei Jiang b, Lianjun Zhao b, Yunxi Li b, Pingping Zhang c, Li Zhang a,⇑ a b c
Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China Wanglang National Nature Reserve, Pingwu County, Sichuan Province 622550, China College of Economics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300371, China
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 February 2017 Received in revised form 2 May 2017 Accepted 26 May 2017
Keywords: Beneficiaries Conservation Ecosystem services Nature reserve Natural Forest Protection Project TESSA
a b s t r a c t Despite broad recognition that nature reserves protect local biodiversity and rare species effectively, the wider benefits and costs provided by this conservation approach relative to alternative approaches are not well understood. This study addressed this research gap by quantifying differences in ecosystem services provision of two alternative conservation management approaches in a strictly protected nature reserve in China based on (1) existing strict regulations versus (2) extrapolation of those in an adjacent Natural Forest Protection Project (NFPP) allowing the use of natural resources by local communities. Using a new Toolkit for Ecosystem Services Site-based Assessment (TESSA), we demonstrated the nature reserve provides more valuable ecosystem services than it would have done if managed like the adjacent NFPP. In comparison, the nature reserve provides greater benefits in terms of carbon stock, carbon sequestration, and recreation, at the national and global scale. The monetary benefits of the nature reserve could cover all conservation management costs, making it a more worthwhile approach for conservation and beneficiaries. Thus, our study highlights the importance of strictly protected nature reserves in China, demonstrating the importance of balancing conservation and development to governmental managers and local residents, and could be used to guide eco-compensation for local beneficiaries. Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction China contains several nature reserves designed to conserve rare wildlife, like the giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca and the golden snub-nosed monkey Rhinopithecus roxellanae (Zhang, 2015), which act as umbrella species, protecting many other endangered plant and wildlife. These reserves are strictly regulated, with only a few economic activities being permitted outside their buffer zones. National and local governments invest much labor and money every year to ensure strict conservation measures are maintained. As a result, local residents complain because certain traditional livelihoods are forbidden in nature reserves. However, many of the benefits of this approach are not monetary, making quantification complicated. Thus, it is difficult to demonstrate how much one benefits from nature reserves and whether ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Liu), [email protected] (S. Jiang), [email protected] (L. Zhao), [email protected] (Y. Li), [email protected] (P. Zhang), [email protected] (L. Zhang). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.014 2212-0416/Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
the benefits actually cover the costs (Turner et al., 2003). Few assessments were made before the value of different ecosystem services was defined (Costanza et al., 1997, 2010). Ecosystem services are the benefits that people derive from functioning ecosystems, ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to human wellbeing (Costanza et al., 1997, 2010). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment delineated four types of ecosystem services; namely, provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services (MA, 2005). Bringing ecosystem services into the real world allows us to determine their benefits and costs in different environments. This information allows us to make trade-offs between development and conservation, as well as develop better policies and plans to manage them (Balmford et al., 2011; Kremen and Ostfeld, 2005). In China, ecosystem services are a new concept, with many studies on this subject being preliminary, focusing on static ecosystems (Bao et al., 2007; Xie et al., 2003). However, by applying the results of these studies to policy development, scientists realized that this approach does not aim to put a price tag on the total or particular
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
ecosystem services, rather, it asks how changes to the quantity or quality of various types of ecosystem services might impact on human welfare (Bao et al., 2007; Costanza et al., 1997). Several methods are currently used to estimate or measure ecosystem services, such as InVEST (Nelson et al., 2009), benefit transfer (Kubiszewski et al., 2013), ARIES (Bagstad et al., 2013), ESR (Hanson et al., 2012). Differences exist in the performance of these methods, with certain methods being more appropriate in distinct geographical or decision-making contexts. A toolkit for an ecosystem service sited based assessment (TESSA) was developed in 2013, which considers the changes in ecosystem service values for different scenarios at a high resolution. This toolkit does not require substantial resources or existing data, but is relatively low cost and requires low effort (Peh et al., 2013). Several assessments have been conducted in different landscapes and scenarios using this method (Birch et al., 2014; Blaen et al., 2015; Peh et al., 2014a, 2014b), demonstrating changes in values, with the assimilated information being fed into governmental decisionmaking processes effectively. The assessment of ecosystem service values helps identify the priorities of ecological conservation in heterogeneous regions, as well as providing information on the distribution of benefits from different types of ecosystem services. In fact, resolving benefit disputes represents a major challenge for ecological conservation. Possible mediation strategies have been sought in China after the implementation of the National Forest Protection Project in 1998 and the Grain to Green program in 1999 (Cai et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2005). This study aimed to quantify the benefits of the ecosystem services provided by two different types of conservation practices in China; specifically, a strictly regulated nature reserve (Wanglang National Nature Reserve) versus a protected area in which human use of resources is permitted (Natural Forest Protection Project area). We completed a preliminary appraisal of the two sites at a workshop of local managers to understand the relevant services, pressures and contexts, assessments, and comparison of the ecosystem services provided by the two sites. In addition, we determined the affected stakeholders (beneficiaries) due to state conversion. Our results are expected to provide useful information for policy makers on the planning of nature reserves, persuasive publicity materials to local stakeholders on ecosystem services, and feasible approaches to resolve the distribution of benefits.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area Wanglang National Nature Reserve (WL) was founded in 1965, and is listed as one of earliest founded giant panda nature reserves in China. WL is located in the north of Sichuan Province and is situated on the southeast part of the Tibet Plateau (Fig. 1). The whole reserve covers 32,297 ha. The elevation of WL is 2300–4980 m, and it is surrounded by mountains. It has an average temperature of 2.9 °C. As well as the giant panda Ailuropoda melanoleuca, many endangered animals are protected within WL, including the golden snubnosed monkey Rhinopithecus roxellanae, the snow leopard Panthera uncia, and the takin Budorcas taxicolor. Dark conifer forest composed of the fir Abies faxoniana and the spruce Picea purpurea are also protected within the reserve. There are no local residents inside the reserve; however, the area outside the reserve supports the Baima people, who have lived in this region for centuries, grazing livestock, hunting animals and collecting natural resources. Since its establishment, the WL has been subject to strict protection by the local government. Hunting, logging, and collection
71
are forbidden, while only some grazing is allowed, which supports the residents living outside the reserve. Nature-based tourism was started in the experiment zone after 2014. The tour route was controlled to allow access to just three scenic spots to prevent the human disturbance. An alternative state was hypothesized for WL based on an actual site, Huangtuliang (HTL), which is adjacent to WL. HTL covers 13,855 ha and has similar geographic conditions. Compared with the status ‘‘strict conservation without exploitation” in WL, HTL is under the status of ‘‘general conservation after exploitation.” Before HTL was protected, it was managed by a local logging company and was subject to intense deforestation before 1998. After the Natural Forest Protection Project was implemented, HTL was protected and restored. HTL is subject to weaker conservation than the nature reserve (WL), with some human activities still occurring. The Baima people herd cattle and horses, collect fuelwood and some edible wildlife from this region. Furthermore, no tourism has been developed in HTL. As an actual reference site, the value of ecosystem services provided by HTL could be transferred proportionally to that provided by WL in an alternative state. 2.2. Assessing ecosystem services 2.2.1. Preliminary appraisal Before the field assessment, a small workshop was conducted with local experts and managers from WL and HTL to learn about the policy and environmental context of the two sites. The participants came from the Management Bureau of WL National Reserve (4 persons), the Forestry Development Corporation of Pingwu County (4 persons), the Forestry Bureau of Pingwu County (2 persons). Ten participants all have worked in this region for more than 10 years so that they were very familiar with the environmental and political context of WL and HTL. Detailed information was presented in Supporting information Table S1. All participants were asked to discuss and describe the policy and habitat status of HTL, consider the possible activities and threats affecting the habitats and biodiversity if WL was converted to an alternative state (i.e., reflecting HTL), and grade the various activities and threats with respect to time, space, and strength scales (i.e., low, medium, and high). We introduced the concept of ecosystem services to participants; namely, 18 specific services from 5 service categories (global climate regulation, water-related services, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods, and nature-based creation). We then invited the participants to predict and evaluate the importance of each service in both the current and alternative state for WL, scoring from 0 to 5 (5 = the most important). Based on this preliminary appraisal, the field assessment and interviews were structured based on the local contexts and differences in the importance of services and disturbances. 2.2.2. Village interview Based on the description from the workshop, local human disturbance mostly originated from a single Baima village, including grazing, cutting fuelwood, and collecting plants and medicine in HTL, but only grazing in WL. The village contained 113 families, and we conducted interviews with 43 families in January and May, 2016. The interviewed families were chosen at random unless the interviewee was too elder or too less-educated to answer our questions (young generations maybe go out for herding, collecting or other works). Data were collected using questionnaires (see Supporting information S2) on grazing, fuelwood, and collection activity. 2.2.3. Global climate regulation A land use/land cover map of WL from the 300 m MERIS sensor on board the ENVISAT satellite mission was derived from the
72
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Fig. 1. Study area for the assessment of ecosystem services values. Wanglang is a national nature reserve with strictly regulated conservation. Huangtuliang is protected under the Natural Forest Protection Project with human use being permitted.
European Space Agency GlobCover Portal (http://due.esrin.esa. int/page_globcover.php). The area of each habitat in WL under the current and alternative states was calculated using ArcGIS 10.2, following the suggestion of the workshop participants. A soil map was extracted from The Soil and Terrain database for China primary data (version 1.0), at a scale of 1:1 million (http://www.isric.org/data/soil-and-terrain-database-china). Carbon (C) stocks in above- and below-ground biomass, litter and dead wood, and mineral soil were calculated using the published literature for each habitat type (Anderson-Teixeira and DeLucia, 2011; IPCC, 2006). Carbon sequestration was calculated from above-ground net biomass growth in natural forests (Penman et al., 2003), but did not account for C sequestration on grassland and scrub because of a lack of data. The loss of vegetation C stock due to fuelwood under the alternative state was derived from HTL based on the village interviews. We calculated the annual loss in C biomass of the removal of fuelwood (LFUELWOOD) in tons C/yr, using the following formula: LFUELWOOD = FG * BCEFR * CF. FG was the annual removal of fuelwood and charcoal expressed in m3/yr. BCEFR was the default value of biomass conversion and the expansion factor for the conversion of removal in merchantable volume to total biomass removal expressed in tons (m3 of biomass removal)-1. CF was the default value of the carbon fraction of dry matter expressed in tons C (tons d.m.) 1 (IPCC, 2006). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated by estimating methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from grazing livestock. Based on the village interviews, we defined the species and number of domestic animals, from which we selected the appropriate emission factor (in kg CH4/head/yr) for each species (IPCC, 2006). We calculated methane emissions from each species
(T) of animal using the following equation: Emissions = EF(T) N (T)/1,000, where: Emissions = methane emissions, t CH4/yr, EF(T) = emission factor for the defined animal population, kg CH4/head/yr, N(T) = the number of animals of species T at the site. Direct and indirect nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions were calculated using a similar method, including direct N2O emissions from urine and dung inputs to grazed soils, the amount of N2O produced from the atmospheric deposition of N volatilized from managed soils, and the amount of N2O produced from the leaching and runoff of N additions to managed soils in regions where leaching/runoff occurs. By converting the influence of climate on all 3 greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)) to CO2 equivalents, the net greenhouse gas flux of the site was calculated. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) is a measure by comparing the fluxes of various greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential (GWP). The GWP100 of methane is 25, the GWP100 of nitrous oxide is 298, and the GWP100 of carbon dioxide is 1. The total monetary value of net carbon sequestration was based on the carbon price, US$5/t CO2 eq, which was delineated by the Emission Trading Scheme of the European Union (EU) in 2016 (Word Bank Group, 2016). 2.2.4. Water-related services WL and HTL are in the watershed of the Huoxi River, which runs for 114 km, before joining the Fujiang River. Combining information from participants at the workshop with field surveys, few residents use this water source directly; however, 1 hydropower plant is operational downstream of WL and HTL, belonging to Sichuanhuaneng Fujiang Hydropower Co., Ltd. We used two models, ‘‘Co $ting Nature” (costingnature v.2 [0.50] [non-commercial use],
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
http://www.policysupport.org/costingnature) and ‘‘Waterworld” (Waterworld version 2 [non-commercial use]. http://www.policysupport.org/waterworld), to scale certain indexes for the waterrelated service. When considering the indexes for different water-related services, we decided to not use less important or less changing services; rather, we assessed the more important services. Hydro power data included the water-collecting area of the plant, water flow through the plant, and the power generating capacity per cubic meter of water. This information was provided by Sichuanhuaneng Fujiang Hydropower Co., Ltd. 2.2.5. Grazing and harvested wild goods A detailed questionnaire survey was conducted on grazing in the village interviews. We collected data about the species and number of livestock grazing in WL and HTL (partial data in WL was provided by Dr. Li, B. Duke University, Philadelphia, USA), the weight and price of livestock at sale, the number of years of grazing before selling, etc. We used this information to estimate the value of grazing under the current and alternative states for WL. Harvested wild goods included the collection of fuelwood, edible wild food, and medicine (like fungi, plants, animals). A similar questionnaire survey was conducted as for grazing. The species, amount, and price of wild goods was recorded by multiplying the mean values from the individual questionnaires by the total number of households in the area. With respect to the value of fuelwood, a shadow price method was implemented to substitute electricity for fuelwood. 2.2.6. Nature-based recreation A questionnaire survey for tourists was conducted in WL, with 201 visitors from different families being interviewed in May, 2016. The questionnaire investigated the financial expenditure in WL per visit, their origin, the reason for visiting WL, and the willingness to travel to WL if it was operated under the alternative state (interviewer described the alternative scenario to every interviewee). Because the tourism project was only initiated in 2014, the total number of visits in 2015 and 2016 only were provided by the local department of tourism management. Based on these data, we estimated the value of tourism in both current and alternative state.
73
and grassland. After 1998, 80% of the logged area would have been restored under the natural forest protection project, and restored to secondary forest, but with only 25% of the growing stock of the natural forest. The top 5 activities that would incur the greatest change under the alternative state include: conservation action, logging/wood harvesting, hunting and trapping, gathering terrestrial plants, and grazing. Based on the importance scores obtained for the specific services, we charted the importance of the 5 service categories in both the current and alternative state (Fig. 2). The alternative state would provide more cultivated goods and harvested wild goods, but less global climate regulation, water-related services, and nature-based recreation. 3.2. Global climate change mitigation The land use and land cover were estimated for the current and alternative states (Table 1). The habitat under the current state was dominated by natural forest, whereas the habitat under the alternative state was also dominated by secondary forest. Grassland and scrub cover slightly increased due to hypothesized deforestation under the alternative state. Bare areas and permanent snow and ice remained unchanged. The above-ground carbon stocks were estimated to be 1,130,000 and 643,000 tons C for the current and alternative states, respectively (Fig. 3). Similarly, the underground carbon stocks were estimated to be 500,000 and 420,000 tons C, respectively. The litter and dead wood C stocks were estimated to be 1,093,000 and 927,000 tons C, respectively. Soil carbon stocks were similar under both states because we did not assess difference in soil type. Overall, the current state provided 730,000 tons more carbon stock than the alternative state. More net GHG sequestration was provided by the current state (Fig. 4). The alternative state produced more GHG emissions by livestock and the loss of vegetation C stock due to disturbance. As a result, net GHG sequestration under the current state was 88,965 tons CO2 eq/yr, whereas it was 58,759 tons CO2 eq/yr under the alternative state. Based on the carbon price, GHG sequestration was estimated to represent US $533,792 and US $352,555, respectively. 3.3. Water-related services
2.2.7. Conservation and management costs Data on the conservation and management costs in WL were provided by Wanglang National Nature Reserve Administration Bureau. Every category was counted separately, including salaries (costs of employing staff), operating costs (costs of running the reserve, e.g., equipment repairs, fuel, casual labor, research, staff training, reserve monitoring and protection), and capital expenditure (cost of purchasing equipment or facilities). The total costs were expressed as the annual average costs for the last 4 years (2012–2015). Similarly, the data on the conservation and management costs in HTL were provided by the Forestry Development Corporation of Pingwu County, China. The costs under the alternative state was calculated by transferring the cost of each item proportionally.
The model simulation results indicated that the realized value of hazard mitigation and water purification in WL were negligible (see Supporting information Table S3). The hydro power service was of relative importance for the current state, being valued at
3. Results 3.1. Primary appraisal The workshop participants determined the land use/land cover changes between the current and alternative states of WL. Under the alternative state, 60% of the conifer and broadleaved forest in WL would have been felled before 1998, and converted to scrub
Fig. 2. Importance scores of ecosystem services appraised by workshop, from 0 to 5.
74
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Table 1 Land cover of Wanglang National Nature Reserve under the current and alternative states. Current
Alternative
Habitat
Area (ha)
Percentage (%)
Area (ha)
Percentage (%)
Grassland Natural forest Secondary forest Scrub Bare area Permanent snow and ice
12,129 16,410 0 2,112 664 752
38 51 0 7 2 2
13,114 6,564 7,877 3,097 664 752
41 20 25 10 2 2
Fig. 3. Carbon stock of Wanglang National Nature Reserve under the current and alternative states.
Fig. 4. GHG Flux of Wanglang National Nature Reserve under the current and alternative states.
US $26,170,000/yr. The benchmark price was $ 0.041/kwh, and the power generated by per cubic meter water was 2.8 kwh. The simulated results showed that the water flow out of WL would decrease by 1,100,000 m3 under the alternative state, due to degraded storage capacity, resulting in the loss of US $ 130,000 electricity/yr.
3.4. Grazing and harvested wild goods A total of 760 cattle and 290 horses grazed within WL under the current state, whereas 2553 cattle and 830 horses would be grazed in WL under the alternative state based on the current intensity of grazing in HTL. Cattle raised for 5.5 years could be sold at US $720, while horses raised for 4 year could be sold at US $680. Thus, the
value of grazing was estimated to be US $149,000/yr under the current state, but US $476,000/yr under the alternative state. Harvested wild goods included fuelwood and wildlife for food and medicine. Fuelwood collection was forbidden under the current state, whereas 1431 tons/yr were estimated to be collected under the alternative state. The value of fuelwood was calculated by considering electricity as a substitute power source, the local price of which was CN ¥0.25/kwh (US $0.036/kwh). Two hotplates of 2,000 watt need to be used for 9.6 months per year to substitute for fuelwood for one household. Thus the shadow price of fuelwood under alternative state would be US $120,925/yr. The wildlife collected for food and medicine included Aralia chinensis, Polyporus umbellatus, Paris polyphylla, Rheum palmatum, and Batrachuperus pinchonii. The value of collected wildlife was estimated to be US $30,000/yr.
75
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
3.5. Nature-based recreation A total of 171 valid questionnaires were completed by 201 visits. The average expenditure per visit was CN ¥532 (US $77). A total of 42.1% of visitors stated that they would still visit the reserve if it was protected under the alternative state. The total number of visits was 30,869 in 2015 and 53,099 in 2016, based on the statistics of the Baima Wanglang Tourism Investment Management Co., Ltd. Thus, the value of nature-based recreation was estimated to be US $4,067,808/yr in 2016 under the current state and US $1,712,572/ yr under the alternative state. Furthermore, most visitors stated that the primary purpose for visiting was to view the forest, nature, or wildlife, followed by the company of family and friends. A total of 90% of visitors came from the local area (Sichuan Province and Chongqing Municipality), with no international visitors being detected during the interviews. 3.6. Conservation and management costs The average conservation and management costs for WL were US $748,000 per year. However, the costs would decline to US $580,000 per year under the alternative state. All costs would be covered by state funding. 3.7. Differences and distribution of the summarized service values Our results show that the current state provides greater service values for C stock, GHG sequestration, hydro power, and recreation than the alternative state. In contrast, there were lower benefits in terms of fuelwood collection, grazing, and the harvesting of wild food and medicine under the current state. Rose plots (Fig. 5) were used to compare ecosystem delivery between the 2 states. Overall, our estimates for all of monetary benefits and costs (excluding C stock services) under the 2 states indicated that the overall net value provided by the current state was US $30,176,104 per year, which was US $2,021,188 more than the alternative state (Table 2). By comparing the current state with the alternative state (Table 3), the main beneficiaries of C stock had a global distribution. GHG sequestration would benefit the mitigation of global climate change at a national and global scale, because of lower C emission pressure. Hydro power could bring considerable economic benefits at the local and national scale. However, the local beneficiaries from fuelwood, grazing, and harvested wild food
Table 2 Comparison of monetary benefits of the ecosystem services and the conservation costs for the current and alternative states. Value of ecosystem services
Current
Alternative
Difference
GHG sequestration ($/yr) Hydro power ($/yr) Fuelwood ($/yr) Grazing ($/yr) Harvested wild food and medicine ($/yr) Nature-based recreation ($/yr) Gross value ($/yr) Conservation and management costs ($/yr) Overall net value ($/yr)
533,792 26,174,223 0 149,081 0
352,555 26,043,352 120,925 476,141 29,691
181,236 130,871 120,925 327,060 29,691
4,067,808 30,924,904 748,800
1,712,572 28,735,236 580,320
2,355,236 2,189,668 168,480
30,176,104
28,154,916
2,021,188
and medicine would be seriously impacted due to these practices being strictly prohibited. Furthermore, nature-based recreation provided under the current state mainly benefited local and national visitors. 4. Discussion The workshop of local experts and managers provided important preliminary information to guide our study and scale our assessment. The experts described the environmental and policy contexts of our study, guiding us towards selecting an actual reference area and a nearby area from which we could model an alternative state to create and compare the different values. The experts also discussed and graded the possible activities and threats affecting the habitats and biodiversity if our study area was converted to the alternative state. This information was used to determine the priority ecosystem services. The experts also informed us on where to access available data to use in our assessment, which helped us to decide the most appropriate methods to use for the different ecosystem service categories. Finally, the experts provided important information on local stakeholders from local villages, corporation, and government departments, which needed to be included in our interview survey. Furthermore, the qualitative ranking of the importance scores of the parameters assessed for the 2 states by the experts was similar to that derived from our quantitative field assessment. Thus, just the expert opinions of participants could have been used to judge the possible impacts of scenarios on ecosystem services (Koenig, 2010). This type of assessment would
Fig. 5. Rose plots presenting the overall balance of services between the current and alternative states. A common scale of 0–1 was used, where 1 represents the maximum value of a given service in either state.
76
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Table 3 Distribution of benefits and the level of confidence for ecosystem services (Bands for setting symbols are: 0–25% = 1, 26–75% = 2, >75% = 3). The magnitude of change in the delivery of different services, if the site was converted from the alternative to the current state, is shown for all beneficiaries at the local, national, and global scale. Location of beneficiaries Ecosystem services C stock (tons C) GHG sequestration ($/yr) Hydro power ($/yr) Fuelwood ($/yr) Grazing ($/yr) Harvested wild food and medicine ($/yr) Nature-based creation ($/yr)
Level of confidence
Local
National
+
++ +
+++
+++
be economical, needing less expenditure on fieldwork effort and being less technically demanding, with a strong local context (Thapa et al., 2014; Liang et al., 2013). In-depth workshops could even be used to quantify and map the values and threats to different types of ecosystems (Raymond et al., 2009). By combining participatory assessments and monetary valuation methods, our study quantified ecosystem services effectively and comprehensively. Our assessment excluded several services that could be provided by nature reserves, because we could not measure them quantitatively, with our results representing an overall conservative estimate (de Groot et al., 2002). Illegal hunting and collection in the nature reserve, as well as the provision of ecosystem services from wildlife (e.g., pollination), were excluded because of technical difficulties in quantifying these items. The amount of harvested wild food and medicine by other long-distance villages and people passing through could not be surveyed either. We overestimated the value of recreation under the alternative state, because it is not possible to develop tourism unless the nature reserve was founded. However, the tourism project in WL was in the initial stages of development (since 2014). Therefore, the $4,067,808 benefits are likely an underestimate of the actual value of naturebased recreation in WL. Annual total visits were predicted to increase to 150,000 people/yr in future, with potential recreation benefits of $11,491,200. We used a simple scale of ‘‘high,” ‘‘medium,” and ‘‘low” to assess the level of confidence (Table 3). Furthermore, variation exists in the valuation of certain assessed services, such as C sequestration, fuelwood, and collected wildlife. The sensitivity of the C sequestration value was analyzed for different carbon prices (Table 4). The C price provided by the China Emission Trading Scheme was lower than that of the EU ETS, at $3.5/ tons CO2-eq. At this price, C sequestration was valued at just $311.378/yr, whereas it was valued at $1,156,548/yr based on US California pricing, with up to $392,679/yr difference between different states. Overall, observed C prices span a wide range, from less than US $1/tCO2e (Mexico, Poland, ShanghaiChina) to US $137/tCO2e (Sweden), globally. However, about three-quarters of emissions are priced at less than US $10/tCO2e (Word Bank Group, 2016). Thus, our estimated C price was based on a mid-range price of $6/ton CO2-eq from the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). For other services, local or national prices were
Global + ++
Low Low High High High Medium Medium
+
adopted in our assessment to reflect the actual value at a national level. Our results showed that under its current state, WL provided more C stock than under the alternative state, even though this difference was not monetarized. The above-ground, underground, and litter and dead wood C stocks would decline by 730,000 tons under the alternative state, due to extensive logging. Short-term (1998–2016) protection and restoration contributed to 7,877-ha of secondary forest, with only 25% of growing stock being available under the alternative state compared to the current state. This result shows that a long period is needed for spontaneous recovery in logged areas. The monetary value of the other services was summarized to reflect US $30,924,904 ($ 958/ha) under the current state, which would cover all conservation and management costs ($23/ha). While hydro power ($26,174,223) and recreation ($4,067,808) accounted for a large part of the gross benefits under the current state, the differences in its value between the 2 states was mainly reflected by recreation ($2,355,236) and grazing ($327,060). Recreation had a higher value under the current state compared to the alternative state, with a total net difference in value of up to $2,021,188. Thus, the establishment of a strictly regulated nature reserve provided more net benefits than general natural forest protection. Previous studies showed that even when only a few ecosystem services are considered, the loss on conversion for economic development typically outweighs any gains in marketed benefits (Balmford et al., 2002; Bateman et al., 2013). Although access to limited data reduce the precision of estimates, our results indicate that the conservation of plants and wildlife in nature reserves represents a strikingly good bargain, with a marketed benefit:cost ratio of 41:1. However, a change from nature reserve conservation to natural forest protection alters both the value of ecosystem services and their distribution. Under the current (i.e., strict conservation state), a broader range of beneficiaries could profit from the nature reserve. Climate mitigation services and recreation services provided both national and global scale benefits, whereas the loss of goods provision only impacted local residents. The mismatch of benefits and costs for local residents has led to complaints about the strictly regulated nature reserve. The prohibition of grazing, and fuelwood and wildlife collection caused local poverty to
Table 4 Sensitivity analysis of GHG sequestration.
Mexico (lower), Poland China ETS EU ETS US California Sweden carbon tax
2016 carbon price (US $/tons CO2-eq)
Current
Alternative
1 3.5 6 13 137
$88,965 $311,378 $533,792 $1,156,548 $12,188,242
$58,759 $205,657 $352,555 $763,870 $8,050,013
Difference $30,206 $105,721 $181,236 $392,679 $4,138,229
Source: ‘‘World Bank Group; ECOFYS. 2016. Carbon Pricing Watch 2016. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ó World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/ 24288 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
increase. Possible mediation mechanisms for local stakeholders should be explored (Bernard et al., 2009), although the loss of benefits from goods provision could be offset by increased benefits from tourism, to some degree. The abundance of tourism resources in WL is sufficient to realize its potential nature-based benefits. Furthermore, HTL represents a good unexploited scenic spot for tourists to view azaleas. Several self-driving tours exist to HTL, but there is no relevant management apartment, resulting in unrealized economic benefits, but also costs, including garbage pollution and fire risks. The natural habitats of the giant panda in China have huge potentials for tourism, but are unevenly distributed with unsustainable development. For example, Jiuzhaigou Reserve is located about 30 km from WL, and is subject to major development and tourism disturbance (Qiao et al., 2014). Moderate exploitation of the surrounding tourism resources could better distribute the benefits and disturbances of tourism, as well as resolve livelihood issues of local residents (Wan et al., 2002), and would improve the nature-based recreation services of the whole region. The ‘‘paying by beneficiaries” principle needs to be followed in ecological compensation schemes. Instead of relying on governmental financial expenditure alone, payments for ecosystem services should be paid by a diversity of beneficiaries, such as the tourism company and hydro power company in our study. The tourism company should provide more job positions (like tour guides, staff, and rural inn employees) to local residents who are prohibited from grazing livestock and collecting natural resources from the reserve. Furthermore, the hydro power company should offer electricity to those who used to cut fuelwood for free. Furthermore, introducing the market mechanism into compensation schemes needs to be applied to expand the sources of funds and facilitate fairness. Cost-effective targeting and discriminative compensation enhance the efficiency of conservation investments (Chen et al., 2010). Therefore, different opportunity costs in households should be quantified to achieve the equitable distribution of compensation, using a similar method to that applied the field village surveys in our study between the current and alternative states. At present, family inns operate in some villages around WL, but are not suitable for all families because of their possible long distance to roads or high costs. Another solution could be community co-management, which has been piloted in Laohegou Public Welfare Reserve, which covers 11,000 ha near to WL (Fig. 1). In this example, the income of products from the customized agriculture system implemented in villages outside the reserve was shared by villagers and reserve management (unpublished data). The governing conception of ‘‘Beautiful China” has been promoted and included in the 13th Five Year Plan, emphasizing the importance of ecological civilization in 2016–2020. Optimal strategies should be considered to gain more net benefits by adjusting them to local conditions. As demonstrated by our study of WL and HTL, many habitats of the giant panda have low agricultural productivity, due to their high elevation and steep slopes. Thus, more net benefits could be obtained by reducing anthropogenic inputs. Aside from nature reserves and natural forest protection areas, a number of areas are under other management schemes, such as collective forests and private forests, which are exploited more intensively for logging, cultivation, and economic forestry. Intensive agricultural activities cause biodiversity to decline (Doxa et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2009), whereas aggregated ecosystem service supply is positively correlated with biodiversity (Maes et al., 2012; Tscharntke et al., 2005). As a hotspot of biodiversity supporting many specific rare species, the region around WL reserve should be considered carefully for the trade-offs among ecosystem services, particularly between goods provisioning and
77
regulating services. A more quantified assessment and comparison with other management schemes could be conducted, as required. Another obstacle of conservation is the lack of participation of residents, particularly with respect to policymaking (Lin et al., 2012). In our study, scientists bridged an important gap between residents and government, providing communicative information about ecosystem services. Furthermore, residents should be permitted to provide useful feedback on to help develop rational policies. Village interviews by third-party scientists might help build trust with residents, and mediate disputes on compensation issues neutrally and professionally. Assessments of ecosystem services need to be fed into governmental management (Schroter et al., 2005; Srinivasan et al., 2008), as a decision-making tool (Daily et al., 2009; TEEB, 2010). Strict conservation schemes, like nature reserves, are considered effective for protecting and restoring the populations of rare flagship species (Guan et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2014). The government places much effort and funding to meet the costs of reserve management and eco-compensation (Agarwala et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2014). The development of national parks to protect the giant panda is on the agenda in Sichuan, Shanxi, and Gansu provinces. The reform of current nature reserves, national forests under natural forest protection, collective forests, and other unprotected areas has been debated. Without doubt, a strict conservation scheme will be implemented to include more habitats (Zhu et al., 2013). The conservation priorities for different habits could be assessed using the net value and biodiversity attributes (Naidoo et al., 2008). However, it is essential to ensure both local and national stakeholders benefit from such schemes to realize the societal and economic agreements. Our study demonstrates how more information could be provided to policy-makers on the importance of nature reserves by considering the distribution of benefits. 5. Conclusions This study used a rapid and effective Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to quantify the actual ecosystem services provided by a nature reserve under strict regulations versus that modeled from conditions at a nearby loosely protected area. We showed that the nature reserve provides more net benefits under the strict scheme, and that these benefits exceed the costs of conservation and management. While some financial benefits for local livelihood were lost, plenty of sustainable value from C stock, GHG sequestration, hydro power, and recreation was distributed at the local and global scale. A paying mechanism for ecosystem services should be implemented to ensure conservation and livelihoods are balanced at a local scale. Furthermore, diversified and market-oriented funding and compensation should contribute towards the design and support of strict conservation schemes. In conclusion, we hope that our initial analysis at WL fills a current gap on the dynamic assessment of ecosystem services in the nature reserves of China, providing an informative reference for policy makers. Acknowledgments We appreciate support in the field provided by the Wanglang National Nature Reserve, the Forestry Development Corporation of Pingwu County, and the Baima Wanglang Tourism Investment Management Co., Ltd. We thank Luo C.P., Liang C.P., Tu Z.B., Huang Q.B., Ma X.H., Xu B., Yu L., Yuan D., Liu M.M., Zuo R.W., Li D.D., Feng Y., and Zhang Y.W. for the valuable data and suggestions. Language Editing Service provided by the Office of International Exchange & Cooperation, Beijing Normal University.
78
P. Liu et al. / Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 70–78
Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05. 014. References Agarwala, M., Kumar, S., Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., 2010. Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2945–2955. Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., DeLucia, E.H., 2011. The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 425–438. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., 2013. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5, 27–39. Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., et al., 2002. Ecology – Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950–953. Balmford, A., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., et al., 2011. Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48, 161–175. Bao, Y., Wu, W., Wang, M., Liu, W., 2007. Disadvantages and future research directions in valuation of ecosystem services in China. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. World Ecol. 14, 372–381. Bateman, I.J., Harwood, A.R., Mace, G.M., et al., 2013. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50. Bernard, F., de Groot, R.S., Campos, J.J., 2009. Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: a case study of Tapanti National Park, Costa Rica. Forest Policy Econ. 11, 174–183. Birch, J.C., Thapa, I., Balmford, A., et al., 2014. What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 8, 118–127. Blaen, P.J., Jia, L., Peh, K.S.H., et al., 2015. Rapid assessment of ecosystem services provided by two mineral extraction sites restored for nature conservation in an agricultural landscape in Eastern England. PLoS ONE 10, e0121010. Cai, H.S., Zhang, X.L., Zhu, D.H., 2007. Study of ecological capacity change and quantitative analysis of ecological compensation in a nature reserve based on RS and GIS: A case study on Po-yang Lake Nature Reserve China. N. Zealand J. Agric. Res. 50, 757–766. Chen, X., Lupi, F., Viña, A., He, G., Liu, J., 2010. Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conserv. Biol. 24, 1469–1478. Costanza, R., dArge, R., deGroot, R., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Ervin, D. et al., (2010) Valuing ecological systems and services. F1000 Biology Reports 3. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., et al., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393–408. Doxa, A., Bas, Y., Paracchini, M.L., Pointereau, P., Terres, J.-M., Jiguet, F., 2010. Lowintensity agriculture increases farmland bird abundances in France. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 1348–1356. Guan, T., Wang, F., Li, S., McShea, W.J., 2015. Nature reserve requirements for landscape-dependent ungulates: the case of endangered takin (Budorcas taxicolor) in Southwestern China. Biol. Conserv. 182, 63–71. Hanson, C., Finisdore, J., Ranganathan, J., 2012. The corporate ecosystem services review: guidelines for identifying business risks & opportunities arising from ecosystem change. World Resources Institute.. IPCC, 2006. IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan. Koenig, H.J., 2010. Multifunctional forest management in Guyuan: potentials, challenges and trade-offs. J. Resour. Ecol. 1, 300–310.
Kremen, C., Ostfeld, R.S., 2005. A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 540–548. Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Dorji, L., Thoennes, P., Tshering, K., 2013. An initial estimate of the value of ecosystem services in Bhutan. Ecosyst. Serv. 3, e11–e21. Liang, Y., Xiang, Y., Takeuchi, K. (2013) Harnessing the ecosystem services for local livelihoods: The case of the tea forests in Yunnan, China. TEEB case. Available from: