4.7 Article

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

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Volume 69, Issue 10, Pages 1973-1987

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.013

Keywords

Trade-offs between ecosystem services; Afforestation; Carbon sequestration; Water resources; Fynbos; Pinus radiata

Funding

  1. Plant Conservation Unit at the University of Cape Town
  2. David A. Gardner '69 Magic Grant
  3. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
  4. High Meadows Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon sequestration by afforestation can help mitigate global climate change but may have adverse environmental and economic impacts in some regions. For example, economic incentives for carbon sequestration may encourage the expansion of Pinus radiata timber plantations in the Fynbos biome of South Africa, with negative consequences for water supply and biodiversity. I built a dynamic ecological-economic model to investigate whether afforestation of a Fynbos catchment with Pinus radiata is economically viable when the potential benefits of carbon sequestration and timber production are balanced against the losses to water supply. I found that afforestation appears viable to the forestry industry under current water tariffs and current carbon accounting legislation, but would appear unviable if the forestry industry were to pay the true cost of water used by the plantations. I also found that under various plausible future economic scenarios. afforestation can be associated with either large future economic gains or losses, suggesting a need for future analyses based on branches of decision theory that deal with severe uncertainty. I conclude with a general recommendation that climate legislation should be explicit about the conditions under which afforestation for carbon sequestration of native vegetation is a legitimate climate mitigation strategy. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available