1

Social goods in prairie shelterbelts

Surendra Kulshreshtha(Agricultural Economics, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK)

and

John Kort(Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Indian Head, SK)

2

Background & need for the study AAFC Shelterbelt Centre at Indian Head has been

distributing tree seedlings since 1901 Private goods of shelterbelts are understood (mostly) The social goods are less well known Understanding of external economic benefits due to

social goods are important for continued public/private partnership in agroforestry activities and programming

3

Objective of the study To quantify external economic benefits due

to the social goods of shelterbelts planted in the Prairie Provinces 1981-2001.

4

Scope of the study Limited to tree seedlings distributed by

AAFC’s Shelterbelt Centre over the 1981 – 2001 period

Based on a review of studies - no primary research was undertaken

Focused on social goods – not private goods

5

Terminology used in the studyGoods Non-economic, beneficial impacts to private

individuals or to society

Benefits Economic value of the goods

Social goods Goods received by members of society (i.e. not the landowner/land manager). Equivalent to external goods

Public goods Social goods in which all members of society can share

Non-public goods Social goods from which some members of society are excluded

External benefits

(externalities)

Economic benefits to anyone other than the landowner/ land manager

6

Trend in distribution of tree seedlings 1901-2002DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDLINGS BY AAFC SHELTERBELT CENTRE

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1901 1906 1911 1916 1921 1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

YEAR

No. of Seedlings No. of Applicants

NOTE: Over 576 million tree seedlings have been distributed altogether – 150 million in the 1981-2001 period)

7

Use of trees - 1981-96Tree use Number (thousands)

Field 43,087

Farmstead 49,275

Wildlife 3,403

Roadside 846

8

Two schools of thought Utilitarian / anthropocentric school

People derive utility from the use of shelterbelts – therefore they have a value

Non-utilitarian / ecocentric school These resources have an intrinsic value

The utilitarian/anthropocentric approach was used in this study

9

Utilitarian/anthropocentric values Utilitarian values can be estimated using a Total

Economic Value (TEV) framework These values are relevant for policy-makers, since

they indicate a contribution to the well-being of individuals / society

Social preferences are relevant for policy making, whether or not they can be economically valued

10

Total Economic Value Use values Non-use values

Type of Value

Description Type of Value

Description

Direct Use Values

Output directly consumable (food, biomass, recreation, health-related benefits)

Bequest Values

Values of environmental legacy (habitats, prevention of irreversible changes)

Indirect Use Values

Benefits from ecosystem functions (flood control, storm protection erosion control, nutrient cycling, watershed protection, water quality)

Existence Values

Satisfaction from the knowledge of continued existence of shelterbelts (habitats, species, genetic resources, cultural values, ecosystem benefits)

Option Values

Future direct and indirect use values (biodiversity, conserved habitats)

11

Practical side of TEV Very comprehensive framework Requires resources for surveys and other methods of

getting information from members of society For the current study, values were limited to current use

(direct and indirect) values (excluding Option Values) The method of Benefit Transfer was used Since many of the functions are not priced in the

marketplace, values were approximated by Willingness to Pay (WTP)

12

Taxonomy of benefits Private benefits - benefits to users External benefits - benefits to society (also

called “externalities”) Public goods based Non-public goods based

13

What is a public good? Two conditions must be met:

No one can be excluded from enjoying the benefits

Enjoyment of benefits by one party does not reduce it for others

If not, they are non-public goods

14

Example: Benefit identificationPrivate External -

Non-public goods based

External -Public goods

based

Soil erosion by wind

If the soil remains on the farm

If the soil is deposited in ditches which local government must remove

If soil is dispersed widely and general public suffers from effects of dust, i.e. cleaning, breathing problem etc.

Field shelter-belt

On-farm effects on crop productivity

Prevention of snow on roads - lower road maintenance costs

Lower traffic accident rates.Health improvement

15

Information needs For estimation of value of social goods

from shelterbelts, three sets of information are needed: Nature and scope of activities Nature and magnitude of bio-physical change Society’s valuation of the change

16

Taxonomy of benefits from shelterbelts All benefits from shelterbelts divided into

two types: Direct use benefits Indirect use benefits

Soil Air Water Biota

17

Source of Benefits Pathway Public Non-public

Quantified

Reduced soil erosion Soil X

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions Air X

Protected or enhanced biodiversity Biota X

Energy conservation Air X X

Air quality (non-odour) Air X

Water quality Water X

Consumptive wildlife (hunting) Biota X

Bird-watching Biota X

Not quantified

Odour reduction Air X

Health impacts Other X

Aesthetics Other X

Transportation activities Other X

Wastewater management Water X

Property values Other (Economic) X

Pesticide drift Air/Water X

18

Estimated benefits from public and non-public goods

19

Pathways Biophysical Impact Level of Benefits from Public Goods

(Mill. $)

Level of Benefits from Non-public Goods (Mill. $)

Unquantified Benefits

Soil Reduced soil erosion $8.0 (range $8-$97) Shoreline stabilization

Air Improved air quality (Non-odour related) $3.7 Odour Reduction

Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Carbon sequestration

$56.0 Reduced pesticide drift

Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions through reduced cropped area

$16.6

Water Improved water quality $1.2 Wastewater management

Biota Biodiversity $4.7

Consumptive wildlife based recreation $39.1

Bird Watching $3.7

Other Energy Conservation based GHG emissions reduction

$0.2 Aesthetics and Property values

Transportation

Health Impacts

Total Benefits $89.4 $42.8

Grand Total of External Benefits $132.2

20

Summary Using secondary information (and a number of

assumptions), the external benefits of the shelterbelts distributed 1981-2001 have a NPV of $132 million (CDN$).

In addition, there are number of other benefits that could not be quantified

The range in the values for different social goods reflect the level of confidence in the available information in different areas

There were many information and data gaps

21

Information and Data Gaps

Shelterbelt impacts on aesthetics Contribution to biodiversity and its social

significance Valuation of Option values and Non-use values

associated with shelterbelts

22

Needed approach Two major gaps in the literature are:

Biophysical impacts of shelterbelts Economic value of environmental goods

Few studies undertaken for the Canadian prairies in some areas

A multi-disciplinary approach is required to address these gaps

23