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
Top Related