Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 539–550 | Cite as

Social demand for multiple benefits provided by Aleppo pine forest management in Catalonia, Spain

  • Elsa VarelaEmail author
  • Jette Bredahl Jacobsen
  • Robert Mavsar
Original Article


This paper estimates the social demand for key benefits provided by Aleppo pine forests in Catalonia that can be enhanced by management. These so-called externalities are the side effects of forest management on citizens’ welfare and can be either positive or negative. The externalities addressed are: biodiversity (measured as the number of tree species), accessibility for practicing recreational activities, CO2 sequestration and annual burned area by wildfires. By the use of a choice experiment, an economic valuation method, we estimate in a joint manner people’s preferences for these externalities and show that there is a social demand for their enhanced provision. Based on these estimates, we construct three hypothetical scenarios reflecting the range of likely outcomes of different management strategies and calculate the social demand for these scenarios. Results show that the highest gains in terms of social benefits are obtained under a scenario that minimizes the burned area (2044.23 €/ha year). Our estimates show that an increase in the investment in forest management is in line with the social demand for forest benefits and the social support that exists for a related cost increase for inhabitants.


Biodiversity Carbon sequestration Fire risk Recreation Economic valuation Choice experiment 



The research leading to these results has received funding from European community’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 243950 (NEWFOREX Project). Authors would like to thank Pablo Navascués at Diputació de Barcelona and J.L. Abián at Centre de la Propietat Forestal for their reflections and information provided about Aleppo pine stands, forest management and fire prevention in Barcelona and Catalonia, respectively. Any error or omission lay entirely on the authors. Jette Bredahl Jacobsen would further like to acknowledge the Danish Council for Independent Research, Social Science for financial support (Grant No. 75-07-0240) and the Danish National Research Foundation for support to the Centre for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate. Authors also thank to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions that helped in improving the quality of the manuscript. Finally, authors also thank Stuart J. Franklin for reviewing the English language.

Supplementary material

10113_2016_1038_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 54 kb)
10113_2016_1038_MOESM2_ESM.doc (220 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 220 kb)
10113_2016_1038_MOESM3_ESM.docx (3.5 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 3605 kb)
10113_2016_1038_MOESM4_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 19 kb)


  1. Alloza J, Baeza MJ, De la Riva J, Duguy B, Echeverría MT, Ibarra P, Llovet J, Pérez-Cabello F, Rovira P, Vallejo VR (2006) A model to evaluate the ecological vulnerability to forest fires in Mediterranean ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 234:S203. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.08.322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASEMFO (2012) VIII Estudio de inversión y empleo en el sector forestal. Años 2011 y 2012. In: Asociación Nacional de Empresas Forestales (ed) Forestales. National Association of Forestry Enterprises, MadridGoogle Scholar
  3. Beltrán M, Piqué M, Vericat P, Cervera T (2011) Models de gestió per als boscos de pi blanc (Pinus halepensis L.): producció de fusta i prevenció d’incendis forestals. Centre de la Propietat Forestal Forestal. Departament d’Agricultura, Ramaderia, Pesca, Alimentació i Medi Natural. Generalitat de CatalunyaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bengtsson J, Nilsson SG, Franc A, Menozzi P (2000) Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. For Ecol Manag 132:39–50. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1127(00)00378-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett J, Adamowicz V (2001) Some fundamental of environmental choice modelling. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 37–72Google Scholar
  6. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bierlaire M (2003) BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss transportation research conference, Ascona, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Brey R, Riera P, Mogas J (2007) Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecol Econ 64:305–312. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bestard AB, Font AR (2010) Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context. J For Econ 16:205–216. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2009.11.005 Google Scholar
  10. Caparrós A, Campos P (2002) Valoración de los usos recreativo y paisajístico en los pinares de la sierra de Guadarrama. Estud Agrosoc Pesq 195:121–146Google Scholar
  11. CPFC (2008) Memòria d’activitats 2008. Centre de la Propietat Forestal, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Croitoru L (2007) How much are Mediterranean forests worth? For Policy Econ 9:536–545. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Díaz-Delgado R, Lloret F, Pons X, Terradas J (2002) Satellite evidence of decreasing resilience in mediterranean plant communities after recurrent wildfires. Ecology 83:2293–2303. doi: 10.2307/3072060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Peace A, Weiss G (2012) Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. For Policy Econ 19:12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO (2013) The state of Mediterranean forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  16. GENCAT (2010) Territori i Població a Catalunya Generalitat de Catalunya.
  17. Gil-Tena A, Saura S, Brotons L (2007) Effects of forest composition and structure on bird species richness in a Mediterranean context: implications for forest ecosystem management. For Ecol Manag 242:470–476. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gómez-Limón J, de Lucío Fernández JV (1999) Changes in use and landscape preferences on the agricultural-livestock landscapes of the central Iberian Peninsula (Madrid, Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 44:165–175. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00020-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Górriz-Mifsud E, Varela E, Piqué M, Prokofieva I (2016) Demand and supply of ecosystem services in a Mediterranean forest: computing payment boundaries. Ecosyst Serv 17:53–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanemann MW (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341. doi: 10.2307/1240800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 15:435–462. doi: 10.1111/1467-6419.00145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For Ecol Manag 207:189–199. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobsen J, Lundhede T, Thorsen B (2012) Valuation of wildlife populations above survival. Biodivers Conserv 21:543–563. doi: 10.1007/s10531-011-0200-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719. doi: 10.2307/1924536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar S, Kant S (2007) Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders’ preferences for multiple forest values. For Policy Econ 9:516–526. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lasanta-Martínez T, Vicente-Serrano SM, Cuadrat-Prats JM (2005) Mountain Mediterranean landscape evolution caused by the abandonment of traditional primary activities: a study of the Spanish Central Pyrenees. Appl Geogr 25:47–65. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2004.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McFadden D (1974) The measurement of urban travel demand. J Pub Econ 3:303–328. doi: 10.1016/0047-2727(74)90003-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (1997–2007) Tercer inventario forestal nacional. Dirección general de Conservación de la Naturaleza. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  31. Nabuurs GJ, Thürig E, Heidema N, Armolaitis K, Biber P, Cienciala E, Kaufmann E, Mäkipää R, Nilsen P, Petritsch R, Pristova T, Rock J, Schelhaas MJ, Sievanen R, Somogyi Z, Vallet P (2008) Hotspots of the European forests carbon cycle. For Ecol Manag 256:194–200. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pausas J, Bladé C, Valdecantos A, Seva J, Fuentes D, Alloza J, Vilagrosa A, Bautista S, Cortina J, Vallejo R (2004a) Pines and oaks in the restoration of Mediterranean landscapes of Spain: new perspectives for an old practice—a review. Plant Ecol 171:209–220. doi: 10.1023/b:vege.0000029381.63336.20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pausas JG, Ribeiro E, Vallejo R (2004b) Post-fire regeneration variability of Pinus halepensis in the eastern Iberian Peninsula. For Ecol Manag 203:251–259. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.07.061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prokofieva I, Gorriz E (2013) Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: an assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-east Spain). For Policy Econ 37:104–114. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Regos A, Aquilué N, Retana J, De Cáceres M, Brotons L (2014) Using unplanned fires to help suppressing future large fires in Mediterranean forests. PLoS One 9:e94906. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094906 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riera P, Mogas J (2004) Evaluation of a risk reduction in forest fires in a Mediterranean region. For Policy Econ 6:521–528. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00119-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Riera Mora J (2014) Diputació de Barcelona. In: Quinze anys impulsant projectes de millora d’hàbitats afectats per pertorbaciones i fomentant la gestió forestal per a la prevenció d’incendis. Paper presented at the Què hem après dels grans incendis de 1994? XI Jornada CREAF-SCB-ICHN, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabaté S, Gracia CA, Sánchez A (2002) Likely effects of climate change on growth of Quercus ilex, Pinus halepensis, Pinus pinaster, Pinus sylvestris and Fagus sylvatica forests in the Mediterranean region. For Ecol Manag 162:23–37. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00048-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sayadi S, Roa MCG, Requena JC (2005) Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecol Econ 55:539–550. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SECF (2011) Situación de los bosques y el sector forestal en España. SECF, MadridGoogle Scholar
  41. Soliño M, Prada A, Vázquez MX (2010) Designing a forest-energy policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): a contingent valuation application. J For Econ 16:217–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2009.11.006 Google Scholar
  42. Terradas J, Ibáñez JJ, Vayreda J, Espelta JM, Ávila A, Gracia C (eds) (2004) Documents dels Quaderns de medi ambient, vol 11. Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitatge, Secretaria General, Barcelona, pp 11–26 Google Scholar
  43. Torras O, Saura S (2008) Effects of silvicultural treatments on forest biodiversity indicators in the Mediterranean. For Ecol Manag 255:3322–3330. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Torras O, Martín-Queller E, Saura S (2009) Relating landscape structure, environment and management to biodiversity indicators estimated from forest inventory data in Catalonia (NE Spain). Investig Agrar Sist Recur For 18:322–337Google Scholar
  45. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Varela E, Jacobsen JB, Soliño M (2014) Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management. Ecol Econ 106:91–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Varian H (1984) Microeconomic analysis. W W Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. VayredaDurán J (2012) Impactes del canvi global sobre els boscos de la Península Ibèrica: estocs, creixement i regeneració. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  49. Vedel SE, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2015) Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecol Econ 113:15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Agro-food Economy and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA)CastelldefelsSpain
  2. 2.European Forest Institute, Mediterranean Regional Office (EFIMED)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Food and Resource Economics, Center for Macroecology, Evolution and ClimateUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhaguenDenmark
  4. 4.European Forest InstituteJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations