Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 481–499 | Cite as


  • LAURA NAHUELHUALEmail author


The Valdivian Rainforest Ecoregion (35°–48° S) in southern South America is among the ecosystems with highest conservation priority worldwide due to its rich diversity, degree of endemism, and critical conservation status. Temperate rainforests in this vast area are essential as source of biological resources and to maintain different ecosystem services which remain largely unmeasured and unvalued. Consequently, the benefits they provide are not reflected in decision-making regarding forest management and conservation. Based on existing studies and results from ongoing research we describe selected ecosystem services and provide estimates of their economic value. Timber benefits for secondary forests expressed as net present stumpage values were US$ 3742 ha−1 and US$ 3093 ha−1 for sustainable forest management (SFM) and unsustainable harvesting, respectively. Timber benefits for old growth forests␣equaled US$ 4546 ha−1 and US$ 5718 ha−1, for SFM and unsustainable harvesting, respectively, using an 8% discount rate. Annual benefits from recreation were US$ 1.6 ha−1 and US$ 6.3 ha−1 for the two most important national parks located in the study area. The annual value of maintaining soil fertility was US$ 26.3 ha−1 using the replacement cost of nutrient losses due to soil erosion. The annual economic value of water supply for human consumption using the production function method was US$ 235 ha−1. These results provide valuable information on the kind and magnitude of values that could be relevant in decision-making concerning conservation and management of native forests in the Valdivian Rainforest Ecoregion.


economic value ecosystem services temperate rainforest Valdivian Rainforest Ecoregion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adger W., Brown K., Cervigni R., Moran D., 1995, Total economic value of forests in Mexico Ambio 24: 286–296Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, F., Ojeda, G. and Sepúlveda, C.: 1999, Monitoreo forestal: informe sobre actividades de monitoreo forestal independiente, WWF Project No FC 92, CODEFF, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  3. Ataroff M., Rada F., 2000, Deforestation impact on water dynamics in a Venezuelan Andean cloud forest Ambio 29: 440–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker J., 1986, The Crossett Farm Forestry Forties after 41 years of selection management Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 10: 233–237Google Scholar
  5. Baker, J.B., Cain M.D., Guldin J.M., Murphy P.A., and Shelton M.G.: 1996, Uneven-aged silviculture for the loblolly and shortleaf pine forests cover types. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO-34Google Scholar
  6. Bann, C.:1997, An Economic Analysis of Alternative Mangrove Management Strategies in Koh Kong Province, Cambodia, Research Report, Environment and Economy Programme for South East Asia, International Development Research Centre, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bann C., 1998, The Economic Valuation of Tropical Forest Land Use Option: A Manual for Researchers Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, Singapore, pp.117–126Google Scholar
  8. Barreto P., Amaral P., Vidal E., Uhl C., 1998, Costs and benefits of forest management for timber production in eastern Amazonia Forest Ecology and Management 108: 9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bishop, J.: 1999, Valuing Forests: A Review of Methods and Applications in Developing Countries, IIED, Environmental Economics Program International Institute for Environment and Development, http://www.worldbank.orgGoogle Scholar
  10. Calder I., Rosier P., Prasanna K., Parameswarappa S. 1997, Eucalyptus water use greater than rainfall input-a possible explanation from southern India Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 1: 249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceballos-Lascuráin H. 1996, Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas: The State of Nature-Based Tourism Around the World and Guidelines for its Development IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. CONAMA: 2005, Plan de Acción de País para la Implementación de la Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad 2004–2015, Scholar
  13. CONAF: 2005, Estadísticas SNASPE 1978–2004, http://www.conaf.clGoogle Scholar
  14. Corcuera E., Sepúlveda C., Geisse G., 2004, Conserving land privately: spontaneous markets for land conservation in Chile In: Paggiola S., Bishop J., Landell-Mills N. (eds), Selling Forest Environmental Services. Earthscan, London, pp. 125–149Google Scholar
  15. Corti D. 1997, Caracterización y crecimiento de un renoval de roble, lingue y radal en la comuna de Loncoche, IX region Facultad de Ciencias Forestales. Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Undergraduate ThesesGoogle Scholar
  16. Costanza R., Folke C., 1997, Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness and sustainability as goals In: Daily G. (eds), Nature’s Services: Society Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Costanza R., D’Arge R., De Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O’Neill R., Paruelo J., Raskin R., Sutton P., Van den Belt M., 1997, The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital Nature 387: 253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daily G., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. De Groot, R.: 1994, ‘Environmental functions and the economic value of natural ecosystems’, in A.␣Janson (ed.), Investing in natural capital: the ecological economics approach to sustainability, International Society for Ecological Economics, Island Press, pp. 151–168Google Scholar
  20. De Groot R., Wilson M., Boumans R., 2002, A typology for the classification, descriptions and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services Ecological. Economics 41: 393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De la Maza C., Duke C., 1996, Modeling willingness to pay in six Chilean wildland protected areas Parks Review 16: 34–39Google Scholar
  22. Donoso C., 1993, Bosques templados de Chile y Argentina Variación, estructura y dinámica. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  23. Donoso C., Donoso P., González M., Sandoval V., 1999a, Los Bosques Siempreverdes, In: Donoso C., Lara A., (eds), Silvicultura de los Bosques Nativos. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago Chile, pp. 297–367Google Scholar
  24. Donoso, P.: 2002, Structure and Growth in Coastal Evergreen Forests as the Bases for Uneven-aged Silviculture in Chile, Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse, New York, State University of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Donoso P., Cabezas C., Lavanderos A., Donoso C., 1999b, Estudio comparativo de la estructura y crecimiento de renovales de coihue (Nothofagus dombeyi) en la precordillera de la Costa y de los Andes de la provincia de Valdivia Bosque 20: 9–23Google Scholar
  26. Donoso P., Monfil T., Otero L., Barrales L. 1993, Estudio de crecimiento de plantaciones y renovales de especies nativas en el área andina de las provincias de Valdivia y Cautín Ciencia e Investigación 7: 24–42Google Scholar
  27. Grosse H., Quiroz I., 1998, Silvicultura de los bosques de segundo crecimiento de roble, raulí y coihue en la región centro-sur de Chile In: Donoso C., Lara A. (eds), Silvicultura de los Bosques Nativos de Chile. Universitaria, Santiago, Chile, pp. 95–128Google Scholar
  28. Hanewinkel M., 2002, Comparative economic investigations of even-aged and uneven-aged sylvicultural systems: a critical analysis of different methods Forestry 75: 473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hernández, O., Cobos, C. and Ortiz, A.:2002, Valoración ambiental del servicio ambiental de regulación hídrica,ón-económica-RBSM-sur- final.pdfGoogle Scholar
  30. Howarth R., Farber S., 2002, Accounting for the value of ecosystem services Ecological Economics 41: 421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Instituto de Asuntos Públicos de la Universidad de Chile: 2002, Informe país: estado del medioambiente en Chile, Colección Sociedad Estado y Políticas Públicas, Lom Ediciones, Santiago, Chile, 458 pGoogle Scholar
  32. King R., 1966, Wildlife and man New York Conservationist 20: 8–11Google Scholar
  33. Kumari K., 1996, Sustainable forest management: myth or reality?’, Exploring the prospect for Malaysia Ambio 25: 459–467Google Scholar
  34. Lara, A., Donoso, C. and Aravena, J.: 1995, ‘La conservación del bosque nativo en Chile: Problemas y desafíos’, Ecología de los bosques nativos de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, Chile, pp. 335–362Google Scholar
  35. Lara A., Donoso C., Donoso P., Núñez P., Cavieres A., 1999, Normas de manejo para raleo de renovales del tipo forestal Roble-Raulí-Coigüe In: Donoso C., Lara A. (eds), Silvicultura de los bosques nativos de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, Chile, pp. 129–144Google Scholar
  36. Lara, A., Echeverría, C. and Reyes, R.: 2002, ‘Bosques Nativos’, in Instituto de Asuntos Públicos, Universidad de Chile (ed.), Informe País. Estado del Medio Ambiente en Chile 2002, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, pp. 127–160Google Scholar
  37. Lara A., Veblen T., 1993, Forest plantations in Chile: A successful model? In: Mather A. (eds), Afforestation Policies, Planning and Progress. Behaven Press, London, UK, pp.118–139Google Scholar
  38. Mäller K., 1992, The production function approach in developing countries In: Vincent J., Crawford E., Hoehn J. (eds), Valuing Environmental Benefits in Developing Economies. Michigan State University, Graduate specialization in Resource Economics, East Lansing, Michigan. Seminar proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  39. Malmer, A.: 1993, Dynamics of Hydrology and Nutrient Losses as Response to Establishment of Forest Plantation. A case study on tropical rainforest land in Sabah, Malaysia, Ph.D Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  40. Mancilla G., 1995, Erosión bajo cubiertas vegetales en la cordillera de Nahuelbuta Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, Undergraduate ThesesGoogle Scholar
  41. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: 2003, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Myers, N.: 1997, ‘The world’s forests and their ecosystem services’, in G. Daily (ed.), Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems, Island Press, Whashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Navarro C., Donoso C., Sandoval V., 1999, Los renovales de canelo In: Donoso C., Lara A. (eds), Silvicultura de los bosques nativos de Chile. Universitaria, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  44. Neira E., 2005, Producción de agua en dos microcuencas de la Cordillera de Los Andes (San Pablo de Tregua) con diferente cobertura de renovales de Nothofagus spp. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile Master dissertationGoogle Scholar
  45. Núñez D., 2004, Valoración económica del servicio ecosistémico de producción de agua, del bosque de la cuenca de Llancahue, Décima Región Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile, Master dissertationGoogle Scholar
  46. ODEPA: 2004, Series de precios: precios de productos e insumos agropecuarios, http://www.odepa.clGoogle Scholar
  47. Odum, E. and Odum, H.: 1972, ‘Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total environment’, in Transactions of the 37th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute 37, 178–189Google Scholar
  48. OECD: 2005, Environmental Performance Reviews, ChileGoogle Scholar
  49. Olson D., Dinerstein E., 1998, The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Distinctive Ecoregions World Wildlife Fund, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. Oyarzún C., 1997, Estudio a mesoescala de la erosión del suelo en una cuenca hidrográfica de montaña, Chile central Meridiano 5:23–28Google Scholar
  51. Paggiola, S., von Ritter, K. and Bishop, J.: 2004, ‘Assessing the Economic Value of Ecosystem Conservation’, The World Bank Environmental Department, Paper No 101, 58 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. Pearce D., 1993, Economic Values and the Natural World Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Pearce D., 2001, The Economic Value of Forest Ecosystems Ecosystem Health 7: 284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearce D., Markandya A., Barbier E., 1989, Blueprint for a Green Economy Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Pearce, D. and Pearce, C.: 2001, ‘The Value of Forest Ecosystems’, A Report to the Secretariat Convention on Biological Diversity Google Scholar
  56. Peña, L., Carrasco, P., Figueroa, M., Oyarzún, C. and Lo Cascio, B.: 1993, ‘Pérdidas por erosión hídrica en suelos agrícolas y forestales de la cuenca del río Bío-Bío’, in Elementos cognoscitivos sobre el recurso suelo y consideraciones generales sobre el ordenamiento agroforestal, Serie Propuestas de Ordenamiento 4, 45–59Google Scholar
  57. Pezoa L. 2003, ‘Recopilación y análisis de la variación de las temperaturas (período 1965–2001) y las precipitaciones (período 1931–2001) a partir de la información de estaciones meteorológicas de Chile entre los 33° y 53° de latitud Sur’ Facultad Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile, Undergraduate ThesesGoogle Scholar
  58. Pimentel D., Wilson C., 1997, Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity Bioscience 47: 747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Putuhena W.M., Cordery I., 2000, Some hydrological effects of changing forest cover from Eucalyptus to Pinus radiata Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100: 59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Silva J., Donoso P., Lara A., Little C., 2004, Estudio de seis años de respuestas al raleo en renovales de roble (Nothofagus obliqua (mirb. oerst.) en el predio Aillapán, comuna de Loncoche, IX region. IUFRO Internacional Conference, Valdivia, ChileGoogle Scholar
  61. Torras M., 2000, The total economic value of Amazonian deforestation, 1978–1993 Ecological Economics 33: 283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Villa F., Wilson M., De Groot R., Farber S., Costanza R., Boumans R., 2002, Designing an Integrated knowledge base to support ecosystem services valuation Ecological Economics 41: 445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wadsworth, F.: 1997, Forest production for Tropical America, Agricultural Handbook 710 USDAGoogle Scholar
  64. WRI, CODEFF, UACH.: 2002, Chile’s Frontier Forests: Conserving A Global Treasure, A global Forest Watch Report, ChileGoogle Scholar
  65. WWF, APN, CEAN, CODEFF, FSD, FVSA, INTA, UACH, UNCOMA, ULAG, UDEC: 2003, Biodiversity vision for the Valdivian Temperate Rainforest Ecoregion of Chile and Argentina, Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
    • 6
    Email author
    • 2
    • 6
    • 2
    • 6
    • 3
    • 6
    • 4
    • 6
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Instituto de Economía Agraria Universidad Austral de ChileValdiviaChile
  2. 2.Instituto de SilviculturaUniversidad Austral de ChileValdiviaChile
  3. 3.Doctoral student in Forest SciencesUniversidad Austral de ChileValdiviaChile
  4. 4.Instituto de GeocienciasUniversidad Austral de ChileValdiviaChile
  5. 5.Laboratorio GISUniversidad Austral de ChileValdiviaChile
  6. 6.FORECOS nucleus (Forest Ecosystemic Services to Aquatic Systems under Climatic Fluctuations)Millennium Scientific Initiative nucleus of the Ministry of PlanningValdiviaChile

Personalised recommendations