Modeling Multifunctional Agroforestry Systems with Environmental Values: Dehesa in Spain and Woodland Ranches in California

  • Pablo Campos
  • Alejandro Caparrós
  • Emilio Cerdá
  • Lynn Huntsinger
  • Richard B. Standiford
Part of the International Series In Operations Research amp; Mana book series (ISOR, volume 99)

The high environmental and amenity values of Mediterranean oak woodlands influence the response of the public and landowners to market forces and to public policies for the management of oak woodland areas. In California and in Spain, woodlands with a Quercus overstory open enough to allow the development of a significant grassy or shrubby understory harbor exceptional levels of biodiversity, provide watershed and habitat, sequester carbon, offer historically meaningful landscapes, and are pleasing to the eye. For historic reasons, and because of the social and environmental values of the woodlands for their owners, large private holdings based on sylvopastoral enterprises have and will have a crucial role in the future of the woodlands. Simple financial models for predicting landowner behavior based on response to market forces do not explain landowner retention of oaks without incorporation of landowner consumption of environmental and amenity values from the property, because landowner utility for oaks is not fully accounted for. By the same token, predicting the best afforestation approach considering carbon sequestration alone without consideration of the biodiversity and amenity values of native oaks risks an overvaluation of planting alien species that could have negative environmental and social consequences. Reforestation models for carbon sequestration that do not incorporate biodiversity and public amenity values might favor plantings of alien species such as eucalyptus; however, this does not take into account the high public and private consumption values of native oaks.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Campos, P., 1984. Economía y energía en la dehesa extremeña. Instituto de Estudios Agrarios, Pesqueros y Alimentarios/MAPA, Madrid.Google Scholar
  2. Campos, P., 1997. Análisis de la rentabilidad económica de la dehesa. Situación. Serie estudios regionales: Extremadura: 111-140.Google Scholar
  3. Campos, P., 2004. Towards a sustainable global economy for Mediterranean agro forestry systems. In: S. Schnabel and A. Gonçalves (Editors), Advances in GeoEcology 37: Sustainability of Agro-silvo-pastoral Systems -Dehesas & Montados-. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen, Germany, 13-28.Google Scholar
  4. Campos, P. and Mariscal, P., 2003. Preferencias de los propietarios e intervención pública: el caso de las dehesas de la comarca de Monfragüe. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales 12(3): 87-102.Google Scholar
  5. Caparrós, A. and Jacquemont, F., 2003. Conflicts between biodiversity and carbon offset programs: economic and legal implications. Ecol. Econ. 46: 143-157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caparrós, A., Campos, A., and Martín, D., 2003. Influence of carbon dioxide abatement and recreational services on optimal forest rotation. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. 6(3): 1-14.Google Scholar
  7. Caparrós, A., Cerdá, E., and Campos, P., 2007. Carbon sequestration with reforestations and and biodiversity-scenic values. FEEM Working Paper No. 28, 2007 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=976402
  8. Cerrillo, E.,1984. La vida rural romana en Extremadura. Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres.Google Scholar
  9. CDF-FRRAP, 2003. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program, (2003). The Changing California: Forest and Range 2003 Assessment. Sacramento, CA. http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/assessment2003/index.html.
  10. Díaz, M., Campos, P., and Pulido, F.J., 1997. The Spanish dehesas: a diversity in land-use and wildlife. In: D.J. Pain and W. Pienkowski (Editors), Farming and Birds in Europe. Academic Press, Londres, 178-209.Google Scholar
  11. Ewing, R., Tosta, N., Tuazon, R., Huntsinger, L., Marose, R., Nielsen, K., and Motroni, R., 1988. California's Forest and Range Resources: Growing Conflicts Over Changing Uses. The 1988 Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment. Anchor Press, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, California, 278 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Hernández, J.A. and Pulido, F., 2004. Aproximación a la historia de la agricultura en Extremadura (II). De la Reconquista a los Austrias. In: La agricultura y la ganadería extremeñas 2003. Caja de Badajoz, Badajoz: 197-215.Google Scholar
  13. Howitt, R., 1995. Positive mathematical programming. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77: 329-342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huntsinger, L., Buttoloph, L., and Hopkinson, P., 1997. Ownership and management changes on California hardwood rangelands: 1985 to 1992.? J. Range Manage. 50(4): 423-430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacquemont, F. and Caparrós, A., 2002. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Climate Change Convention ten years after Rio: towards a synergy of the two regimes? Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 11(2): 169-180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kan-Rice, P. and Sokolow, A., 2003. A National View of Agricultural Easement Programs: Profiles and Maps - Report 1. American Farmland Trust, Center for Agriculture in the Environment. http://www.aftresearch.org/PDRdatabase/NAPidx.htm.
  17. Keeley, J.E., 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. J. Biogeogr. 29: 303-320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein, J., 1920. The Mesta: a Study in Spanish Economic History, 1273-1836. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 444p.Google Scholar
  19. Liffmann, R.H. Huntsinger, L., and Forero, L.C., 2000. To ranch or not to ranch: home on the urban range? J. Range Manage. 53: 362-370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linares, A.M. and Zapata, S., 2003. Una panorámica de ocho siglos. In: F. Pulido, P. Campos, and G. Montero (Editors), La gestión forestal de la dehesa: historia, ecología, selvicultura y economía. Iprocor, Mérida: 13-25.Google Scholar
  21. Maqueda, A., Jiménez, J.L., and Mordillo, A., 2004. Las vías pecuarias de Extremadura. In: La agricultura y la ganadería extremeñas 2003. Caja de Badajoz, Badajoz: 165-179.Google Scholar
  22. Matthews, S., O’Connor, R., and Plantinga, A.J., 2002. Quantifying the impacts on biodiversity of policies for carbon sequestration in forests. Eco. Econ. 40(1): 71-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moons, E., Proost, S., Saveyn B., and Hermy, M., 2004. Optimal location of new forests in a suburban area. KU Leuven Working Paper.Google Scholar
  24. Perez, C., 1982. Grants of land in California made by Spanish or Mexican authorities. Boundary Determination Office, State Lands Commission, Boundary Investigation Unit, August 23. Extracts from: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/rancho.html.
  25. Standiford, R.B. and Howitt, R.E., 1992. Solving empirical bioeconomic models: a rangeland management application. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 74: 421-433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Standiford, R.B. and Howitt, R.E., 1993. Multiple use management of California's hardwood rangelands. J. Range Manage. 46: 176-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Standiford, R.B., McCreary, D., Gaertner, S., and Forero, L., 1996. Impact of firewood harvesting on hardwood rangelands varies with region. Calif. Agric. 50(2): 7-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Standiford, R.B. and Scott, T.A., 2001. Value of oak woodlands and open space on private property values in Southern California. Special issue - Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales - Towards the New Forestlands Commercial and Environmental Benefits Accounting. Theories and Applications. 1: 137-152.Google Scholar
  29. Standiford, R.B. and Tinnin, P., 1996. Guidelines for managing California's hardwood rangelands. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Leaflet no. 3368, 180 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Sulak, A. and Huntsinger, L., 2002. Sierra Nevada grazing in transition: The role of Forest Service grazing in the foothill ranches of California. Sierra Nevada Alliance, (http://www.sierranevadaalliance.org/publications/)
  31. Van Kooten, G.C., 2000. Economic Dynamics of Tree Planting for Carbon Uptake on Marginal Agricultural Lands. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 48: 51-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pablo Campos
    • 1
  • Alejandro Caparrós
    • 1
  • Emilio Cerdá
    • 2
  • Lynn Huntsinger
    • 3
  • Richard B. Standiford
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Economics and Geography (IEG)Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC)Spain
  2. 2.University ComplutenseSpain
  3. 3.College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations