Abstract
The effects of climate change are increasingly more visible on natural ecosystems. Being mountain forest ecosystems among the most vulnerable and the most affected, they appear to be, at the same time, the most suitable for the assessment of climate change effects on ecosystem services. Assuming this, we review the literature on the economic assessment of climate change impacts on European mountain forests. Initially, the trends in the provision of mountain forest ecosystem services are discussed. We, then, considered the effects on forest structure and tree physiology, these two being strictly associated with the capability of the ecosystem to provide ecosystem services. The results have been grouped into a table that displays the trend, the quality and the quantity of the information found. Subsequently, the main methods that can be employed to assess the economic value of the different ecosystem services have been described. For each method, some implementation examples have been introduced to better understand its functioning. Concluding, the main gaps still existing in literature concerning the effects of climate change on ecosystem services provided by mountain forests have been highlighted. Finally, some more considerations about the existing methods for the economic valuation of ecosystem services have been done.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
13.1 Introduction
Climate change is one of the main drivers of changes in mountain ecosystems and in their capability to provide related services. This is due to their higher vulnerability, compared to other terrestrial ecosystems, to the changes in temperature and precipitation (Beniston 2003). The upper shift of species and consequently their adaptation to changes is limited by the long time span of trees that cannot quickly react to the changes and the limitation of their altitudinal range (Lindner et al. 2010). For these reasons, forests located in mountain areas are among the most appropriate ecosystems for climate change detection (Ding et al. 2016). Moreover, ecosystem services (ES) provided by mountain regions support a large number of components essential for human health and well-being (water, quality of food products, biomass, flood prevention, tourism and recreation, etc.) (Briner et al. 2013).
It is also for this reason that forest ecosystems, in Europe, cover an important role in relation to climate change mitigation and connected strategies. To understand the role of forests in climate change mitigation, see Chap. 15 of this book (Vizzarri et al. 2021).
According to the new version of the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, V5.1, http://cices.eu/resources/; Haines-Young and Potschin 2018), ES can be divided in three main categories: provisioning, regulating and cultural. Provisioning ES are those material services related to the goods provided by ecosystems. Regulative ecosystem services are those intangible services that have a regulative function (e.g. erosion control, water purification, climate control). Finally, cultural ES are those intangible services that comprise aesthetic, spiritual, educational, recreational and touristic value. It is important to quantify and to value the provision of ES through numerical and economic indicators to be able to monitor and compare them. In this way, it is consequently possible to address them in political and economic discourses. ES values can then be presented to stakeholders for understanding and defining trade-off and synergies between material goods and intangible services (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2013). Whether provisioning services are easier to assess and evaluate, most of the regulative and cultural services cannot be measured in market terms, since the methods to quantify them and to assess their values have only recently been developed.
In the valuation of ES, using the terminology of the cost-benefit analysis, a basic distinction should always be made between the financial analysis, which assesses the incurred expenditures and gained revenues, and the economic analysis, which is aimed to detect the real value of ES for the society, taking into account both the positive impacts (benefits) and the negative ones, which cannot be described by market prices (externalities). This kind of analysis tries to include the so-called total economic value (TEV) of ES that incorporates not only their market values (wood, non-wood forest products, water, etc.) but also all their intangible benefits and costs (Thorsen et al. 2014). While the literature connected with the financial analysis of mountain forest ES has a long tradition in terms of the role and importance of provisioning services (with a focus on wood products), the economic analysis of the total value of forest ES in mountain regions has been rarely carried out. Moreover, notwithstanding the mentioned socioeconomic characteristics of mountain forest ES (diversity and multiplicity of the ES, high perceived values, relevance and non-market benefits), there is no systemic analysis of the literature on their economic assessment. The aim of this chapter is to contribute to the existing knowledge through a literature review on the existing economic assessment of climate change effects on mountain forest ES with a special focus on European mountain regions.
13.2 European Mountain Forests
Mountains cover 29% of the EU territory, and, in this area, the most diffuse land use is forest covering 41% of the total mountain areas (Zisenis et al. 2010; Hartl et al. 2014). Global warming does not evenly affect Europe; its impact varies depending on a bioclimatic region allocated at different elevations and latitudes (Rogora et al. 2018). Furthermore, the impact of climate change on forest ecosystems also depends on the bioclimatic zone and on the resulting forest types (Lindner et al. 2007, 2010).
The main European bioclimatic zones are polar, boreal, temperate and Mediterranean. Because of the absence of forest in polar areas, the focus of our research has been on the other three regions. Within the temperate region, an important distinction has been made between the oceanic and the continental subareas. The bioclimatic map of the European countries is presented in Fig. 13.1. Besides, the alpine region was considered to better represent the characteristics of the main European mountain ranges: the Alps, the Pyrenees and the Carpathian (Lindner et al. 2010).
13.3 The Methodological Approach
To estimate the economic impact of climate change on the provision of European mountain forest ES, the chapter was organized in two parts. Firstly, the impact of climate change on forest ES was described. In order to meet this first objective, the analysis of the bibliography included also the effects of climate change on tree physiology and forest structure (Kurbanov et al. 2007), due to the fact that changes in forest structure are strictly related to the ecosystem capability in delivering ES (Brockerhoff et al. 2017). This relation has been also analysed in Chap. 6 of this book (Pretzsch et al. 2021). In the analysis of the bibliography, papers predicting the effects of climate change through modelling have not been taken into consideration; this topic is explored in Chap. 7 of this book (Bosela et al. 2021). In the second part, the approaches employed for forest ES quantification and for their economic assessment were analysed. Also in this, case scientific literature was consulted.
The Scopus bibliographic database was used to analyse the literature and as a source of data for our research.
13.4 Climate Change Impacts on the Provision of Mountain Forest ES
In Table 13.1, the data found as a result of the review of the literature are summarized. The trends of the climate change impact on the provision of mountain forest ES are grouped in four categories: “increasing”, “decreasing”, “stable” and “mixed”. Depending on the quantity and quality of the evidence and correlations among them, the data obtained were classified as follows: “well established”, “established but incomplete” and “unresolved” using a similar approach used by IPBES (2018).
Provisioning Services
Within this category of ES were considered the ones related to forest biomass (bioenergy and timber production) and non-wood forest products. Water provision is also generally considered dealing with provisioning services. Nevertheless, in this chapter, water issues were considered only in relation to water quality regulation dealing with regulating services.
Changes in net primary production (NPP), which influence timber provision, have different trends in diverse bioclimatic areas. In the Mediterranean region, tree growth increment is negatively affected principally by water scarcity (Linares et al. 2009; Scarascia-Mugnozza et al. 2010; Fyllas et al. 2017; Rogora et al. 2018). The opposite trend has been detected in the boreal region, where temperature tends to be the most limiting factor; in this region, climate change is, therefore, enhancing forest productivity, even if winter frost has a negative impact on it (Kullman 1996). In temperate regions, the trend is more heterogeneous with different impacts according to the local and environmental conditions, especially related to water and temperature trends (Kurbanov and Post 2002; Lindner et al. 2010; Loboda et al. 2017). In the north-western part of the temperate oceanic region, tree growth and increment is slightly higher because of temperature increase, a factor that significantly influences tree response in the area, while in more south-eastern and temperate continental regions, water scarcity negatively affects the radial growth dynamics (Friedrichs et al. 2009; Horak et al. 2014; Panayotov et al. 2016). Finally, considering alpine areas, they are characterized by a general increase in timber production (Rogora et al. 2018), with the presence of an inverse trend where soil moisture is not enough to support a high photosynthetic rate (Meining et al. 2004; Galiano et al. 2010).
Regulating Services
Forests play an important role in climate regulation, being able to store CO2 above the soil level. Moreover, tree canopies can modify the albedo of the land surface. For instance, in the boreal region, the expansion of forests is changing the capacity of forest ecosystems to mitigate climate changes, because forest expansion decreases the albedo of the area (Beniston 2003). Regarding carbon sequestration, the impact of climate change on this ES varies in different regions. In fact, being strictly related to tree growth, stand capacity of stocking carbon follows a pattern similar to stem radial increment. For instance, in temperate continental regions, the carbon uptake is negatively impacted by the higher temperature and lower precipitation, because of the reduction of tree photosynthetic rate (Horak et al. 2014). In alpine and Mediterranean areas, CO2 absorption can follow different patterns: in some regions, the carbon uptake is enhanced by global warming, due to the longer growing season and the earlier melting of snow or due to the rise up of the timberline (Rogora et al. 2018). In some other regions, a negative impact of climate change on forest carbon stock is recorded due to the lower capacity of forest soils to store organic carbon mainly caused by the accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter (Prietzel and Christophel (2014)). In this second case, Mediterranean mountain forests are generally further limited in their carbon adsorption capability because of water stress (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al. 2010) or insect defoliation (Jacquet et al. 2012).
Another important regulating service provided by mountain forests is pest control. Several studies assessed the expansion of insects’ range, winter survival and frequency of pest outbreaks (e.g. Battisti and Larsson 2015; Pureswaran et al. 2018). Generally, pests spread depending on the altitudinal gradient, even if latitudinal expansion seems to be prevalent (Battisti and Larsson 2015). In the Mediterranean region, pest control in mountain forest ecosystems is harder to manage in comparison with the other regions, due to vulnerability of trees caused by water scarcity (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al. 2010).
Biodiversity protection has been considered as a broad ES, more specifically described by lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection. Considering these indicators, in the recent years, biodiversity protection has increased in most of Europe. The regions that experienced a decrease in species richness are the Mediterranean region and the alpine region (Pauli et al. 2012).
Climate change also affects the dynamics of disturbances, such as fire, landslide and wind, making forests more vulnerable and affecting their capability of natural hazards regulation. In their paper, Seidl et al. (2007) analysed the correlation between climate change and natural disturbances and argued there was a direct interrelation between them.
13.5 Economic Evaluation of Climate Change Damages in Mountain Forests
The effects of climate change on mountain forest capability to provide ES in the different European bioclimatic areas have been identified in the first part of this chapter. In order to understand which are the consequent economic impacts caused by these changes, it is necessary to estimate the value of the considered forest ES. Several methods have been developed to estimate ES value, and different frameworks have been designed to systematize and to classify them. Hereafter, the framework developed by Masiero et al. (2019) in their manual Valuing Forest Ecosystem Services: A Training Manual for Planners and Project Developers has been used as reference (Fig. 13.2).
In the next Sects. (13.5.1 and 13.5.2), the cases founded in literature that use the methods shown in Fig. 13.2 to assess ES value will be presented and described. In Sect. 13.5.1, the different ES provided by mountain forests are cross-checked with the methods used for their economic valuation with reference to the literature review.
The methods used for the assessment (financial and economic) of ES values can be divided into two main categories: “market value approaches” and “demand curve approaches”. In the first section (13.5.1), those cases where methods included in the first category have been implemented will be described. In the second section (13.5.2), the cases where methods based on the demand curve will be analysed. The examples founded through a literature review have been integrated with the cases described in a database developed within the Gestire project (2015), with the aim to assess the economic values of the Natura 2000 network in Lombardy (Italy).
13.5.1 Market Value Approaches
This category comprises all the methods that are based on the use of values recorded by the market to carry out direct or indirect estimation of the value of mountain forest ES. Market prices can be a good signal of the value of ES being influenced by supply and demand functions, i.e. by the revenue generation capacity, current costs and the preferences of consumers. Compared to the other category of techniques (demand curve approaches), these methods are easier to apply due to the use of already existing values directly assumed from the real market. This is also the reason why the outcomes from the implementation of these methods are considered as “hard results”, i.e. connected with real evidence from the market. Nevertheless, in many cases, the results of the market value approaches represent an underestimate of the total economic value (TEV) of mountain forest ES.
-
(a)
Benefit as a proxy
The “benefit as a proxy” methods comprise those methods that use the final revenues or economic benefits to estimate the value of goods and services. This category is represented by two main methods: opportunity cost and production function.
Opportunity Cost (OC)
The OC describes the cost that the landowner has to incur when he/she decides not to change the specific land use or not to change his/her economic activities in order to maintain or enhance a particular mountain forest ES, therefore renouncing to an increase of his/her income. Let’s make some examples. The opportunity cost for a landowner that is involved in a project, aimed to enhance forest biodiversity, is represented by the income loss derived from the reduction on timber harvesting to comply with the project aim. The amount of income lost can be used to estimate the value of biodiversity protection in that forest, representing the additional revenue that the owner is willing to renounce to preserve biodiversity.
Because the OC strictly depends on the land cover or the activity performed in a specific area, its value is related to the local situation (Barton et al. 2013). Some examples of OC application are listed hereafter. Extensive application of this methodology was found in decision-making processes related to forest conservation, biodiversity protection, carbon sequestration or, at the contrary, forest exploitation (Kniivilä and Saastamoinen 2002; Seidl et al. 2007; Schröter et al. 2014; Hily et al. 2015). Similarly, OC approach has been used to consider the effects of land-use changes on the provision of different forest ES in Central and Eastern European countries (Ruijs et al. 2017) or to evaluate the different provision of forest ES, changing from a monoculture to a close-to-nature forest management system in order to estimate its costs and benefits (Schou et al. 2012). Another example in the use of OC is provided by Campos et al. (2020), where it has been used to estimate the environmental income deriving from different activities landowners can implement in a specific ecosystem, cork oak open woodlands, in southern Spain.
Production Function (PF)
This method puts in relation a specific forest ES with the production of a specific good associated to the market. The forest ES is viewed as input for the provision of a specific good. The assessment of the economic value of the selected ecosystem service is calculated considering its contribution in the provision of the market good. The value of the forest ES is thus associated with the increase of income generated by the improved production system. In using this approach, it is necessary to know the existing relation between the forest ES and the provided good.
This method has been mainly used in literature for the valuation of regulating forest ES (see Table 13.2). To better understand the operational aspect of PF implementation, some authors that used it are here presented. Gren et al. (2018), for instance, used the production function method, in combination with another method called replacement cost that is described within the “cost as a proxy method”, in order to assess the impact of pathogens spread in the capability of carbon dioxide sequestration in forest ecosystems. Another good example of the application of this method can be found in Nahuelhual et al. (2007), where PF was selected as a suitable methodology for assessing the economic value of water provision of the Valdivian forests in Chile. A similar application was used by Westling et al. (2020) to estimate the value of water quality regulation of Sweden forests used as input to produce drinkable water.
-
(b)
Cost as a proxy
The “cost as a proxy” methods referred to those methods that use the cost incurred in producing a certain good or in substituting it with similar ones, as estimation of the economic value of the considered forest ecosystem service . This category comprises replacement cost, cost of substitute goods, defensive expenditures and damage and insurance costs methods.
Replacement Cost (RC)
In this approach, the value of the forest ES is associated with the avoided cost to replace the service in case of its loss. In other words, the value of the benefits associated with a certain forest ES is derived from the cost to replace the same benefit with different services or goods.
Several studies have used this methodology to assess forest ES values. Bianchi et al. (2018), for instance, carried out a literature review on the use of different methodologies to measure the value of protection services against rock falls, avalanches and landslides and for investment in flood protection in the Alps, in which RC proved its effectiveness (see also Notaro and Paletto 2012; Häyhä et al. 2015; Getzner et al. 2017; Accastello et al. 2019). Grilli et al. (2015) assessed the values of different forest ES in Italian alpine valleys. Replacement cost was also used to evaluate carbon sequestration in different forests, for instance, to assess the value of CO2 sequestration in Swedish forests (Gren 2015), Italian forests (Notaro et al. 2009) and Iranian forests (Karimzadeh Jafari et al. 2020). The RC method was also used to assess water quality services provided by forests. In their paper, Hunter et al. (2019) estimated the value of water purification by coastal wetland in Louisiana, calculating the costs incurred by the treatment plants to provide drinkable water. A slightly different approach in the implementation of this method can be found in the study of Clinch (2000). In this research, RC was implemented in combination with other methodologies (Contingent Valuation and Damage Cost) to evaluate the Irish national forest plantation programme and assess its negative and positive aspects.
Cost of Substitute Goods (CSG)
The rationale behind this methodology is to relate the value of the ecosystem service to the cost that would be necessary to produce a substitute good or service, also called surrogate, fulfilling the same or similar function. This method faces the difficulty of finding appropriate surrogates to forest ES that cover comparable functions. For this reason, the cases in which this method has been used are fewer compared to other methodologies.
An interesting application of this method was done to evaluate the different financial benefits, generated from provisioning ES in a specific region of Nepal, obtained by two different systems of community-based forest management (Acharya et al. 2020).
Defensive Expenditures (DE)
This method analyses the value of a specific forest ES, associating it with the cost that would occur to avoid and/or reduce the negative environmental impact caused by the absence of the considered forest ecosystem service or with the hypothetic implementation costs for actions intended for the mitigation or compensation of the consequent damages caused by the absence of the considered ES.
This method was used in Morri et al. (2014) to quantify the monetary value of flood protection by forests of the Apennines in Italy. Moreover, in their paper, Snider et al. (2006) used the DE method to understand if the funds invested by the US federal government in forest fire prevention were effective. The value associated with the actions that had been implemented for forest fire protection by the government was used as a proxy of the value of the forest fire control services (regulating ES).
Damage and Insurance Costs (DIC)
Always related to “cost as proxy”, this method is used to assess the value of a forest ES, putting it in relation with the expenses incurred because of damages caused, for instance, by natural hazards or the insurance costs paid out as a result of the occurrence of the insured events.
In Pulkrab et al. (2011), this method was used to assess the value of pest control services of forests in the Czech Republic, calculating the damage caused by the outbreak. Similarly, in Gren et al. (2009), DIC was used to assess the damage caused by alien invasive species and their severe effects on biodiversity in Swedish forests. This method was also used to quantify the value of carbon sequestration of German forests (Wüstemann et al. 2014) and Irish forests (Clinch 2000). In Germany, DIC was also implemented to assess the monetary value of flood protection service of riparian forest (Barth and Döll 2016). Through this method, it was possible to estimate the avoided damage costs because of the presence of the riparian forest. The avoided costs were considered as a proxy of the value of the regulating ES itself. Finally, in Pavanelli and Voulvoulis (2019), DIC method was used to assess the value of those ES negatively affected by environmental damages.
13.5.2 Demand Curve Approaches
The second category of methods that allows the assessment of the economic value of forest ES is based on those methods that rely on the demand curve as a proxy. These methods are used whenever the assessment of market values is not applicable and when relevant non-market prices influence the calculation of the total economic value (TEV) of forest ES. This set of approaches works by estimating the value of forest ES through:
-
The decisions made by real consumers revealed by their concrete expenditures (so-called indirect methods)
-
The declared preferences of the real and potential consumers analysing their willingness to pay for a specific ES (so-called direct methods)
-
(c)
Indirect methods
The “indirect methods” are those methods based on the revealed preferences of the end users and consumers. Through consumers’ behaviour, in fact, it is possible to indirectly estimate the value they give to ES. In this category, two main methods are present: hedonic pricing and travel cost methods.
Hedonic Pricing (HP)
This technique assumes that the final price of a specific good depends on its internal characteristics but also on some external factors. For instance, if house pricing is taken into consideration, houses with similar characteristics could have different prices. This is also due to the different location of the buildings that can be surrounded by different landscapes. The difference in the price of similar houses, which can be explained by the presence or absence of a specific landscape, is an indicator of the price that people indirectly give to that specific landscape. Dealing with ES, through this method, it is possible to estimate the value of different forest ES. For instance, the aesthetic value of a forest can be estimated as the additional amount people pay to buy a house surrounded by forest instead of a similar, but cheaper, house located in a small city.
A clear example of this is reported in a study implemented in Croatia, where hedonic pricing method was applied considering the price of hotel rooms to estimate the touristic value of Mediterranean forest (Marušić et al. 2005). In literature, it is also possible to find studies in which other ES were estimated through this method. For instance, the Austrian Federal Forests commissioned the valuation of the protective functions of forests against landslides, avalanches and rock falls (Getzner et al. 2017). In Switzerland, according to Schläpfer et al. (2015), the value of different landscape amenities (comprising forests) was estimated by analysing the variation in rental prices. According to Sundelin et al. (2015), through the analysis of the values of different forest features (such as fragmentation, density, shape and productivity), it was possible to detect which characteristics of forestland affect the Swedish land value. Finally, in Poland, this method was used to assess the value of the presence of urban forest, considering apartment prices (Łaszkiewicz et al. 2019). Outside Europe (in the USA and Canada), hedonic pricing was applied to evaluate, among the others, the impact on cultural ES (touristic and aesthetic services) in forest affected by insect infestation (Price et al. 2010), the value of hunting recreational services (Hussain et al. 2007) and the value of erosion control services provided by the Ohioan forests (Hitzhusen 1999).
Travel Cost Method (TC)
In this method, the travel cost incurred by people who want to reach and visit a certain habitat/ecosystem is analysed to derive their willingness to pay for a specific forest ES or a combination of them. Generally, TC is used to estimate the value of cultural ES, specifically those related to tourism and recreation. In the implementation of TC, also the opportunity cost of time is considered in value assessment.
There are numerous applications of this method in assessing mountain forest ES. In Germany , for instance, it was used to estimate the value of cultural ES (recreation) provided by German protected areas (Mayer and Woltering 2018). It was also used to estimate the potential recreational value of forest in the UK (Ezebilo 2016), in the Czech Republic (Melichar 2014; Březina et al. 2019) and in Slovakia (Tutka and Kovalčík 2010). According to Moran et al. (2006), a more detailed TC method was carried out assessing the cultural services provided by Scottish forests, considering the cost of mountain biking as a recreational activity. In other cases implemented in the North America, specifically in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado (USA), this method was applied to assess the impact of forest fire on recreational ES (Loomis et al. 2001) and to assess the effects of tree density, influenced also by insect pests and other hazards, on the demand of recreational services (Walsh et al. 1989).
-
(d)
Direct methods
The “direct methods” comprise those methods that collect the willingness to pay off end users in relation to specific ES. The main tools used by this methods’ category are questionnaires and surveys that allow directly asking individuals’ opinion when different scenarios are presented to them. The two direct methods that are hereafter described are the contingent valuation and the choice modelling.
Contingent Valuation (CV)
This method aims to measure the willingness to accept the loss of a certain ES, if no actions for its provision or enhancement are implemented. Alternatively, it can be used to investigate the end users’ willingness to pay for the implementation of actions aimed to support the provision of a specific ES. A representative sample of people who directly or indirectly take advantage of the presence of a defined ES is interviewed. The analysis of their responses allows gathering information about their readiness to accept the loss of the ES or their willingness to pay for its provision through the presentation of different scenarios.
The just described method was used to assess the value of forest recreational services in an Italian alpine valley (Grilli et al. 2014), in Slovakian mountains (Tutka and Kovalčík 2010) and in British woodlands (Christhe et al. 2007). Moreover, in the Appalachian Mountains, it was used to value the health protection function of forest ecosystems (Holmes and Kramer 1996). According to Bastian et al. (2017), CV was one of the methods used to assess the value of forest ES provided by Eastern Ore Mountains (Germany and Czech Republic). In Italy, it was used also to evaluate the aesthetic services of the national forest landscape (Tempesta and Marangon 2004).
Choice Modelling (CM)
In choice modelling methods, consumers’ willingness to pay is detected by asking them to choose the best option among a variety of alternatives. The alternatives are characterized by different attributes of the ES under investigation. One of these attributes is the amount of money people would be willing to pay for the provision of the considered ES (and its attributes). The survey is designed to reveal the value given to the attributes and to their combinations. The assumption under this approach is that forest ES can be subdivided into different attributes. One of the alternatives represents the current situation (baseline), and the other ones correspond to different variations of the selected attributes. Each scenario is associated with a different amount of money that has to be taken into consideration in selecting the most suitable alternative.
Some examples of its application can be mainly found regarding the evaluation of different attributes of a single ES. For instance, it was applied in valuing recreation services in relation to biological impacts (e.g. bark beetle attack) (e.g. in Horne et al. 2005; Christie et al. 2007; De Valck et al. 2014; Arnberger et al. 2018) or in the assessment of biodiversity value (Horne 2006; Czajkowski et al. 2009, 2017; Meyerhoff et al. 2009; Hoyos et al. 2012). It was also applied in the assessment of heritage values (particularly referring to the landscape characters, e.g. Garrod et al. 2009) or to evaluate different forest ES (Gatto et al. 2014; Giergiczny et al. 2015).
13.6 Conclusion
A large variety of studies can be found in the scientific literature about climate change and its impacts on forest ecosystems, but a deep interdisciplinary analysis investigating how global warming is affecting the provision of the different forest ES is still missing. Moreover, the literature highlights a lack of information regarding the impacts of climate change on the provision of certain forest ES, such as cultural ES and some regulating services, for instance, “natural hazard regulation” (see Sect. 13.4.1). Because of the high environmental and climatic variability of mountain regions, it would be necessary to rely on good quality and quantity of primary data to be able to have a comprehensive understanding of the whole phenomenon under discussion. For these reasons, there is the necessity to integrate the existing knowledge with studies aimed to investigate climate change impacts on tree physiology and stand structures and integrating these data with the consequent impact on the provision of forest ES. Changes in their provision significantly influence human livelihood, particularly in mountain areas where the interdependence between human and forest ecosystems is stronger and thus more exposed to changing climate.
Through the literature review, several methods to assess the economic value of goods and services were detected. The most frequently used methods are the demand curve approaches. This could be explained by the growing interest in the use of these methods, which makes it possible to assess the non-market value of ES, a value that often is not recorded in the financial analysis. Another explanation could be related to the fact that the market value approaches, such as production function or cost of substitute good, need a profound knowledge about the interrelation between forest functions and the resulting provision of ES, an interrelation that is still not always known or fully understood.
The aim of this chapter was to outline the existing methods used to assess the value of ES and give an overview of the climate change impacts on the mountain forests ES provision capacity. The methods described in this chapter allow the assessment of the TEV of mountain forest ES, which can be used to create a baseline to assess, in the future, how their value will be modified in relation to climatic changes. Implementing similar studies in the long period will allow monitoring the changing value of mountain forest ES, permitting proper estimate of the economic impact of climate change on them.
Moreover, the gathered data could be also used to fill in the knowledge gap existing in the evaluation of specific forest ES in specific areas of interest. In fact, through a different approach, known as benefit transfer, it would be possible to use the existing data on ES evaluation to estimate their value in different contexts.
Several databases are already present in the web, gathering valuations that can be used to transfer ES value from a specific geographic area to another. These databases are EUROFOREX (https://www.evri.ca/en), ENVALUE (https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/envalue), RED Database (http://www.isis-it.net/red/start_search.asp), a database reported by Elsasser et al. (2016) and a database that is the result of a EC-financed research projects (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/studies.htm).
Concluding, the increasing importance of global warming and the need to estimate its impact on the different forest ES are increasing the attention of the academic world, citizens and policy-makers on it. Because mountain forests are ecosystems suitable for early detection of climate change impacts, they can be an interesting ecosystem to start the analysis about how climate change impacts on the provision of ES. A lot of studies already assess climate change impact on forest structures and tree growth, but it is necessary to improve the analysis of the impacts on ES provision to be able to estimate the economic loss (or gain) due to global warming. A deeper understanding could support the estimation of less evident impacts of climate change on forest ES in different contexts than mountain forest, implementing the benefit transfer methods. But it could also be necessary to provide some guidelines to forest managers and public authorities on the suitable forest management needs to minimize the negative impacts of climate change and maximize the positive ones.
Notes
- 1.
This method has been described by Forest Europe as “the most realistic method of re-creating non-market benefits” (https://foresteurope.org/overview-valuation-approaches-methods).
Abbreviations
- CICES:
-
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
- CM:
-
Choice Modelling
- CSG:
-
Cost of Substitute Goods
- CV:
-
Contingent Valuation
- DE:
-
Defensive Expenditures
- DIC:
-
Damage and Insurance Costs
- ES:
-
Ecosystem Services
- HP:
-
Hedonic Pricing
- OC:
-
Opportunity Cost
- PF:
-
Production Function
- RC:
-
Replacement Cost
- TC:
-
Travel Cost Method
- TEV:
-
Total Economic Value
References
Accastello C, Bianchi E, Blanc S, Brun F (2019) ASFORESEE: a harmonized model for economic evaluation of forest protection against rockfall. Forests 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10070578
Acharya RP, Maraseni T, Cockfield G (2020) Assessing the financial contribution and carbon emission pattern of provisioning ecosystem services in Siwalik forests in Nepal: valuation from the perspectives of disaggregated users. Land Use Policy 95:104647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104647
Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EH, Ted, Gonzalez P, Fensham R, Zhang Z, Castro J, Demidova N, Lim JH, Allard G, Running SW, Semerci A, Cobb N (2010) A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For Ecol Manag 259:660–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001
Arnberger A, Ebenberger M, Schneider IE, Cottrell S, Schlueter AC, von Ruschkowski E, Venette RC, Snyder SA, Gobster PH (2018) Visitor preferences for visual changes in bark beetle-impacted forest recreation settings in the United States and Germany. Environ Manag 61:209–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0975-4
Barth NC, Döll P (2016) Assessing the ecosystem service flood protection of a riparian forest by applying a cascade approach. Ecosyst Serv 21:39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.012
Barton DN, Brouwer R, Barton D, Bernasconi P, Blumentrath S, Brouwer R, Oosterhuis F, Pinto R, Tobar DE (2013) Conservation policy instruments
Bastian O, Syrbe RU, Slavik J, Moravec J, Louda J, Kochan B, Kochan N, Stutzriemer S, Berens A (2017) Ecosystem services of characteristic biotope types in the Ore Mountains (Germany/Czech Republic). Int J Biodiversity Sci Ecosyst Services Manag 13:51–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1248865
Battisti A, Larsson S (2015) Climate change and insect climate change and insect pests: CABI climate change series. 7(2009):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780643786.0000
Beniston M (2003) Climatic change in mountain regions: a review of possible impacts, pp 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1252-7_2
Bianchi E, Accastello C, Trappmann D, Blanc S, Brun F (2018) The economic evaluation of forest protection service against Rockfall: a review of experiences and approaches. Ecol Econ 154:409–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.021
Bosela M, Merganičová K, Torresan C, et al (2021) Modelling future growth of mountain forests under changing environments. In: Managing Forest Ecosystems, Vol. 40, Tognetti R, Smith M, Panzacchi P (Eds): Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions. Springer Nature, Switzerland, AG
Březina D, Michal J, Adamec Z, Burdová J (2019) Quantification of the economic value of the recreational function of forests in the territory of Městské lesy Hradec Králové a.s. J For Sci 65:161–170. https://doi.org/10.17221/38/2019-JFS
Briner S, Huber R, Bebi P, Elkin C, Schmatz DR, Grêt-Regamey A (2013) Trade-offs between ecosystem services in a mountain region. Ecol Soc 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05576-180335
Brockerhoff EG, Barbaro L, Castagneyrol B, Forrester DI, Gardiner B, González-Olabarria JR, Lyver POB, Meurisse N, Oxbrough A, Taki H, Thompson ID, van der Plas F, Jactel H (2017) Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv 26:3005–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1453-2
Campos P, Álvarez A, Oviedo JL, Mesa B, Caparrós A, Ovando P (2020) Environmental incomes: refined standard and extended accounts applied to cork oak open woodlands in Andalusia. Spain Ecol Indic 117:106551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106551
Christie M, Hanley N, Hynes S (2007) Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. J For Econ 13:75–102
Clinch JP (2000) Assessing the social efficiency of temperate-zone commercial forestry programmes: Ireland as a case study. Forest Policy Econ 1:225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-9341(00)00029-0
Courbaud B, Kunstler G, Morin X, Cordonnier T (2010) What is the future of the ecosystem services of the Alpine forest against a backdrop of climate change? Revue de Géographie Alpine:0–12. https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.1317
Cudlín P, Klopčič M, Tognetti R, Mališ F, Alados CL, Bebi P, Grunewald K, Zhiyanski M, Andonowski V, La Porta N, Bratanova-Doncheva S, Kachaunova E, Edwards-Jonáová M, Ninot JM, Rigling A, Hofgaard A, Hlasny T, Skalák P, Wielgolaski FE (2017) Drivers of treeline shift in different European mountains. Clim Res 73:135–150. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01465
Czajkowski M, Buszko-Briggs M, Hanley N (2009) Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol Econ 68:2910–2917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.016
Czajkowski M, Budziński W, Campbell D, Giergiczny M, Hanley N (2017) Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environ Resour Econ 68:705–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0
De Valck J, Vlaeminck P, Broekx S, Liekens I, Aertsens J, Chen W, Vranken L (2014) Benefits of clearing forest plantations to restore nature? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders. Belgium Landscape and Urban Planning 125:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.006
De Wit HA, Palosuo T, Hylen G, Liski J (2006) A carbon budget of forest biomass and soils in Southeast Norway calculated using a widely applicable method. For Ecol Manag 225:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.023
Ding H, Chiabai A, Silvestri S, Nunes PALD (2016) Valuing climate change impacts on European forest ecosystems. Ecosyst Serv 18:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.039
Dupire S, Curt T, Bigot S (2017) Spatio-temporal trends in fire weather in the French Alps. Sci Total Environ 595:801–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.027
Elsasser P, Meyerhoff J, Weller P (2016) Ecosystem service valuation studies in Austria, Germany and Switzerland ecosystem service valuation studies in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland
Ezebilo EE (2016) Economic value of a non-market ecosystem service: an application of the travel cost method to nature recreation in Sweden. Int J Biodiversity Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 12:314–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1202322
Fernàndez-Martínez J, Fleck I (2016) Photosynthetic limitation of several representative subalpine species in the Catalan Pyrenees in summer. Plant Biol (Stuttgart, Germany) 18:638–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12439
Feurdean A, Gałka M, Tanţău I, Geantă A, Hutchinson SM, Hickler T (2016) Tree and timberline shifts in the northern Romanian Carpathians during the Holocene and the responses to environmental changes. Quat Sci Rev 134:100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.12.020
Fleischer P, Pichler V, Flaischer P, Holko L, Mális F, Gömöryová E, Cudlín P, Holeksa J, Michalová Z, Homolová Z, Skvarenina J, Střelcová K, Hlaváč P (2017) Forest ecosystem services affected by natural disturbances, climate and land-use changes in the Tatra Mountains. Clim Res 73:57–71. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01461
Forsius M, Anttila S, Arvola L, Bergström I, Hakola H, Heikkinen HI, Helenius J, Hyvärinen M, Jylhä K, Karjalainen J, Keskinen T, Laine K, Nikinmaa E, Peltonen-Sainio P, Rankinen K, Reinikainen M, Setälä H, Vuorenmaa J (2013) Impacts and adaptation options of climate change on ecosystem services in Finland: a model based study. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.001
Friedrichs DA, Trouet V, Büntgen U, Frank DC, Esper J, Neuwirth B, Löffler J (2009) Species-specific climate sensitivity of tree growth in Central-West Germany. Trees Struct Funct 23:729–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-009-0315-2
Fyllas NM, Christopoulou A, Galanidis A, Michelaki CZ, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Fulé PZ, Arianoutsou M (2017) Tree growth-climate relationships in a forest-plot network on Mediterranean mountains. Sci Total Environ 598:393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.145
Galiano L, Martínez-Vilalta J, Lloret F (2010) Drought-induced multifactor decline of scots pine in the Pyrenees and potential vegetation change by the expansion of co-occurring oak species. Ecosystems 13:978–991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-9368-8
Garrod G, Ruto E, Snowdon P (2009) Assessing the value of forest landscapes: a choice experiment approach. Arboricultural J 32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2009.9747573
Gatto P, Vidale E, Secco L, Pettenella D (2014) Exploring the willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services by residents of the Veneto region. Bio-based Appl Econ 3:21–43. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-11151
GESTIRE Project (2015) Stima del valore socio-economico della rete Natura 2000 in Lombardia Rapporto finale. Retrieved from https://www.naturachevale.it/gestire/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Stima-del-valore-socio-economico-della-Rete-Natura-2000-in-Lombardia.pdf
Getzner M, Gutheil-Knopp-Kirchwald G, Kreimer E, Kirchmeir H, Huber M (2017) Gravitational natural hazards: valuing the protective function of alpine forests. Forest Policy Econ 80:150–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.015
Giergiczny M, Czajkowski M, Zylicz T, Angelstam P (2015) Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol Econ 119:8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.032
Gren IM (2015) Estimating values of carbon sequestration and nutrient recycling in forests: an application to the Stockholm-Malar region in Sweden. Forests 6:3594–3613. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6103594
Gren IM, Isacs L, Carlsson M (2009) Costs of alien invasive species in Sweden. Ambio 38:135–140. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-38.3.135
Gren IM, Aklilu A, Elofsson K (2018) Forest carbon sequestration, pathogens and the costs of the EU’s 2050 climate targets. Forests 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9090542
Grêt-Regamey A, Brunner SH, Altwegg J, Bebi P (2013) Facing uncertainty in ecosystem services-based resource management. J Environ Manag 127:S145–S154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.028
Grilli G, Paletto A, De Meo I (2014) Economic valuation of forest recreation in an alpine valley. Balt For 20:167–175
Grilli G, Nikodinoska N, Paletto A, De Meo I (2015) Stakeholders’ preferences and economic value of forest ecosystem services: an example in the Italian alps. Balt For 21:298–307
Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2018) CICES V5. 1. Guidance on the application of the revised structure. Fabis Consulting, p 53
Hartl-Meier C, Zang C, Büntgen U, Esper J, Rothe A, Göttlein A, Dirnböck T, Treydte K (2014) Uniform climate sensitivity in tree-ring stable isotopes across species and sites in a mid-latitude temperate forest. Tree Physiol 35:4–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpu096
Häyhä T, Franzese PP, Paletto A, Fath BD (2015) Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosyst Serv 14:12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.001
Hily E, Garcia S, Stenger A, Tu G (2015) Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a biodiversity conservation policy: a bio-econometric analysis of Natura 2000 contracts in forest. Ecol Econ 119:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.008
Hitzhusen FJ (1999) A resource economic perspective on erosion control for non-economists. Investing in the protection of our environment. In: Proceedings of conference 30, Nashville. International Erosion Control Association
Holmes T, Kramer R (1996) Contingent valuation of ecosystem health. Ecosyst Health 2:58–60
Horák R, Borišev M, Pilipović A, Orlović S, Pajevic S, Nikolić N (2014) Drought impact on forest trees in four nature protected areas in Serbia. Sumarski List 138:301–308
Horne P (2006) Forest owners’ acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation – a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fennica Monographs 40:169–178. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.359
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.026
Hoyos D, Mariel P, Pascual U, Etxano I (2012) Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: an illustration from the Basque Country. J For Econ 18:329–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.05.002
Hunter RG, Day JW, Wiegman AR, Lane RR (2019) Municipal wastewater treatment costs with an emphasis on assimilation wetlands in the Louisiana coastal zone. Ecol Eng 137:21–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.09.020
Hussain A, Munn IA, Grado SC, West BC, Jones WD, Jones J (2007) Willingness to provide fee-access hunting. For Sci 53:493–506
IPBES (2018) The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia, p 834
Jacquet JS, Orazio C, Jactel H (2012) Defoliation by processionary moth significantly reduces tree growth: a quantitative review. Ann For Sci 69:857–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-012-0209-0
Jolly WM, Dobbertin M, Zimmermann NE, Reichstein M (2005) Divergent vegetation growth responses to the 2003 heat wave in the Swiss Alps. Geophys Res Lett 32: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023252
Karimzadeh E, Naghavi H, Adeli K, Latifi H (2020) A nondestructive, remote sensing-based estimation of the economic value of aboveground temperate Forest biomass (case study: Hyrcanian Forests, Nowshahr-Iran). J Sustain For 39
Kniivilä M, Saastamoinen O (2002) The opportunity costs of Forest. Silva Fennica 36:853–865. Retrieved from http://128.214.52.218/silvafennica/full/sf36/sf364853.pdf
Kozlov MV, van Nieukerken EJ, Zverev V, Zvereva EL (2013) Abundance and diversity of birch-feeding leafminers along latitudinal gradients in northern Europe. Ecography 36:1138–1149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00272.x
Krupková L, Havránková K, Krejza J, Sedlák P, Marek MV (2019) Impact of water scarcity on spruce and beech forests. J For Res 30:899–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-018-0642-5
Kullman L (1996) Rise and demise of cold-climate Picea abies forest in Sweden. New Phytol 134:243–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1996.tb04629.x
Kurbanov EA, Post WM (2002) Changes in area and carbon in forests of the Middle Zavolgie: a regional case study of Russian forests. Clim Chang 55:157–171. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020275713889
Kurbanov E, Vorobyov O, Gubayev A, Moshkina L, Lezhnin S (2007) Carbon sequestration after pine afforestation on marginal lands in the Povolgie region of Russia: a case study of the potential for a joint implementation activity. Scand J For Res 22:488–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580701803080
Łaszkiewicz E, Czembrowski P, Kronenberg J (2019) Can proximity to urban green spaces be considered a luxury? Classifying a non-tradable good with the use of hedonic pricing method Ecological Economics 161: 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.03.025
Lebourgeois F, Rathgeber C, Ulrich E (2010) Sensitivity of French temperate coniferous forests to climate variability and extreme events (Abies alba, Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris). J Veg Sci 21
Linares JC, Tíscar PA (2011) Buffered climate change effects in a Mediterranean pine species: range limit implications from a tree-ring study. Oecologia 167:847–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2012-2
Linares JC, Camarero JJ, Carreira JA (2009) Interacting effects of changes in climate and forest cover on mortality and growth of the southernmost European fir forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 18:485–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00465.x
Lindner M, Seidl R, Lexer MJ, Kremer A (2007) Impacts of climate change on European forests and options for adaptation
Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidl R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M, Lexer MJ, Marchetti M (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 259: 698–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023
Loboda T, Krankina O, Savin I, Kurbanov E, Hall J (2017) land management and the impact of the 2010 extreme drought event on the agricultural and ecological systems of European Russia. In: Land-cover and land-use changes in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991
Loomis J, González-Cabán A, Englin J (2001) Testing for differential effects of forest fires on hiking and mountain biking demand and benefits. J Agric Resour Econ 26: 508–522. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.31049
Marušić Z, Horak S, Navrud S (2005) The economic value of coastal forests for tourism: a comparative study of three valuation methods. Tourism 53:141–152
Masiero M, Pettenella D, Boscolo M, Barua S., Animon I, Matta JR (2019) Valuing forest ecosystem services: a training manual for planners and project developers. Fao, p 200. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules
Mayer M, Woltering M (2018) Assessing and valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Germany’s national parks using travel cost models. Ecosyst Serv 31:371–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.009
Meining S, Schröter H, von Wilpert K (2004) Waldzustandsbericht 2004 der Forstlichen Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Württemberg, p 54
Melichar J (2014) The economic valuation of the change in forest quality in the Jizerske Hory mountains: a contingent behavior model. In: public recreation and landscape protection – with man hand in hand?
Meyerhoff J, Liebe U, Hartje V (2009) Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. J For Econ 15:37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.003
Moran D, Tresidder E, McVittie A (2006) Estimating the recreational value of mountain biking sites in Scotland using count data models. Tour Econ 12:123–135. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006776387097
Morri E, Pruscini F, Scolozzi R, Santolini R (2014) A forest ecosystem services evaluation at the river basin scale: supply and demand between coastal areas and upstream lands (Italy). Ecol Indic 37:210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.016
Nahuelhual L, Donoso P, Lara A, Núñez D, Oyarzún C, Neira E (2007) Valuing ecosystem services of Chilean temperate rainforests. Environ Dev Sustain 9:481–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9033-8
Notaro S, Paletto A (2012) The economic valuation of natural hazards in mountain forests: an approach based on the replacement cost method. J For Econ 18:318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.002
Notaro S, Paletto A, Raffaelli R (2009) Economic impact of forest damage in an alpine environment. Acta Silvatica et Lignaria Hungarica 5:131–143
Panayotov M, Kulakowski D, Tsvetanov N, Krumm F, Berbeito I, Bebi P (2016) Climate extremes during high competition contribute to mortality in unmanaged self-thinning Norway spruce stands in Bulgaria. For Ecol Manag 369:74–88. https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/wsl/islandora/object/wsl:5547
Pauli H, Gottfried M, Dullinger S, Abdaladze O, Akhalkatsi M, Alonso JLB, Coldea G, Dick J, Erschbamer B, Calzado RF, Ghosn D, Holten JI, Kanka R, Kazakis G, Kollár J, Larsson P, Moiseev P, Moiseev D, Molau U, Mesa JM, Nagy L, Pelino G, Puşcaş M, Rossi G, Stanisci A, Syverhuset AO, Theurillat JP, Tomaselli M, Unterluggauer P, Villar L, Vittoz P, Grabherr G (2012) Recent plant diversity changes on Europe’s mountain summits. Science 336:353–355. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219033
Pavanelli DD, Voulvoulis N (2019) Habitat equivalency analysis, a framework for forensic cost evaluation of environmental damage. Ecosyst Serv 38:100953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100953
Pretzsch H, del Río M, Giammarchi F, Uhl E, Tognetti R (2021) Changes of tree and stand growth. Review and implications. In: Managing Forest Ecosystems, Vol. 40, Tognetti R, Smith M, Panzacchi P (Eds): Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions. Springer Nature, Switzerland, AG
Price JI, McCollum DW, Berrens RP (2010) Insect infestation and residential property values: a hedonic analysis of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Forest Policy Econ 12:415–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.05.004
Prietzel J, Christophel D (2014) Organic carbon stocks in forest soils of the German alps. Geoderma 221–222:28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.01.021
Pulkrab K, Sloup R, Sloup M, Bukáček J (2011) Optimum costs of forest protection according to ecosite classes – optimum nákladů na ochranu lesa podle souborů lesních typů. Zpravy Lesnickeho Vyzkumu 56:65–74
Pureswaran DS, Roques A, Battisti A (2018) Forest insects and climate change. Curr For Rep 4:35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-018-0075-6
Rogora M, Frate L, Carranza ML, Freppaz M, Stanisci A, Bertani I, Bottarin R, Brambilla A, Canullo R, Carbognani M, Cerrato C, Chelli S, Cremonese E, Cutini M, Di Musciano M, Erschbamer B, Godone D, Iocchi M, Isabellon M, Magnani A, Mazzola L, Morra di Cella U, Pauli H, Petey M, Petriccione B, Porro F, Psenner R, Rossetti G, Scotti A, Sommaruga R, Tappeiner U, Theurillat JP, Tomaselli M, Viglietti D, Viterbi R, Vittoz P, Winkler M, Matteucci G (2018) Assessment of climate change effects on mountain ecosystems through a cross-site analysis in the Alps and Apennines. Sci Total Environ 624:1429–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.155
Ruijs A, Kortelainen M, Wossink A, Schulp CJE, Alkemade R (2017) Opportunity cost estimation of ecosystem services. Environ Resour Econ 66:717–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9970-5
Saccone P, Delzon S, Jean-Philippe P, Brun JJ, Michalet R (2009) The role of biotic interactions in altering tree seedling responses to an extreme climatic event. J Veg Sci 20:403–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01012.x
Sarris D, Christopoulou A, Angelonidi E, Koutsias N, Fulé PZ, Arianoutsou M (2014) Increasing extremes of heat and drought associated with recent severe wildfires in southern Greece. Reg Environ Chang 14:1257–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0568-6
Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Callegari G, Veltri A, Matteucci G (2010) Water balance and forest productivity in mediterranean mountain environments. Ital J Agron 5:217–222. https://doi.org/. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2010.217
Schläpfer F, Waltert F, Segura L, Kienast F (2015) Valuation of landscape amenities: a hedonic pricing analysis of housing rents in urban, suburban and periurban Switzerland. Landsc Urban Plan 141:24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.007
Schou E, Jacobsen JB, Kristensen KL (2012) An economic evaluation of strategies for transforming even-aged into near-natural forestry in a conifer-dominated forest in Denmark. Forest Policy Econ 20:89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.02.010
Schröter M, Rusch GM, Barton DN, Blumentrath S, Nordén B (2014) Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity. PLoS One 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112557
Seidl R, Rammer W, Jäger D, Currie WS, Lexer MJ (2007) Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria. For Ecol Manag 248:64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.035
Snider G, Daugherty PJ, Wood DB (2006) The irrationality of continued fire suppression: an avoided cost analysis of fire hazard reduction treatments versus no treatment. J For 104:431–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/104.8.431
Sundelin J, Högberg T, Lönnstedt L (2015) Determinants of the market price of forest estates: a statistical analysis. Scand J For Res 30
Tempesta T, Marangon F (2004) The total economic value of Italian forest landscapes ∗ Tiziano Tempesta – Department TESAF University of Padova (Italy) Francesco Marangon – DSE University of Udine (Italy). MIUR – PRIN 2003 Project. “Landscape and Environmental Actions within the Regional Rural Development Policies”
Thorsen BJ, Mavsar R, Tyrväinen L, Prokofieva I, Stenger A (2014) The provision of Forest ecosystem services volume I: quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services. The provision of Forest ecosystem services volume I : quantifying and valuing non-marketed ecosystem services, Vol. I
Tømmervik H, Johansen B, Riseth JÅ, Karlsen SR, Solberg B, Høgda KA (2009) Above ground biomass changes in the mountain birch forests and mountain heaths of Finnmarksvidda, northern Norway, in the period 1957-2006. For Ecol Manag 257:244–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.08.038
Tutka J, Kovalčík M (2010) Possibilities of valuation of recreation in forests – Mo ž nosti hodnotenia rekrea č nej funkcie lesov Rekreace a ochrana p ř írody. In: Rekreace a Ochrana Prirody – Sbornik Prispevku
Vacek Z, Vacek S, Bulušek D, Podrázský V, Remeš J, Král J, Putalová T (2017) Effect of fungal pathogens and climatic factors on production, biodiversity and health status of ash mountain forests. Dendrobiology 77:161–175. https://doi.org/10.12657/denbio.077.013
Vizzarri M, Pilli R, Korosou A, Frate L, Grassi G (2021) The role of forests in climate change mitigation: the EU context. In: Managing Forest Ecosystems, Vol. 40, Tognetti R, Smith M, Panzacchi P (Eds): Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions. Springer Nature, Switzerland, AG
Walsh R, Ward F, Olienyk J (1989) Recreational demand for trees in national forests. J Environ Manag 28:255–268
Westling N, Stromberg PM, Swain RB (2020) Can upstream ecosystems ensure safe drinking water – insights from Sweden. Ecol Econ 169:106552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106552
Wüstemann H, Meyerhoff J, Rühs M, Schäfer A, Hartje V (2014) Financial costs and benefits of a program of measures to implement a National strategy on biological diversity in Germany. Land Use Policy 36:307–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.009
Zisenis M, Dominique R, Price M, Torre-Marin A, Jones-Walters L, Halada L, Gajdos P, Oszlanyi J, Carver S (2010) 10 messages for 2010 Mountain Ecosyst 16. https://doi.org/10.2800/54895
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bottaro, G., Gatto, P., Pettenella, D. (2022). Assessing the Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Mountain Forests: A Literature Review. In: Tognetti, R., Smith, M., Panzacchi, P. (eds) Climate-Smart Forestry in Mountain Regions. Managing Forest Ecosystems, vol 40. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80767-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80767-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80766-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80767-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)