Affiliation:
1. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Kentucky, 730 Rose St., Lexington, KY 40546-0073, USA
Abstract
Ecosystem services assessment is vital for sustainable land management decision-making. However, ecosystem service responses to land ownership and forest fragmentation have rarely been incorporated into landscape management decision-making contexts. Such knowledge gaps pose a challenging conservation issue: how to incentivize landowners to ensure the sustainability of ecosystem services provision? This study provides new insights into integrating ecosystem services into landscape planning by illustrating the significant changes in ecosystem service value among different landowner types. The net ecological and economic consequences of forest land cover transition in Kentucky, USA, were assessed, as were the details of how each landowner type was affected, and the driving factors were analyzed. The results showed that the total value of water-related ecosystem services was USD 745.83 million in 2011, which had decreased by USD 19.38 million compared to the value in 2001. Forestland owned by family landowners contributed 75% of the total loss. Public landowners lost USD 0.08 million, corporate landowners lost USD 0.19 million and family landowners lost USD 0.55 million in terms of water retention value. In terms of nitrogen retention value, there was a loss of USD 1.57 million, USD 7.65 million and USD 1.69 million for public, family and corporate landowners, respectively. Family-owned forestland presented the highest mean value of water retention and the lowest mean value of soil, nitrogen and phosphorus retention. All landowners experienced a noticeable loss in water-related ecosystem services value. Land ownership and forest fragmentation exerted significant impacts on ecosystem services provision and change. Integrating land ownership into ecosystem service assessment may improve the landscape and regional planning, through which scientifically sound decision-making can be promoted by natural resource management agencies.
Funder
The McIntire-Stennis Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Reference61 articles.
1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, Island Press.
2. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver;Daily;Front. Ecol. Environ.,2009
3. Sills, E.O., Moore, S.E., Cubbage, F.W., McCarter, K.D., Holmes, T.P., and Mercer, D.E. (2017). Trees at Work: Economic Accounting for Forest Ecosystem Services in the U.S. South, General Technical Report SRS-226.
4. Setting the bar: Standards for ecosystem services;Polasky;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,2015
5. LaRocco, G.L., and Deal, R.L. (2011). Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due: Increasing Landowner Compensation for Ecosystem Services, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-842.