Economic values of environmental services of three forest areas in South Ogan Komering Ulu District, South Sumatra, Indonesia
Article Sidebar
Abstract Views: 304
File Views: 13
Main Article Content
Abstract
Abstract. Sari EK, Mulyana A, Antoni M, Adriani D. 2022. Economic values of environmental services of three forest areas in South Ogan Komering Ulu District, South Sumatra, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 23: 6180-6190. Forest provides environmental services in the form of provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services. However, forest is often valued from its timber products, neglecting its broader role in delivering environmental services especially its role in maintaining ecological functions. Forests in South Ogan Komering Ulu District, South Sumatra, Indonesia have high ecological importance in delivering environmental services, yet these forests are pressured by clearing and conversion into plantations and agriculture. The study aimed to comprehensively calculate the total economic value of environmental services delivered by three forest areas in South Ogan Komering Ulu, namely Gunung Raya Wildlife Reserve, Saka Production Forest and Saka Limited Production Forest. We calculated total economic value by incorporating the use value, which consists of direct use value and indirect use value, and the non-use value, which consists of option value, existence value and bequest value. The results revealed that the total economic value of the three forest areas is IDR 863,868,883,037. In more detail, the use value consisted of direct use value with IDR 354,378,792,460 contributing to 41.02% and indirect use value with IDR 509,309,370,324 contributing to 58.96% to the total economic value. The non-use value is from the option value, the existence value and bequest value with IDR 97,449,120 (0.01%), IDR 65,512,153 (0.01%) and IDR 17,758,980 (0.0021), respectively. Our study implies that forest has tremendous ecological functions which provide a very high economic value and environmental services, where these functions are often neglected.
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Agung R, Rahayu Y, Saputro T, Tjandrakirana R, Ramdhany D, Wibawa M, Silitonga TCR, Damarraya A, Wulandari EY, Anisah L. N., Margono BA, Setyawan H, Sofyan, Sumantri, Suprapto U, Famuria E, Zahrul M, Muttaqin. 2018. Status hutan dan kehutanan Indonesia, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan RI. [Indonesian]
Anggraeni P, Daniels P, Davey P. 2020. Improving the benefit of natural resources endowment to economic welfare in Indonesia: A mixed-method analysis. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 10: 1234–1244. DOI: 10.18517/ijaseit.10.3.12067
Anna Z, Saputra DS. 2017. Economic valuation of whale shark tourism in Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua, Indonesia. Biodiversitas, 18(3), 1026–1034. DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d180321
Arico Z, Jayanthi S. 2016. Potensi karbon tersimpan hutan Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser Resort Tenggulun sebagai upaya mitigasi perubahan iklim. Elkawnie 2: 143. https://doi.org/10.22373/ekw.v2i2.2660
Baciu GE, Dobrot? CE, Apostol EN. 2021. Valuing forest ecosystem services. Why is an integrative approach needed? Forests 12. DOI:10.3390/f12060677
Baskent EZ. 2020. A framework for characterizing and regulating ecosystem services in a management planning context. Forests. DOI: 10.3390/f11010102
Campos FS, David J, Lourenço-de-Moraes R, Rodrigues P, Silva B, Vieira da Silva C, Cabral P. 2021. The economic and ecological benefits of saving ecosystems to protect services. J. Clean. Prod 311. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127551
Christopher C, Jumber CBL, Shively G. 2012. Agricultural subsidies and forest clearing in Malawi. Environ Conserv 40 (1): 60–70. DOI: 10.1017/S0376892912000252
Cord AF, Bartkowski B, Beckmann M, Dittrich A, Hermans-Neumann K, Kaim A, Lienhoop N, Locher-Krause K, Priess J, Schröter-Schlaack C, Schwarz N, Seppelt R, Strauch M, Václavík T, Volk M. 2017. Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst. Serv. 28: 264–272. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012
Coscieme L, Stout JC. 2018. Ecosystem services evaluation, 2nd ed, Encyclopedia of Ecology. Elsevier Inc. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10967-4
Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M. 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28: 1–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
Daily, 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems (Chapter 6).
Dariah D. 2002. Erosi dan degradasi lahan kering di Indonesia 1–9. [Indonesian]
Development, E., 2018. A Survey 133–144.
Devian. 2006. Peranan ekologi dan agronomi cendawan mikoriza arbuskula. Dep. Kehutanan. Fak. Pertanian. Univ. Sumatera Utara. Medan. [Indonesian]
Garrett RD, Grabs J, Cammelli F, Gollnow F, Levy SA. 2022. Should payments for environmental services be used to implement zero-deforestation supply chain policies? The case of soy in the Brazilian Cerrado. World Dev. 152: 105814. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105814
Grizzetti B, Liquete C, Pistocchi A, Vigiak O, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, De Roo A, Cardoso AC. 2019. Relationship between ecological condition and ecosystem services in European rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Sci. Total Environ. 671: 452–465. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.155
Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV, Loveland TR, Townshend JRG, Defries RS, Pittman KW, Arunarwati B, Stolle F, Steininger MK, Carroll M, Dimiceli C. 2008. Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to 2005 quantified by using multitemporal and multiresolution remotely sensed data SCIENCE.
Hynes S, Chen W, Vondolia K, Armstrong C, O’Connor E. 2021. Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway. Ecol. Econ. 179: 106833. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106833
Kasianus R, Dwi A, Iskandar AM. 2018. Estimasi kandungan karbon tegakan hutan di atas permukaan tanah pada berbagai kelas tutupan tajuk di hutan adat pengajit Kabupaten Bengkayang. Jurnal Hutan Lestari. 6(4): 952–962. DOI: 10.26418/jhl.v6i4.30123. [Indonesian]
Kim M, Xie Y, Cirella GT. 2019. Sustainable transformative economy: Community-based ecotourism. Sustain. 11: 1–15. DOI: 10.3390/su11184977
Kurnia D. 2004. Teknologi konservasi tanah pada lahan kering berlereng. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Tanah dan Agroklimat. [Indonesian]
Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L. 2013. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. J. Environ. Manage. 119, 208–219. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008
Liu Q, Zhao Z, Liu Y, He Y. 2022. Natural resources commodity prices volatility, economic performance and environment: Evaluating the role of oil rents. Resour. Policy 76: 102548. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102548
Marchegiani P, Morgera E, Parks L. 2020. Indigenous peoples’ rights to natural resources in Argentina: the challenges of impact assessment, consent and fair and equitable benefit-sharing in cases of lithium mining. Int. J. Hum. Rights. 24: 224–240. DOI: 10.1080/13642987.2019.1677617
Marulam MTS, Sudarmanto E, Kato I, Nainggolan LE, Purba E, Sutrisno E, Chaerul M, Faried AI, Marzuki I, Siregar T, Sai'da IA, Purba T, Saidah H, Bachtiar E, Purba B, Nurrachmania M, Mastutie F. 2021. Ekonomi Sumber Daya Alam. Yayasan Kita Menulis. [Indonesian]
Murdiyarso D, Rosalina U, Hairiah K, Muslihat L, Suryadiputra INN, Jaya A. 2004. Petunjuk Lapangan: Pendugaan Cadangan Karbon pada Lahan Gambut 32. [Indonesian]
Nandika D. 2005. Hutan bagi ketahanan nasional. Muhammadiyah University Press. Surakarta. [Indonesian]
Petrov V, Bogatova E, Filinova I. 2020. Economic estimation of forest recreation. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 574. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/574/1/012063
Phelps J, Hariyanti B, Sinaga AC, Dermawan A. 2014. Valuasi lingkungan di Indonesia. Brief. [Indonesian]
Power AG. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365: 2959–2971. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
Prasmatiwi, F.E., I. Irham, A. Suryantini and J. Jamhari. 2011. Kesediaan membayar petani kopi untuk perbaikan lingkungan. J. Ekon. Pembang. Kaji. Masal. Ekon. dan Pembang. 12: 187. https://doi.org/10.23917/jep.v12i2.192. [Indonesian]
Roslinda E, Kartikawati SM, Rabudin. 2017. Economic valuation for tembawang ecosystem, in Sanggau district, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biodiversitas, 18(4), 1506–1516. DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d180429
Saka KX. 2021. Rencana pengelolaan hutan jangka pendek kesatuan pengelolaan hutan produksi unit XIX Saka. RPHJP KPH unit XIX Saka 2013–2015. [Indonesian]
Salles JM. 2011. Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: Why put economic values on nature? Comptes Rendus - Biol. 334: 469–482. DOI: 10.1016/j.crvi.2011.03.008
Shabbir A, Kousar S, Kousar F. 2020. The role of natural resources in economic growth: new evidence from Pakistan. J. Econ. Financ. Adm. Sci. 25: 221–238. DOI: 10.1108/JEFAS-03-2019-0044
Sjöstrand K, Lindhe A, Söderqvist T, Rosén L. 2018. Sustainability assessments of regional water supply interventions – Combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria decision analyses. J. Environ. Manage. 225: 313–324. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.077
Valdés A, Lenoir J, De Frenne P, Andrieu E, Brunet J, Chabrerie O, Cousins SAO, Deconchat M, De Smedt P, Diekmann M, Ehrmann S, Gallet-Moron E, Gärtner S, Giffard B, Hansen K, Hermy M, Kolb A, Le Roux V, Liira J, Lindgren J, Martin L, Naaf T, Paal T, Proesmans W, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Wulf M, Verheyen K, Decocq G. 2020. High ecosystem service delivery potential of small woodlands in agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13537
Vassallo P, Turcato C, Rigo I, Scopesi C, Costa A, Barcella M, Dapueto G, Mariotti M, Paoli C. 2021. Biophysical Accounting of Forests ’ Value under Different Management Regimes?: Conservation vs . Exploitation 1–20.