Benefits of the fire mitigation ecosystem service in The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia, USA

Farmland abandonment decreases the fire regulation capacity and the fire protection ecosystem service in mountain landscapes

“…The estimates reported by Madureira et al (2013) for the value of the fire regulation ES, based on stated preferences methods averaged 276.2 € ha −1 , thus are much lower than ours. Similarly, estimates reported by Parthum et al (2017) for the value of fire mitigation ES, are much lower than our estimates, considering the avoided costs of a single wildfire on the public health system (7.5 € ha −1 year (1US Dollar = 0.94€)). Conversely, the fire regulation ES estimated for Spanish ecosystems (Román et al, 2013) using revealed preferences techniques is much higher (2229 T€ ha −1 on average) than our estimates.…”

“…Thus, a more comprehensive valuation should be taken (Pascual et al, 2017), including, e.g., the demand for goods in the provisioning ES valuation estimates (Mouchet et al, 2014), the willingness to pay for fire regulation (Madureira et al, 2013), the inclusion of regulating services (e.g. carbon sequestration) that are directly affected by fire as part of the assessment (Carvalho et al, 2011), as well as costs related to fuel management (Jones et al, 2017), fire suppression and environmental restoration (Lee et al, 2015), and human life (Parthum et al, 2017;Román et al, 2013). Nonetheless, the results of this study are useful to establish baselines for future management and planning to support decision-making based on past and future alternative landscape scenarios trends.…”

“…Although some efforts have been made to identify potential indicators (Maes et al, 2011;Pettorelli et al, 2017), the inclusion of wildfires in ES-based (or EDS-based) assessment frameworks remains limited. Exceptions include case studies using fire metrics in ES assessment (Azevedo et al, 2011a;Halofsky et al, 2017;Madureira et al, 2013), or econometric approaches to assess the resulting service (Bernués et al, 2014;Madureira et al, 2013;Ninan and Kontoleon, 2016;Parthum et al, 2017;Román et al, 2013).…”

“…Several definitions for the fire-regulating ES provided by ecosystems and landscapes can be found in the literature (e.g. Azevedo et al, 2011a;Halofsky et al, 2017;Madureira et al, 2013;Parthum et al, 2017). However, the latest v5.1 version of CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2018) defines more clearly the service by including a new class described as "Fire protection" ES (FPES) within the group 'Regulation of baseline flows and extreme events', which recognizes the ecological and anthropic dimensions that underlie the service, i.e., the role of ecological features and the contribution of their outcomes (e.g.…”

Local Users and Other Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Identification and Prioritization of Ecosystem Services in Fragile Mountains: A Case Study of Chure Region of Nepal

“…Prior studies explored how forest-based ES contribute to generate value or benefits for people's livelihoods [11,12], the environment, and the economy [13]. However, these studies were constrained by their disproportionate focus on the technical aspects of economic valuation such as biophysical quantification through modelling and mapping [14][15][16][17], or by employing purely monetary valuation, of the forest-based ES [18][19][20][21]. Little research has been carried out that demonstrates how social dimensions, for example people's perceptions or preferences, affect or play important roles in the identification and prioritization of forest-based ES.…”