Exploring the effect of land use on ecosystem services: The distributive issues |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Forest Sciences and Landscape Architecture, University of Tras-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), PO Box 1013, 5001-901 Vila Real, Portugal;2. Centre for Transdisciplinary Development, University of Tras-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), PO Box 1013, 5001-901 Vila Real, Portugal;3. Department of Rural Economics and Sociology, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal;1. Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics, Rutgers University, Cook Office Building, 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA;2. Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics and Rutgers Cooperative Extension, Rutgers University, 108 Cook Office Building, 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA;3. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, 88 Lipman Drive, Room 104, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA;4. Department of Public Administration, Northern Illinois University, USA;5. Center for Great Plains Studies, P.O. Box 880214, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0214, USA;6. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, 2117 Symons Hall, College Park, MD 20742, USA;7. Department of Applied Economics & Statistics, University of Delaware, 205 Townsend Hall, Newark, DE 19717, USA;1. Aarhus University, Department of Agroecology, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark;2. The James Hutton Institute, Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK;1. Geography, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK;2. Shanghai Academy of Landscape Architecture Science and Planning, No. 899, Longwu Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China;3. Shanghai Key Lab for Urban Ecological Processes and Eco-Restoration, School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China Normal University, Dongchuan Rd. 500, Shanghai, 200241, China |
| |
| Abstract: | The current debate of ecosystem services has focused more on monetary valuation methods and payments for environmental services (PES) then on the classic economic analysis (i.e. assumptions regarding: sustainability, justice and efficiency). This paper examines, taking into consideration ecosystem services, income distribution from different land uses to stakeholders. We study the Portuguese common land ecosystem, which is characterized as having a wide range of ecosystem services. Allowing that all the benefits can be translated into economic value, we estimated the total economic value (TEV) associated with these territories on 5 different land use situations: forest, shrubland, water bodies, mountain agriculture and other uses, and analyzed the current institutional arrangements around these territories. We found that the distribution of the benefits of different land uses is relatively inequality. The results showed that the contemporary institutional arrangements of wealth distribution ensure a relatively fair distribution insider of system; however this institutional arrangement is unable to ensure equitable distribution of wealth by external stakeholders. We can conclude that different types of land use provide a very asymmetric distribution of income by different groups of humans: land owners; citizens of a country, and residents of Earth. |
| |
| Keywords: | Ecosystem services Just distribution Lorenz curve Land use Gini coefficient |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
