Assessing the benefits and costs of dryland forest restoration in central Chile.

Investment in natural capital restoration is increasing as a response to the widespread ecological degradation of dryland forests. However, finding efficient mechanisms to promote restoration among private landowners is a significant challenge for policy makers with limited financial resources. Furthermore, few attempts have been made to evaluate the costs and benefits of restoration interventions even though this information is relevant to orient decision making. Hence, our goal was to estimate the benefits and costs of dryland forest restoration by means of reforestation with native trees in a study area in central Chile. To determine benefits we applied a Contingent Valuation questionnaire that allowed for the calculation of willingness to pay measures. Restoration costs were calculated based on market prices following existing technical recommendations developed for the study area. The results showed that the restoration project had a negative NPV irrespective of the discount rate applied in the analysis. Thus, the NPV varied between -US$71,000 and -US$258,000. The NPV attained positive results only for negative discount rates (US$15,039 for -2%) and only when the national subsidy available for forest restoration was taken into account. This shows that landowners in Colliguay do not have incentives for carrying out restoration interventions due to a classic market failure: that in which ecosystems are mismanaged because many of their benefits are externalities from the perspective of landowners. Overall, these results stress the need for developing new compensation mechanisms and enhancing those in existence, with the aim of making restoration competitive with other land uses.

[1]  Gretchen C. Daily,et al.  Using return‐on‐investment to guide restoration: a case study from Hawaii , 2008 .

[2]  S. Yen,et al.  Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications , 2008, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[3]  R. DeFries,et al.  A global overview of the conservation status of tropical dry forests , 2006 .

[4]  D. Macmillan,et al.  Estimating the non-market costs and benefits of native woodland restoration using the contingent valuation method , 1998 .

[5]  D. Richardson,et al.  Economic incentives for restoring natural capital in southern African rangelands , 2003 .

[6]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation , 2002 .

[7]  D. Lamb,et al.  Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests , 2003 .

[8]  R. Cowling,et al.  Plant diversity in mediterranean-climate regions. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  Andre F. Clewell,et al.  Ecological restoration: A new frontier for nature conservation and economics , 2006 .

[10]  M. Holmgren,et al.  Reduced herbivore pressure under rainy ENSO conditions could facilitate dryland reforestation , 2007 .

[11]  C. Ovalle,et al.  Restoration and Rehabilitation of Mixed Espinales in Central Chile: 10-Year Report and Appraisal , 1999 .

[12]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Contingent Valuation in Practice , 2003 .

[13]  P. Camus,et al.  Historia Ambiental de Chile , 1998 .

[14]  K. Esler,et al.  Are Socioeconomic Benefits of Restoration Adequately Quantified? A Meta‐analysis of Recent Papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 Other Scientific Journals , 2010 .

[15]  Dan Yakir,et al.  Contribution of Semi-Arid Forests to the Climate System , 2010, Science.

[16]  G. Daily,et al.  Business strategies for conservation on private lands: Koa forestry as a case study. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  M. Therrell,et al.  Ancient Austrocedrus Tree-Ring Chronologies Used to Reconstruct Central Chile Precipitation Variability from a.d. 1200 to 2000 , 2006 .

[18]  Thomas Kitzberger,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  A. Yoshimoto,et al.  Benefits of tropical forest management under the new climate change agreement - a case study in Cambodia. , 2010 .

[20]  Achim Röder,et al.  Mediterranean desertification and land degradation: Mapping related land use change syndromes based on satellite observations , 2008 .

[21]  J. Blignaut,et al.  Getting serious about maintaining biodiversity , 2008 .

[22]  A. Bennett.  Linkages in the Landscape: The Role Of Corridors And Connectivity In Wildlife Conservation , 1999 .

[23]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments , 2002, Land Economics.

[24]  R. Chazdon.  Beyond Deforestation: Restoring Forests and Ecosystem Services on Degraded Lands , 2008, Science.

[25]  C. Ovalle,et al.  Land occupation patterns and vegetation structure in the anthropogenic savannas (espinales) of central Chile , 1996 .

[26]  S. Wunder,et al.  Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues , 2008 .

[27]  Wallace E. Oates,et al.  The theory of environmental policy , 1976 .

[28]  F. Bonnieux,et al.  Valuing the Benefits of Landscape Restoration: a Case Study of the Cotentin in Lower-Normandy, France , 1997 .

[29]  Zhang Zhiqiang,et al.  Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region , 2003 .

[30]  G. Sánchez‐Azofeifa,et al.  Costa Rica's Payment for Environmental Services Program: Intention, Implementation, and Impact , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[31]  Luis Cayuela,et al.  Author ' s personal copy Monitoring land cover change of the dryland forest landscape of Central Chile ( 1975 – 2008 ) , 2010 .

[32]  A. Newton.  Restoration of Dryland Forests in Latin America: The ReForLan Project , 2008, Ecological Restoration.

[33]  John C. Bergstrom,et al.  Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration , 2004 .

[34]  T. Brooks,et al.  Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions , 2000 .

[35]  C. Poulos,et al.  Time preferences for life-saving programs: Evidence from six less developed countries , 2000 .

[36]  U. Pascual,et al.  Local identification and valuation of ecosystem goods and services from Opuntia scrublands of Ayacucho, Peru , 2006 .

[37]  Karen D. Holl,et al.  Paying for Restoration , 2000 .

[38]  R. Scholes,et al.  Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends , 2005 .

[39]  David S Schimel,et al.  Drylands in the Earth System , 2010, Science.

[40]  S. Milton,et al.  Cost–benefit analysis of alien vegetation clearing for water yield and tourism in a mountain catchment in the Western Cape of South Africa , 2009 .

[41]  Adrian C. Newton,et al.  Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation, and agricultural land use , 2008 .

[42]  T. Amemiya.  Tobit models: A survey , 1984 .

[43]  R. Turner,et al.  Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment , 1989 .

[44]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey , 2000 .

[45]  T. Downing,et al.  Global Desertification: Building a Science for Dryland Development , 2007, Science.

[46]  A. Newton,et al.  Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis , 2009, Science.

[47]  D. Geneletti,et al.  Identifying priority areas for Forest Landscape Restoration in Chiapas (Mexico): an operational approach combining ecological and socioeconomic criteria. , 2010 .

[48]  Valuing natural capital and the costs and benefits of restoration , 2007 .

[49]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.