Valuing Ecosystem Services Provided by Pasture-Based Beef Farms in Alentejo, Portugal
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Characterization of the Study Region
2.1.1. Study Region
2.1.2. Farm Data
2.2. Portuguese Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (PT-MAES)
2.3. Modelling Approaches
2.3.1. Modelling Approach by Average Class (AC)
2.3.2. Modelling Approach by Buffer Generation (BG)
2.4. Ecosystem Services Economic Valuation
3. Results
3.1. Characterization of the Sampled Farms
3.2. Ecosystem Services Valuation
3.3. Extrapolation for the Regional Level
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
General Information | Social Compartment | Economic Compartment | Animal Compartment |
---|---|---|---|
Own Land (ha) | Number Of Working Hours Rate | Total Output Vegetal | LivestockType (Cattle/Sheep) |
Rented Land (ha) | Weekends Off | Total Output Animal | Categor (per age) |
Legal Form (Individual/Company/Others) | Sundays Off | Total SpecificCosts | Average Number (No.) |
Farmer Since (years of experience) | Days Off Holidays | Total Farming Overheads | Number Of Produced Animals (No.) |
Family Labour (hours/year) | Workload Rate | Taxes | Age At End of Fattening (months) |
Hired Labour (hours/year) | Hazardous Chemicals | Total Subsides On Crops | Number Of Sold Animals (No.) |
Conventional or Organic | Physical Work | Total Subsides On Livestock | Live Weight At Sale (kg) |
Area In Natura 2000 (ha) | Overwork Stress Rate | Total Support For RD | Diet Compartment |
Area In Conservation Land No Natura 2000 (ha) | Activities Besides Farm | Decoupled Payments | Diet name (for all herd/fattenning/others) |
Area Under Agro Environmental Measures (ha) | Work Life Balance Rate | Depreciation | Diet component name (ex: hay) |
Area Of Specific Natural Habitat (ha) | Working Atmosphere Rate | Wages Paid | Diet Component Quantity (kgs/animal/year) |
Overall Satisfaction being a Farmer (1–5) | Farm Economically Viable In 10 ys | Rent Paid | Protein Content Fraction (0–1) |
Other Information | Expectation Farm Succession | Interests Paid | Considered number of animals (No.) |
Outdoor Access Animals (y/n) | If Over 45 Succession Expected | Total Assets | Diet Component Quantity (kgs/farm/year) |
Days Outdoor (0–365) | Training Days—Family Workers | Total Assets ExclLand | Crop Areas Compartment |
Additional Enrichment (y/n) | Training Days—Staff | Liabilities | Surface (ha) |
Animal Social Contact (y/n) | Highest Educational Degree | Own Labour Force Persons | Yield (t/ha) |
Non Curative Treatments (y/n.) | Highest Agricultural Educational Degree | Own labour Force Hours | Fraction Of Legumes (0–1) |
Resources Utilization | Public Access To Farm | Hired Labour Force Persons | Dry Matter Content (0–1) |
Diesel Consumption (l) | Visits To Farm | Hired Labour Force Hours | Crop Protection Agents |
Electricity Consumption (kw) | Professional Organisations Besides Farm | Imputed Labour Costs | Type (natural/artificial) |
Renewable Energy Fraction (0–1) | What Professional Organisations Besides Farm | Rented Farm Land | Name |
Irrigated Area (ha) | Non Professional Organisations Besides Farm | Rental For Farm Land | Quantity (m3 or t/ha) |
Water Use Animals (m3) | Direct Selling or Tasting | Own Farm Land | Fertilizers |
Water Use Irrigation (m3) | Labelling Schemes | Interest Rate | Type (natural/artificial) |
Water Use Total (m3) | What Labelling Schemes | Profit | Total Quantity (m3 or t/ha) |
Other Activities On Farm | Total Subsidies | N content (0–1) | |
What Other Activities On Farm | Total hours |
References
- Wu, G.; Fanzo, J.; Miller, D.D.; Pingali, P.; Post, M.; Steiner, J.L.; Thalacker-Mercer, A.E. Production and Supply of High-Quality Food Protein for Human Consumption: Sustainability, Challenges, and Innovations. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1321, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hocquette, J.F.; Ellies-Oury, M.P.; Lherm, M.; Pineau, C.; Deblitz, C.; Farmer, L. Current Situation and Future Prospects for Beef Production in Europe—A Review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 1017–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Accatino, F.; Tonda, A.; Dross, C.; Léger, F.; Tichit, M. Trade-Offs and Synergies between Livestock Production and Other Ecosystem Services. Agric. Syst. 2019, 168, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrero, M.; Havlík, P.; Valin, H.; Notenbaert, A.; Rufino, M.C.; Thornton, P.K.; Blümmel, M.; Weiss, F.; Grace, D.; Obersteiner, M. Biomass Use, Production, Feed Efficiencies, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Livestock Systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 20888–20893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Teixeira, R.F.M.; Proença, V.; Crespo, D.; Valada, T.; Domingos, T. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of Engineered Biodiverse Pastures. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 77, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bugalho, M.N.; Caldeira, M.C.; Pereira, J.S.; Aronson, J.; Pausas, J.G. Mediterranean Cork Oak Savannas Require Human Use to Sustain Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Resources Institute. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Opportunities and Challenges for Business and Industry. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA); World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Escobedo, F.J.; Kroeger, T.; Wagner, J.E. Urban Forests and Pollution Mitigation: Analyzing Ecosystem Services and Disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2078–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lynch, D.H.; Sumner, J.; Martin, R.C. Framing the Social, Ecological and Economic Goods and Services Derived from Organic Agriculture in the Canadian Context. In Organic Farming, Prototype for Sustainable Agricultures: Prototype for Sustainable Agricultures; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; ISBN 9789400779273. [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.; Zheng, H.; Li, S.; Chen, X.; Li, J.; Zeng, W.; Liang, Y.; Polasky, S.; Feldman, M.W.; Ruckelshaus, M.; et al. Impacts of Conservation and Human Development Policy across Stakeholders and Scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7396–7401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Marta-Pedroso, C.; Domingos, T.; Mesquita, S.; Capelo, J.; Gama, I.; Laporta, L.; Alves, M.; Proença, V.; Canaveira, P.; Reis, M. (Eds.) Mapeamento e Avaliação Dos Serviços de Ecossistema Em Portugal—Relatório Final; Instituto Superior Técnico: Lisboa, Portugal, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- GPP Estrutura Das Explorações Agrícolas Diagnóstico. 2019. Available online: https://www.gpp.pt/images/DiagnosticoEstruturalExploraesAgricolas.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2022).
- Marques, C.; Carvalho, M. A Agricultura E Os Sistemas De Produção Da Região Alentejo De Portugal: Evolução, Situação Atual E Perspectivas. Rev. De Econ. E Agronegócio 2017, 15, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batista, T.; de Mascarenhas, J.M.; Mendes, P. Montado’s Ecosystem Functions and Services: The Case Study of Alentejo Central-Portugal. Probl. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 44, 15–27. [Google Scholar]
- INE. Estatísticas Agrícolas 2018; Instituto Nacional de Estatística, I.P.: Lisboa, Portugal, 2019; ISBN 9789892504957. [Google Scholar]
- GPP Rede de Informação de Contabilidades Agrícolas. 2017. Available online: https://www.gpp.pt/images/Estatisticas_e_analises/SistemasInfornacao/RICA/PubRICA_2017.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
- Dos Santos Carreira, E.R. Eficácia de Modalidades de Recria/Engorda Em Bovinos de Carne. Master’s Thesis, Universidade de Évora, Évora, Portugal, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Costa Pereira, T.; Amaro, A.; Borges, M.; Silva, R.; Seabra, T.; Caveira, P. Portuguese National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases, 1990–2020; Portuguese Environment Agency: Amadora, Portugal, 2022.
- Davies, C.E.; Moss, D.; Hill, O.M. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Report to: European Environment Agency-European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity. 2004, pp. 127–143. Available online: https://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/ref_habitats/Davies_&_Moss_2004_EUNIS_habitat_classification.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
- Marta-Pedroso, C.; Domingos, T.; Freitas, H.; de Groot, R.S. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Zonal Program of Castro Verde (Portugal): Highlighting the Trade-off between Biodiversity and Soil Conservation. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 97, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordhaus, W.D. Revisiting the Social Cost of Carbon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 1518–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Moore, F.C.; Baldos, U.; Hertel, T.; Diaz, D. New Science of Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture Implies Higher Social Cost of Carbon. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Laporta, L.; Domingos, T.; Marta-Pedroso, C. It’s a Keeper: Valuing the Carbon Storage Service of Agroforestry Ecosystems in the Context of CAP Eco-Schemes. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, S.K.; Diaz, D.B.; Blanford, G.J. Understanding the Social Cost of Carbon: A Model Diagnostic and Inter-Comparison Study. Clim. Chang. Econ. 2017, 8, 1750009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. 2017. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ff9c5ce4b0a53decccfb4c/t/59b7f2409f8dce5316811916/1505227332748/CarbonPricing_FullReport.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2022).
- Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas (ICNF) 6; Inventário Florestal Nacional (IFN6). 2015 Relatório Final; Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas: Lisboa, Portugal, 2019.
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.; Kumar, P. Estimates of monetary values of ecosystem services. In Ecological and Economic Foundation; EarthScan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 367–402. [Google Scholar]
- Marta-Pedroso, C.; Laporta, L.; Gama, I.; Domingos, T. Economic Valuation and Mapping of Ecosystem Services in the Context of Protected Area Management (Natural Park of Serra de São Mamede, Portugal). One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e26722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Surová, D.; Pinto-Correia, T.; Marušák, R. Visual Complexity and the Montado Do Matter: Landscape Pattern Preferences of User Groups in Alentejo, Portugal. Ann. For. Sci. 2014, 71, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferraz-de-Oliveira, M.I.; Azeda, C.; Pinto-Correia, T. Management of Montados and Dehesas for High Nature Value: An Interdisciplinary Pathway. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pricing Mechanism | Source | Details | Value €/tCO2eq |
---|---|---|---|
Market Price | Daily Carbon Prices (ember-climate.org) | European market quotation for June 2021 (average) | 53 |
Social Cost | [25] | Estimates for Social Cost of Carbon | 37.5 |
Shadow Price | [26] | Upper bound value for the 2030 range estimate | 92 |
Ecosystem Service | Units | Approach by Average Class | Approach by Buffer Generation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grasslands and Dehesa | Croplands | Grasslands and Dehesa | Croplands | ||
Soil protection (SP) | t/ha/year | 28.1 | 14.5 | 34.5 | 34.5 |
Carbon sequestration (CS) | t C/ha/year | −0.2 | −0.6 | −0.2 | −0.3 |
Support to extensive animal production (SEAP) | LU/ha | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0 |
Plant food production (PFP) | t/ha | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0 | 3.3 |
Fiber production (FP) | m3/ha | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
Ecosystem Service | Average Value Per ha | Minimum Value Per ha | Maximum Value Per ha | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AC | BG | AC | BG | AC | BG | |
SP | 131.7 € | 173.4 € | 104.1 € | 18.4 € | 141.3 € | 1153.9 € |
CS | −13.7 € | −12.2 € | −22.6 € | −54.2 € | −10.5 € | 86.8 € |
SEAP | 5.5 € | 5.1 € | 2.9 € | 0.0 € | 6.4 € | 8.8 € |
PFP | 0.1 € | 0.2 € | 0.0 € | 0.0 € | 0.3 € | 1.3 € |
FP | 7.4 € | 8.3 € | 4.1 € | 0.0 € | 8.5 € | 53.1 € |
Total | 131.0 € | 174.9 € | 88.8 € | 16.4 € | 145.8 € | 1166.1 € |
Ecosystem Service | Approach by Average Class (AC) | Approach by Buffer Generation (BG) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
AC | % of Total by AC | BG | % of Total by BG | |
Soil protection (SP) | 3,245,142 € | 99% | 3,548,257 € | 102% |
Carbon sequestration (CS), market price | −304,189 € | (9%) | −342,031 € | (10%) |
Support to extensive animal production (SEAP) | 139,423 € | 4% | 132,882 € | 4% |
Plant food production (PFP) | 1301 € | 0% | 2707 € | 0% |
Fiber production (FP) | 123,752 € | 6% | 124,585 € | 4% |
Total | 3,205,429 € | 100% | 3,466,401 € | 100% |
Carbon sequestration (CS), social cost | −215,228 € | (6%) | −242,003 € | (7%) |
Carbon sequestration (CS), shadow price | −528,025 € | (17%) | −593,714 € | (18%) |
Ecosystem Service | Approach by Average Class | Approach by Buffer Generation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Grasslands and Dehesa | Croplands | Grasslands and Dehesa | Croplands | |
Soil protection (SP) | 141.3 € | 72.8 € | 173.4 € | 173.4 € |
Carbon sequestration (CS), market price | −10.5 € | −32.8 € | −12.0 € | −13.3 € |
Support to extensive animal production (SEAP) | 6.4 € | - | 6.0 € | - |
Plant food production (PFP) | - | 0.6 € | - | 1.3 € |
Fiber production (FP) | 8.6 € | 0.3 € | 8.7 € | 4.8 € |
Total ecosystem value | 145.8 € | 40.8 € | 176.0 € | 166.2 € |
Carbon sequestration (CS), social cost | −7.5 € | −23.2 € | −8.5 € | −9.4 € |
Carbon sequestration (CS), shadow price | −18.3 € | −57.0 € | −20.8 € | −23.0 € |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
dos Santos, M.P.; Morais, T.G.; Domingos, T.; Teixeira, R.F.M. Valuing Ecosystem Services Provided by Pasture-Based Beef Farms in Alentejo, Portugal. Land 2022, 11, 2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122238
dos Santos MP, Morais TG, Domingos T, Teixeira RFM. Valuing Ecosystem Services Provided by Pasture-Based Beef Farms in Alentejo, Portugal. Land. 2022; 11(12):2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122238
Chicago/Turabian Styledos Santos, Manuel P., Tiago G. Morais, Tiago Domingos, and Ricardo F. M. Teixeira. 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services Provided by Pasture-Based Beef Farms in Alentejo, Portugal" Land 11, no. 12: 2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122238