Non-commercial evaluation of forest service’s: variability in function of geographical region and natural forest type in the northwest Iberian

Authors and Affiliations: 

Diaz-Maroto, Ignacio J.

Departamento de Ingeniería Agroforestal, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, E-27002 Lugo, Spain;

Corresponding author: 
Diaz-Maroto, Ignacio J.

Ecosystem Services are aimed directly incorporate ecological factors in the political and economic decisions with the possibility to manage a particular trend in decision-making of the land-use via governance and planning (Primmer et al., 2015). This concept was critiqued by different authors (Gomez-Baggethuna et al., 2010; Norgaard, 2010), because limits the natural and human dimensions of land-use, and it forget of landscape management challenges inherent to the Ecosystem Services (Schröter et al., 2014). These services usually are not able to show the complexity of the socio-ecological interactions, which often leads to a fragmentation in the land-use assessment towards sustainable development and resilience. The consideration of the multiple dimensions of landscape represents a way forward (Bastian et al., 2014). As regards non-market valuation, this paper relies on the knowledge to planning suitable values for forest services at the global level. The valuation framework is built in order to cover for each ecosystem service in function of geographical region and natural forest type in the northwest of Iberian Peninsula.
The aim of our work is to promote discussion by analyzing the principal function of natural forests in the sustainable development of rural communities in developed countries. This issue is multifaceted because it involves different aspects –socio-economic, political and environmental−, being indispensable that there is adequate coordination between all administrations and stakeholders involved (Sunderlin et al., 2005). During the last decades it has been accentuated the decline in area covered by natural forests (Diaz-Maroto et al., 2008). The human population will grow at a rate that will require different resources −livelihoods−, perhaps two or three times higher (World Bank, 2003). A livelihood includes people and their capabilities, e.g., more territory to live, leisure in nature, increased food production, new sources of income and other resources. It is considered sustainable when at least keeps the assets on which it depends and can also provide them for future generations (Ellis, 2000). Multi-functionality of natural forests promotes the establishment of markets for local forest products other than wood which could generate capital for sustainable management linked to rural development. Policy makers, private ownership of forests and the individual's ability to identify the opportunities are key factors in creating growth opportunities for rural communities (Bass et al., 2001). Comments from the authorities indicate the need for training programs to present the opportunities offered by forestry (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003).


Angelsen, A., Wunder, S. (2003): Exploring the forest poverty link: Key concepts, issues and research implications. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Bass, S., Hughes, C., Hawthorne, W. (2001): Forest, biodiversity and livelihoods: Linking policy and practice. In: I. Koziell & J. Saunders (Eds.), Living off biodiversity: Exploring livelihoods and biodiversity issues in natural resources management. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R., Walz, U., Wende, W. (2014): Landscape services: The concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecology 29(9): 1463-1479.

Diaz-Maroto, I.J., Vila-Lameiro, P. (2008): Historical evolution and land-use changes in natural broadleaved forests in the north-west Iberian Peninsula. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 23(4): 371–379.

Ellis, F. (2000): Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gomez-Baggethuna, E., de Grootb, R., Lomasa, P.L., Montesa, C. (2010): The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69(6): 1209–1218.

Norgaard, R.B. (2010): Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69(1): 1219–1227.

Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D.N., Bugter, R., Potsching, M. (2015): Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services 16: 158–166.

Schröter, M., Bartonb, D.N., Remmea, R.P., Heina, L. (2014): Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators 36: 539–551.

Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., Wunder, S. (2005): Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An overview. World Development 33(9): 1383–1402.

World Bank (2003): World development report 2003: Sustainable development in a dynamic world: transforming institutions, growth, and quality of life. Washington, DC: The World Bank; New York: Oxford University Press.

Oral or poster: 
Oral presentation
Abstract order: