Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
F A C U L T Y O F S C I E N C E U N I V E R S I T Y O F C O P E N H A G E N
Master’s thesisHyeonju Ryu
Ecosystem Services ofTropical Silvopastoral SystemsEconomic Valuation and Trade-Offs
Supervised by Palle Madsen, Jens-Peter Barnekow Lillesø and Diego Tobar
8 August 2016
Information Page
Name of department: Geosciences and Natural Resource Management
MSc programme: Nature Management (Landscape, Biodiversity and Planning)
Author: Hyeonju Ryu
Student ID: VDH245
Workload: 45 ECTS
Title: Ecosystem services of tropical silvopastoral systems
– Economic valuation and trade-offs
Academic advisor: Palle Madsen, Professor, Forest and Lancscape College
Jens-Peter Barnekow Lillesø, Senior researcher,
Forest, Nature and Biomass
Co-supervisor: Diego Tobar, Center for Teaching and Research on
Tropical Agronomy (CATIE)
Submitted: 08.08.2016
2
Abstract
Ecosystems provide a variety of goods and services to humans such as food pro-
vision, climate change mitigation, soil erosion control and watershed protection.
In Central America, expansion of cattle production has undermined ecological
functions, limiting such environmental goods and services. To solve the problem,
Silvopastoral System (SPS) was introduced as an instrument to enhance the envi-
ronmental services sustaining agricultural production. In Costa Rica, there have
been efforts to promote the SPS, but there are still obstacles in implementing
SPS. Lack of information on current status of Ecosystem Services (ES) provided
by SPS, furthermore, makes it hard to diagnose the condition of ES from SPS.
This study, therefore, aimed to estimate the value of the ecosystem services from
SPS and identify trade-offs between the ES in case of Jesus Maria River Watershed
in Costa Rica. Provision of food and fiber and regulation of Climate Change were
investigated. Combining with analyses on socio-economic factors, the work also
examined motivations and challenges in adoption of SPS by the farmers. Results
showed that the SPS provides ecosystem services equivalent to $ 3,318.7/ha/year
in 2015 International Dollar. Provision of timber and non-timber products was mi-
nor accounting for 5% and 10% of the total value respectively. A synergy between
carbon regulating service and biodiversity was found, whereas milk production had
a negative relation with the carbon regulation and biodiversity. Socio-economic
factors including farmers’ dependency of income in livestock production, existence
of subsidy, and capacity in SPS management tended to have relations with the
adoption of SPS. It was concluded that financial support to the farmers is nec-
essary in order to compensate the loss in milk production for higher carbon and
biodiversity value in cattle farms. Importance of technical assistance and knowl-
edge transfer, was also highlighted in promoting SPS and maximizing the value of
ES from the SPS. Despite limitations in the valuation with the scope of ES and
uncertainties in estimation, this work provided approximate values of ES in SPS,
aggregating multiple services into comparisons.
3
Abbreviations
AU Animal Unit
BCCR Central Bank of Costa Rica
(Banco Central de Cota Rica)
CAMBIo Central American Markets for Biodiversity Project
CADETI the Advisory Commission on Soil Degradation
(Comision Asesora sobre Degradacion de Tierras)
CATIE Center for Teaching and Research on Tropical Agronomy
(Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza)
CORFOGA Costa Rican Cattle Corporation (Corporation Ganadera)
CRC Costa Rican Colones
ES Ecosystem Service or Environmental Service
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FONAFIFO National Forest Financing Fund of Costa Rica
(Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal)
FONTAGRO Regional Fund for Agricultural Technology
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gas
IMN National Meteorological Institute
(Instituto Meteorologico Nacional)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITCR Costa Rican Institute of Technology
(Instituto Tecnologico de Costa Rica)
MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MAG Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
(Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia)
4
MIDEPLAN Ministry of National Planification and Economic Policy
(Ministerio de Planificacion Nacional y Polıtica Economica)
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PES Payment for Ecosystem Service
PPP Purchasing Power Party
RISEMP Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Ecosystem Management Project
SPS Silvopastoral System
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
UNEP-WCMC The United Nations Environment Programme’s
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
5
Contents
Information Page 2
Abstract 3
Abbreviations 4
1 Introduction 10
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Literature Review 15
2.1 Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.1 Definition and Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.2 Economic Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Silvopastoral Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.1 Definitions and Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.2 Ecosystem Services of Silvopastoral Systems . . . . . . . . . 22
3 Materials and Method 28
3.1 Study Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 Analytical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Selection of Ecosystem Services to Valuate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.5 Valuation of Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.5.1 Provisioning Service Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.5.2 Calculation of Carbon Balances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.5.3 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.6 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4 Results 41
4.1 Farm Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6
4.1.1 Spatial Distribution of Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.1.2 Production Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.1.3 Socio-Economic Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.1.4 Land Uses and Silvopastoral Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.2 Values of Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2.1 Quantification of Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2.2 Total Economic Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.3 Synergies and Trade-offs between Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . 56
4.4 Socio-Economic Factors in Adopting Silvopastoral Systems . . . . . 58
5 Discussions 60
5.1 Values of Ecosystem Services in Silvopastoral Systems . . . . . . . . 60
5.2 Trade-offs Between Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.3 Scocio-Economic Factors on Adopting Silvopastoral Systems . . . . 64
5.4 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6 Conclusion 68
References 69
Appendix. Interview Questions 78
7
List of Tables
2.1 Classification of ecosystem services (Source: Kumar 2010) . . . . . 17
3.1 Key ecosystem services of Silvopastoral Systems analyzed by criteria
for indicator selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2 Selected ecosystem services for valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3 Carbon sequestration rates by land uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.4 Ecological Index for Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.1 Coverage of districts inside the watershed and desired and actural
number of farms by districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Land sizes of administrative divisions and the studied farm areas . . 43
4.3 Sizes of the farmlands and the stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.4 Land uses within farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5 Challenges in adopting or enhancing silvopastoral systems . . . . . 48
4.6 Characteristics of intensification groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.7 Quantity of provisioning services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.8 The averages of quantified annual production of beef, milk, fruit
and timber by intensification group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.9 The average rates of carbon sequestration, emission and net carbon
sequestration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.10 The average rates of carbon sequestration, emission and net seques-
tration by groups of intensification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.11 Calulated Ecological Index for Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.12 Estimated values of ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.13 Estimated values of ecosystem services by groups with different level
of intensification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8
List of Figures
2.1 Classification of economic values (Source: Kumar 2010) . . . . . . . 18
3.1 Location of the study site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Life zones in Jesus Maria River Watershed, Costa Rica . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Land uses in Jesus Maria Watershed, Costa Rica in 2005 . . . . . . 31
3.4 Flowchart of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1 Division of districts and locations of the investigated farms . . . . . 44
4.2 Distribution of farm sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3 Frequency of age of the farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.4 Education level of the farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.5 Income of the farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.6 Classification of the farms by intensification indicators . . . . . . . 49
4.7 Estimated total Ecosystem Service value by farm type . . . . . . . 54
4.8 Relation between farm size and total ES value (2015-International
$/ha/year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.9 Estimated total Ecosystem Service values in 2015 International dol-
lars by intensification group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.10 Relationship between Carbon regulation value and Ecological Index
of farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.11 Relationship between milk provision value and carbon value . . . . 57
4.12 The Ecological Index of production areas by existence of subsidy,
economic dependency on cattle farming, existence of capacity on
SPS management and frequency of training related to SPS . . . . . 59
9
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Natural and semi-natural ecosystems provide a range of goods and services that
are important for human well-being and livelihood (De Groot et al. 2012; Kumar
2010; MA 2005). Physical, chemical and biological processes within and between
the ecosystems are often beneficial to humans offering food, drinking water, oxygen
and mitigating natural hazards. Despite the fundamental importance of the goods
and services from the ecosystems, the functions of ecosystems has been drastically
degraded mainly caused by anthropogenic activities, such as intensified agricul-
tures, deforestation and other unsustainable land uses (De Groot et al. 2012).
Beef and dairy industry is one of the major contributors to the degradation of
ecosystems. Expansion and intensification of cattle farms have resulted in con-
version of forests to pastures, forest fragmentation, degradation of soil and water
quality and loss of biodiversity (Edelman 1995; Foley et al. 2005; DeClerck et al.
2010). Livestock production is also attributed to large emission source of green-
house gases. Globally the amount of emitted Greenhouse Gases (GHG) from
livestock farming accounts for 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions (Gerber
et al. 2013). The loss of carbon sinks in natural ecosystems by expansion of range-
lands also contributed to the carbon emission to the atmosphere (Gerber et al.
2013).
Central America is one of the regions that have suffered from the environ-
mental degradation by livestock production (Edelman 1995; Kaimowitz 1996). In
the 1980s, 75 millions hectares of forests was converted mainly to grazing areas
(Kaimowitz 1996). Approximately 40% of the land in Central America is covered
10
by pastures (Ibrahim et al. 2001b). Conversion of forests into cattle farms also
resulted in loss of habitats for biodiveristy, threatening more than 300 endemic
species in Central America (Harvey et al. 2008). Also the expansion of livestock
production without appropriate management of pasture lands has caused a se-
vere degradation of pasturelands and soils (Calvo-Alvarado et al. 2009; Kaimowitz
1996). The declined ecosystem functions also made the region vulnerable to the
Climate Change (Giorgi 2006). The environmental degradation by cattle farms
caused a vicious circle, leading to a decrease of animal productivity which requires
large areas (Betancourt et al. 2003).
Despite the negative impacts of cattle production on the ecosystems and hu-
man well-being, the livestock sector is not likely to be scaled down any time soon
in Central America (Harvey et al. 2008; Pagiola et al. 2004). The reasons are
associated with 1) its long history, 2) influences on economy of agriculture, and
3) increasing demands for cattle products (Harvey et al. 2008; Murgueitio et al.
2011; Pagiola et al. 2004). The cattle ranching in Mesoamerica started five cen-
turies ago, integrated closely into the rural livelihoods (Murgueitio et al. 2011).
Most of the farms are small-medium scale run by families, supporting their living
(MAG-CATIE 2010). In Costa Rica the livestock sector supports 153,000 families
directly, and more than 300,000 families indirectly (MAG-CATIE 2010). Cattle
production also contributes a large part to the economy in the Central Ameri-
can countries. In Costa Rica and Nicaragua, beef and dairy industries contribute
14.7% and 10% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (MAG-CATIE 2010). Increase
of market demands on animal products has been the major driver of expansion of
animal production in Central America. Population growth led to higher demand
on food including animal products (Calvo-Alvarado et al. 2009). Especially in
the mid 19th century, the cattle industry grew rapidly due to high price of beef
and dairy products in the international markets (Kaimowitz 1996). The trend
of increasing demands does not seem to change as the population and meat con-
sumption per capita continue growing (Pagiola et al. 2004; Murgueitio et al. 2011).
With the increasing pressure both on agricultural production and environmen-
tal protection, it has become an important issue to balance demands for food
production and other environmental services such as climate change mitigation,
watershed protection and soil improvement. To deal with the issue, Silvopastoral
System (SPS) was introduced as an instrument for enhancing both land produc-
tivity and other environmental services (Harvey et al. 2008). The SPS is a system
11
of animal production combined with tree components on pastures such as live
fences, forage bank and scattered trees on paddocks (Montagnini 2008; Alonzo
and Ibrahim 2000). The involvement of trees in the cattle farms accommodates
higher biodiversity and increases animal productivity, improving multiple ecolog-
ical functions beneficial to the human welfare (Harvey et al. 2008; Pagiola et al.
2004; Montagnini 2008). Studies have shown that SPS provides more ecosystem
services than open pasture lands (Murgueitio et al. 2011).
In Central America, trees have been used for shades and materials for post
traditionally (Alonzo and Ibrahim 2000). In the 1970s, planting trees on agricul-
tural lands for multiple uses was wide-spread, especially for producing fuel woods
(Current et al. 1995). In recent years, SPS has been promoted focusing on improv-
ing farm efficiency and ecosystem functions. In Costa Rica, various efforts have
been made to reduce deforestation and enhance ecosystem qualities by implement-
ing agroforestry systems including SPS (Bautista Solıs 2005). Under a National
Action Program to combat soil degradation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Live-
stock (MAG) and the Advisory Commission on Soil Degradation (CADETI) have
been promoting SPS by offering farmers with tree seeds for live fences and forage
banks and building farmers capacity on management of SPS (Gumucio et al. 2015).
Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Ecosystem Management Project (RISEMP) was
also conducted between 2002 and 2007, aiming to improve degraded soils in cattle
farms through researches on the profitability and effects on ecosystem services of
SPS (Pagiola and Arcenas 2013).
Although numerous studies have provided evidences of enhancement in ecosys-
tem services and its profitability, implementation of SPS is encountering many
limitations. Governmental regulations on harvesting timber on pastures are one
of the obstacles. In Costa Rica, it is not allowed to harvest more than three trees
per hectare per year outside timber plantations according to the Article 27 of the
Forest Law (Plata 2012). Sales of timber harvested in the pastures need to be
reported before the action, which involves long and complicated processes (Plata
2012). High initial cost of establishing SPS and high risk of investment is also
a drawback that makes farmers hesitate in adopting SPS. In a technical aspect,
decrease of grass production due to tree shade and slow growth of timber are also
obstacles in implementing SPS (Esquivel 2007; Alonzo and Ibrahim 2000; Plata
2012).
12
To overcome the barriers in implementing SPS and maximizing ecosystem ser-
vices through SPS, it is essential to understand the present state of ecosystem
services provided by the current silvopastoral systems. In understanding the pro-
vision of various ecosystem services, economic valuations have often been used as
a tool for visualizing and monitoring those services in other types of ecosystems
(UNEP-WCMC 2011; Kumar 2010). Through an economic valuation, ecosystem
services are presented in monetary values, enabling comparisons between differ-
ent environmental services (De Groot et al. 2012; MA 2005; UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Presentation of environmental values in monetary terms can also assist comprehen-
sion of relations between the services, such as synergies and trade-offs (Raudsepp-
Hearne et al. 2010; Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2007). Many studies examined effects of
tropical SPS on certain ecosystem services and relations between them, in which
the services included food provisioning, carbon capturing, watershed protection
and bird conservation (Rıos Ramırez et al. 2006; Ibrahim et al. 2007; Esquivel
2007; Harvey et al. 2005; Bravo et al. 2012; Giraldo et al. 1995). There is, how-
ever, lack of studies that quantified and evaluated those services by tropical SPS
in economic terms, integrating multiple ecosystem services. The actual utilization
of tree-related products such as timber and fruits at the farm level, is also poorly
understood.
1.2 Objectives
Silvopastoral system is often promoted for its benefits in maximizing Ecosystem
Services (ES). Can we really gain ‘all’ services without any loss? What are syner-
gies and trade-offs between the ecosystem services in SPS? Does the SPS maximize
values of the ecosystem services in reality? If not, what are the challenges in op-
timizing the benefits?
To answer the questions above, this study aimed i) to quantify and estimate the
values of the Ecosystem Services provided by current conditions of Silvopastoral
Systems, ii) to identify synergies and trade-offs between the examined Ecosystem
Services and finally iii) to identify socio-economic factors that affect adoption of
SPS.
The hypothesis are as follows:
13
Objective 1. Ecosystem Service Values
• The major contributor to the total ES value will be provisioning of meat
and milk due to limited utilization of fruit and timber and greenhouse gas
emissions from livestock.
• The carbon regulating value will be minor due to compensation between
greenhouse gas emission from the animal production and sequestration on
tree components on the farms.
• Farms with more SPS elements will have higher total ES value because of
increased animal productivity and higher carbon sequestration.
• Provision of subsidiary products such as timber and fruit will be greater
in the farms with more SPS elements due to the higher availability of the
products.
Objective 2. Synergies and Trade-offs between Ecosystem Services
• There will be a positive relation between the provisioning service, the car-
bon regulating service and biodiversity due to positive influence of trees on
agricultural production, carbon sequestration and habitat supply.
Objective 3. Socio-economic factors in SPS Adoption
• Farmers whose income is high or who receive subsidies will have more SPS
elements on their farms because there will be little financial restriction with
investing on establishing and managing SPS.
• Education and technical assistance will be positively associated with adop-
tion of SPS, related to knowledge on effective farm management and aware-
ness of profitability of SPS.
14
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Ecosystem Services
2.1.1 Definition and Categories
Ecosystem Service is defined as “the benefits people obtain from the ecosphere
and its ecosystems” (MA 2005). Ecosystems provide good and services useful
for human well-being through their physical, chemical and biological processes.
For instance, photosynthesis of vegetation provides oxygen and captures carbon
dioxide, one of GHGs, from the atmosphere. Complex root systems in natural
ecosystems, for another example, control soil erosion and water run-off, preventing
floods and landslides. The concept of Ecosystem Services was addressed in the
mid-1960’s with a rise of concerns on environmental degradation (De Groot et al.
2002). In those days, environmental problems, such as air pollution, water contam-
ination, soil acidification and forest die-back, were highlighted as a limiting factor
in the social and economic growth (Alam et al. 2014). With increasing attention
on ecosystem services, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was launched to
quantify and monitor the global ecosystem services in 2005 (De Groot et al. 2012).
A global assessment of the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), af-
terwards, launched in 2007, continuing monitoring of changes in global ES values
(De Groot et al. 2012; Kumar 2010).
Kumar (2010) has classified ecosystem services through reviews on previous
classification systems. Ecosystem services are categorized into four groups: provi-
sioning services, regulating services, habitat services and cultural services (Table
2.1). The provisioning services refer to supply of products people obtain from
ecosystems (De Groot et al. 2012). The provisioning services include food like
15
crops and fruits, water for irrigation and drinking, materials such as timber and
fuelwood, and medicinal products. The regulating service means“benefits from the
regulation of ecosystem processes” (De Groot et al. 2012). For example, ecosystem
functions involve air purification, carbon sequestration, disturbance prevention,
and soil erosion control. The habitat service means “provision of habitat for mi-
gratory species and gene-pool protectors allowing natural selection processes to
maintain the vitality of the gene pool.” (Kumar 2010). The habitat services were a
subset of ‘Supporting Services’ in the MA classification. It was, however, amended
since the supporting services such as nutrient cycling and food-chain dynamics
were regarded as ‘ecological processes’ (Kumar 2010). Instead, the services of
accommodating fauna and flora and protecting the gene pool were highlighted
in the adjusted classification. The cultural service, lastly, is “the non-material
benefits obtained through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection,
recreation, and aesthetic experiences”(MA 2005). The cultural services are, for
example, scenic beauty, recreation, inspiration for art and spiritual experience.
2.1.2 Economic Valuation
Despite the substantial significance of ecosystem services, their values have been
often neglected or underestimated in political decisions (Costanza et al. 1997; MA
2005; Kumar 2010; De Groot et al. 2002). In the processes of decision-making
on land uses or constructions, it has been difficult to take ES values into account
since their benefits and costs could not be measured (Kumar 2010; MA 2005). To
make the ES values visible and comparable, valuation of ES in economic terms
was suggested (Kumar 2010). Supporters of economic valuation argue that it en-
ables to prioritize conservation options by comparing benefits of different programs
(Costanza et al. 1997; Schroter et al. 2014). It is also expected to raise public aware-
ness on environmental services by providing familiar expression of values through
monetization (De Groot et al. 2012; Schroter et al. 2014; MA 2005).
Economic Value Types
In an economic valuation, the values are categorized into ‘Use Values’ and ‘Non-use
Values’ (Kumar 2010) (Fig. 2.1). Use value is goods and services that are directly
or indirectly utilized by human (Jonsson and Davıðsdottir 2016; Kumar 2010).
The use value is divided into three sub-categories: ‘Direct use’, ‘Indirect use’ and
‘Option value’. Direct value is the value directly used by human such as agri-
16
Table 2.1: Classification of ecosystem services (Source: Kumar 2010)
Service types Ecosystem services
Provisioning
Services
1. Food
2. Water
3. Raw materials
4. Genetic resources
5. Medicinal resources
6. Ornamental resources
Regulating
Services
7. Air quality regulation
8. Climate regulation
9. Moderation of extreme events
10. Regulation of water flows
11. Waste treatment
12. Erosion prevention
13. Maintenance of soil fertility and nutrient cycling
14. Pollination
15. Biological control
Habitat
Services
16. Maintenance of life cycles of migratory species
17. Maintenance of genetic diversity
Cultural
and
Amenity
Services
18. Aesthetic information
19. Opportunities for recreation and tourism
20. Inspiration for culture, art and design
21. Spiritual experience
22. Information for cognitive development
cultural products and tourism. Indirect value refers to the societal or functional
benefits. The indirect uses are mainly related to regulation services, such as flood
prevention (Jonsson and Davıðsdottir 2016). Option value means the potential
value of being used directly or indirectly in the future. For examples, maintaining
plant biodiversity gives potential to discover medicinal products in the future.
Non-use value is, meanwhile, the value people assign although it never has been
and never will be used (Costanza et al. 1997; Jonsson and Davıðsdottir 2016). The
non-use value includes bequest value, altruist value and existence value (Kumar
2010). Bequest value means the value placed on the option to reserve the ability
of future generations to use the service in the future (Kumar 2010). Designation
of protected national parks is one example of reserving the aesthetic and academic
17
values of natural ecosystems for the future generations. Altruist value refers to
the value stemming from satisfaction of knowing that the present generation can
access to the environmental benefits. For instance, some people in temperate coun-
tries value mangroves in tropical countries for their benefits to the local people.
Existence value indicates the value that people assign on resource simply knowing
that it exists (Kumar 2010). For example, existence of endangered species is ap-
preciated.
Figure 2.1: Classification of economic values (Source: Kumar 2010)
Valuation Methods
Plenty of economic valuation methods for ecosystem services have been developed,
especially since the global ES estimation by Costanza et al. (1997) (De Groot et al.
2012). The methods can be categorized into three groups: ‘Direct market valuation
approaches’, ‘Revealed preference approaches’ and ‘Stated preference approaches’
(Kumar 2010).
Direct market valuation is a means of valuing a service using prices transacted
in the markets (Kumar 2010; Jonsson and Davıðsdottir 2016). The techniques
are divided into three approaches: ‘Market price-based approaches’, ‘Cost-based
18
approaches’ and ‘Approaches based on production functions’ (Kumar 2010). The
market price-based approaches use the values of ecosystem services that have been
traded in markets (De Groot et al. 2002). This method is commonly used for
provisioning services (UNEP-WCMC 2011). For example, Godoy et al. (2002) es-
timated provisiong services of tropical forests in Bolivia and Honduras, such as
provision of timber, games and fruits using their consumer prices in markets.
The cost-based approaches include avoided cost method and replacement cost
method. Avoided cost method estimates an ecosystem service value by calculating
costs that would have been incurred in the absence of the service (De Groot et al.
2002). In New Zealand, the biological control service of organic farms was esti-
mated using the avoided cost of pesticides (Sandhu et al. 2008). Replacement cost
method calculates costs to replace a service with man-made systems (De Groot
et al. 2002). For example, waste treatment service of wetlands can be valuated by
the cost of operating a purification plant (Woodward and Wui 2001).
Production function-based approaches estimate the ecosystem services linked to
enhanced commercial profits (De Groot et al. 2002; Kumar 2010). For example, as
a result of pollination service, productivity of crops can increase in adjacent farms.
In Costa Rica, the pollination service of ecosystems was valuated by measuring
increase of productivity in coffee farms (Ricketts et al. 2004).
Using the direct market approaches have several advantages. First of all, they
uses actual market data which may represent their value well based on the rela-
tions of supply and demand (Kumar 2010). The techniques are also cost-efficient
because obtaining existing market data is easy (Kumar 2010). There are, however,
also limitations in the methods. Estimations can be misled in case the markets
are distorted by subsidies (Kumar 2010). Also the approaches cannot be used to
valuate non-use values (Kumar 2010).
On the other hand, ‘Revealed preference techniques’ are based on choices of
individuals observed in existing markets (Kumar 2010). The main methods in this
approches are ‘Hedonic pricing method’ and ‘Travel cost methods’. Hedonic pric-
ing method estimates values using prices reflected in prices of associated goods.
Using this method, cultural values have been estimated in many studies. For ex-
ample, amenity of forests is often estimated with the increased house prices as
proximity to the nature is higher. Travel cost method calculates travel expenses
19
to use certain services, especially recreation. Recreational value of the Monteverde
Cloud Forest Biological Reserve in Costa Rica, for instance, was valuated by esti-
mation of costs that visitors spend to travel to the place (Tobias and Mendelsohn
1991).
The revealed preference approaches are useful for estimates of use values that
does not have markets. The techniques, however, also have several drawbacks.
Like direct market valuation, the approaches are only for use values. The methods
are also expensive and time-consuming, requiring complex statistical analysis and
large dataset (Kumar 2010).
Stated preference techniques are, meanwhile, based on decisions of people made
in hypothetical scenarios of changes in service qualities (Jonsson and Davıðsdottir
2016). Stated preference tools consist of ‘Choice experiments’, ‘Contingent valua-
tion’ and ‘Group valuation. In the choice experiments, people are asked to make
choices among bundles of services and prices. In the contingent valuation, the
respondents are questioned whether they would pay a specific price for increase of
certain services. Group valuation is a combination of stated preference techniques
but use deliberative processes instead of surveys.
The methods based on stated preference have advantages that they are applica-
ble for both use and non-use values (Kumar 2010; Jonsson and Davıðsdottir 2016).
There are, however, critiques on its hypothetical assumption, questioning if people
would really pay the amount as they answered in reality (Kumar 2010).
In valuation of ecosystem services in preceding studies, the most common meth-
ods for use values were direct market methods, production function-based meth-
ods, cost-based methods, travel cost methods and hedonic methods (Jonsson and
Davıðsdottir 2016; UNEP-WCMC 2011; De Groot et al. 2012). Most frequently-
measured services in economic valuations were food and raw materials for provi-
sioning services, water quality, climate regulation and erosion regulation in regu-
lating services, and recreation for cultural services (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Limits of Economic Valuation of ES
Estimating ecosystem services in economic terms has the virtue as a means of
providing visible and comparable information on ecosystem services for decision-
20
making, linking ecosystems to human well-being (Kumar 2010; MA 2005). Eco-
nomic valuation of ES, yet, has been criticized for ethical issues and uncertainty
(Schroter et al. 2014). It is asserted that ES valuations are focused on instrumental
values of ecosystems from an anthropocentric view, excluding intrinsic values of
ecosystems (Schroter et al. 2014). Opponents to this argument addressed that the
main focus of economic valuations is to offer additional information for decision-
making, not to estimate intrinsic values of the nature (Schroter et al. 2014). The
problem of uncertainty is the most addressed concern in the discourses on economic
valuation of ecosystem services. The uncertainties stem from gaps in knowledge
about ecosystem dynamics and application of valuation tools (Kumar 2010). Sev-
eral ecosystem functions are linked to more than one ecosystem services, which
increases interdependence of the services (De Groot et al. 2002). The high com-
plexity of ecosystem services can be a cause of double-counting (de Groot et al.
2002; Kumar 2010). Adoption of valuation tools also affects risk of uncertainty.
Researchers have not reached a consensus on measurement methods, disputing
over their limitations, as discussed earlier.
2.2 Silvopastoral Systems
As the conflict between demand for agriculture and environmental protection was
highlighted, options of integrated land uses for balancing the demands were dis-
cussed (Harvey et al. 2008). As an approach for protecting biodiversity while sus-
taining agricultural productivity and rural livelihood, Silvopastoral System (SPS)
was devised (Harvey et al. 2008; Murgueitio et al. 2011)
2.2.1 Definitions and Types
Silvopastoral System refers to a combination of multipurpose trees with livestock
production (Montagnini 2008). There are four categories of SPS according to Pa-
giola et al. (2004): pastures with dispersed trees, forage bank, live fence and forest
plantation with animal grazing. The pastures with dispersed trees are the systems
where trees and/or shrubs are scattered in grazing areas, providing shade and al-
iment (Murgueitio et al. 2011; Pagiola et al. 2004). Forage bank is an area for
cultivation of forage in which woody or herbaceous plants are grown in a high tree
density (Esquivel 2007). Live fence is a line of fast-growing trees and/or shrubs for
division of paddocks and/or for windbreak (Murgueitio 2000). The forest planta-
tion with animal grazing is a timber or fruit plantation where livestock grazes under
21
the trees (Murgueitio 2000). The cattle grazing in plantations mainly for control-
ling invasive plants (Murgueitio 2000). Recently, Intensive Silvopastoral System
(ISS) have been developed (Murgueitio et al. 2011; Calle et al. 2012). The sys-
tem is an improved pasture integrated with forage bank at high density (>10,000
plants/ha) and lines of timber trees in east-west (Murgueitio et al. 2011). ISS was
devised to minimize decrease in pastures by tree shades and maximize protection
from winds and production of timber (Murgueitio et al. 2011; Calle et al. 2012).
2.2.2 Ecosystem Services of Silvopastoral Systems
A plenty of studies demonstrated mechanisms of ecosystem services provided by
SPS, including provisioning, regulating and habitat services.
Provisioning Services
Increase of provisioning services has been one of the major focuses of the studies
on SPS to prove its economic profitability and efficiency. Two major findings of
the studies on the provisioning services were i) increased cattle productivity and
ii) additional products from tree components.
A few studies have shown that in a silvopastoral system, beef and dairy produc-
tivity was improved. Restrepo-Saenz et al. (2004) and Esquivel (2007) observed
increase of weight gain of cows in moderate level of SPS where the canopy cover is
lower than 30%. In cattle farms in Nicaragua, milk production was higher in SPS
than in pastures with no or few trees on pastures (Betancourt et al. 2003).
Factors that contribute to the increase of productivity are known as 1) shade
of dispersed trees and live fences, 2) diet supplement from forage bank and fo-
liage and fruits of dispersed trees, and 3) increased quality of aliment (Pagiola
et al. 2004; Restrepo-Saenz et al. 2004; Esquivel 2007; Alonzo and Ibrahim 2000).
Betancourt et al. (2003) demonstrated that production in pasture with moderate
tree density (20–32% canopy cover) was 29% higher than in pasture with low tree
density (0–7%) due to longer time spent in grazing under the shades.
Increase of aliment supply from forage banks and trees on pasture is also linked
to the increased productivity. Diet supplement from forage bank increased animal
production by 20–30% in sub-humid tropics (Ibrahim et al. 2001a). Holmann et
22
al. (1992), furthermore, showed that stock size increased in the improved pasture
combined with legumes due to sufficient aliment from the trees. Some tree species
also provide substantial amount of supplement. For example, Gaucimo (Guazuma
ulmifolia) produces 50–60 kg (dry weight) of forage annually (Giraldo et al. 1995).
Cecnizaro (Samanea saman) and Guanacaste (Enterolobium cyclocarpum), for an-
other example, produce 270kg of fruits per tree every year (Durr 2001).
Forage banks and tree components in a farm also are known for contributing to
increased productivity by producing aliment with high nutrient content. Leaves
of nitrogen-fixing plant species such as G. sepium and Erythrina spp. have high
protein content (Harvey et al. 2005; Esquivel 2007). It was also demonstrated that
fruits of trees were more nutritious than pasture than grasses, increasing daily milk
production by 2.2 liters per cow (Esquivel 2007). The nutrition content of pasture
under dispersed trees were, moreover, enhanced by shade through adaption to the
light-limiting condition in Costa Rica, especially when nitrogen is a limiting fac-
tor (Esquivel 2007). Several studies have also demonstrated that increase of B.
brizantha productivity at medium tree cover (22% of canopy cover)(Esquivel 2007).
Some studies, on the other hand, argued that high tree cover on grazing land
decrease grass productivity. Herbage biomass decreased under certain tree species,
of which the crowns intercept high proportion of light, such as Enterolobium cyclo-
carpum and Guazuma ulmifolia (Esquivel 2007). Esquivel (2007) also simulated
that increase of crown cover from 10 to 50% would decrease pasture production
by 2.7–51.3% of pasture without trees.
Secondly, a silvopastoral system has a potential to provide fodder, timber, fruits
and fuelwood as well as livestock products such as meat, milk and cheese. In
1995 when timber supply was limited in Costa Rica, 20% of the domestic tim-
ber transacted was produced from pastures, especially scattered trees in paddocks
(Murgueitio et al. 2011). From farmers’ perspective, the diversified products bring
additional income and reduce risks by natural disasters and market fluctuation
(Pagiola et al. 2004; Alonzo and Ibrahim 2000). Harvey et al. (2005) demon-
strated that farmers in Costa Rica and Nicaragua chose to establish live fences for
supplementary production such as fodder.
Opposed to the statement that SPS enhances provisioning services by diver-
sification, some studies have argued that there are conflicts between production
23
of different products, especially between timber production and agricultural pro-
duction (Current et al. 1995; Harvey et al. 2005). The conflicts were driven from
allocation of limited resources such as labor and competition over lights and nutri-
ents between trees and pastures (Harvey et al. 2005; Current et al. 1995; Alonzo
and Ibrahim 2000; Plata 2012; Esquivel 2007).
Regulating Services
Preceding studies have shown that SPS provides regulating services including en-
hancement of chemical and physical condition of soil, watershed protection, climate
change mitigation and adoption and improvement of air quality. It was reported
that soil quality under SPS can be improved through its efficient nutrient cycling
(Montagnini 2008; Belsky 1994; Esquivel 2007). The efficiency in nutrient use is
because trees uptake nutrients from deeper soil than the grass species (McPherson
1997; Scholes & Archer 1997; Nair et al. 2007; Pagiola et al. 2004). The nutrients
absorbed by the trees, moreover, return to the top soil in forms of organic matters
when a tree sheds foliages, twigs and fruits (Menezes et al. 2002; Pagiola et al.
2004).
The plentiful organic matter under the trees, meanwhile, increases the nutrients
available for plants (Esquivel 2007). The organic matter facilitates activities of de-
composers (Esquivel 2007). In fact, more extractable phosphorus (P), potassium
(K) and calcium (Ca) were found in the soils under trees than pastures without
trees (Rao et al. 1998). Nitrogen fixing species are also one of the great con-
tributers to the enhancement of soil fertility in SPS (Rao et al. 1998; Bryan 1999).
Nitrogen is often a limiting factor in terrestrial ecosystems including pasture lands.
Therefore, provision of nitrogen through fixation by legume species allows increase
pasture productivity without fertilizer input.
Tree components on grazing lands also contribute to improvement of physical
soil condition. The root systems of the trees prevent compaction of the soil by
animals (Ayres et al. 2009). Combination of grasses and trees also controls erosion
of the soils by retaining water and soil (Ibrahim et al. 2007; Rıos Ramırez et al.
2006). Trees have higher infiltration rate of the rainfall, which allows lower level
of run-off. The reduced run-off on the surface, as a result, decreases loss of soils
carried by surface water (Pagiola et al. 2004; Rıos Ramırez et al. 2006). Complex
root systems with various trees of different root depth also prevent landslides by
physically stabilizing the soils (Pagiola et al. 2004). By reducing soil erosion, the
24
SPS can decrease loss of soil nutrient from the agro-ecosystem.
The watershed protection service by SPS is closely related to the improved soil
quality. Low soil compaction and high content of organic matter increase the wa-
ter holding capacity, hence releasing less water into rivers (Esquivel 2007). Along
with the high infiltration rate discussed above in soil quality, the amount of surface
run-off substantially decreases, which reduces risk of floods (Pagiola et al. 2004;
Rıos Ramırez et al. 2006). Also reduced sediments associated with soil retainment
alleviate the risk of floods by maintaining the level of riverbed low (Rıos Ramırez
et al. 2006).
The SPS can also enhance the water quality including drinking water and fresh-
water habitats. Due to the high retention of nutrients and water in the soil, more
amount of water penetrate into the water than surface run-off. Majority of nitro-
gen and phosphate in the water remains onto the soil particles and is utilized by
trees and pastures (Rao et al. 1998). The rest of water surcharges the groundwa-
ter, which is extracted later for drinking water or agricultural uses. The reduced
run-off also contribute to the high quality of aquatic habitats by preventing leakage
of excessive nutrients into the rivers.
Regarding climate change, many studies have shown that the SPS contributes
to mitigating climate change by 1) capturing carbon into tree biomass and soils,
and 2) reducing carbon emissions from livestock (Ibrahim et al. 2007; Ruız Garcıa
2002; Kim et al. 2016; Reid et al. 2004; Current et al. 1995). Ibrahim et al. (2007)
demonstrated higher rates of carbon sequestration in SPS compared to the open
pastures. Ruız Garcıa (2002) also showed that carbon storage increased both in
above- and belowground in SPS with high tree density compared to pastures with
low tree density.
SPS is, meantime, also associated with decrease of emissions from livestock
production. The principal greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The major emitter of the gases is livestock, espe-
cially enteric fermentation of cattle and manure (Reid et al. 2004). Several studies
have found that under a SPS, methane emission can be reduced by increased di-
gestibility of pasture and forage. Ibrahim et al. (2007) showed that the emission of
methane decreased by 20% in pastures with high tree density compared to range-
lands with low tree density, resulted from high protein content and low cellulose
25
contain in the forage. Belsky (1992) also proved that the digestibility of pasture
under trees was higher than pastures without shade. Other aliment by trees such
as foliages and fruits were also shown to have higher digestibility by 54–80% than
grasses (Benavides 1999; Esquivel 2007).
Enhancement of air quality by SPS was also addressed in a few studies (Current
et al. 1995; Scheelje Bravo 2009). Current et al. (1995) argued that SPS has an
effect of reducing density of dust in the atmosphere by functioning as windbreaks.
Habitat Services
SPS offers complex habitats for both the aboveground fauna and flora and the soil
biota. A number of researches have proved that SPS has a capacity to facilitate
various species by providing shelter, food and seed sources (Pagiola et al. 2004;
Murgueitio et al. 2011; Milder et al. 2010). The SPS provides shelter for birds,
butterflies, invertebrates and trees (Harvey et al. 2005; Milder et al. 2010; Mur-
gueitio et al. 2011; Pagiola et al. 2004). Regarding bird biodiversity, Pagiola et al.
(2004) argued that complex structure of vegetation in SPS provides birds with
nesting substrates and protection from predators. Milder et al. (2010) observed
higher bird diversity in live fences than in pastures without trees. Diverse butterfly
species were also found in live fences using the bushes as habitats (Milder et al.
2010). Saenz et al. (2007), meanwhile, showed that 6.3% of bird species found in
SPS were the species whose population has been decreased at the regional level,
indicating SPS’s roles in conservations. Food availability for animals in SPS is
another factor in increasing biodiversity. Harvey et al. (2005) observed birds in
live fences feeding on shrubs, vines, mistletoes and nectars in flowers in tropical
SPS.
Biodiversity in soils are also enhanced by SPS (Murgueitio et al. 2011). Dennis
et al. (1996) showed that there were more species of invertebrates in the systems
of pastures with high tree density compared to the pastures without trees. Harvey
et al. (2006) also observed increased diversity of dung beetles with increase of tree
cover in pastures in Nicaragua.
A few studies, meanwhile, have shown that SPS is favorable for natural regener-
ation of trees, which increases tree diversity at landscape level (Harvey et al. 2005;
Pagiola et al. 2004). Tree components in pastures, such as live fences and scat-
tered trees, function as a foci for seed dispersal and plant recruitment (Esquivel
26
2007). Pagiola et al. (2004) also argued that propagation of native tree species
under scattered trees is high.
SPS also supports conservation of remnant forests by enhancing ecological
connectivity and reducing pressure on the forests. Especially live fences pro-
vide structural connectivity between forest patches (Harvey et al. 2005). Har-
vey et al. (2005) observed that birds utilize live fences to move between rem-
nant forests. Multi-strata fences were, moreover, reported to maintain 56% of the
species in nearby forests, increasing connectivity between forest fragments (Tobar
and Ibrahim 2010). Saenz et al. (2007) also found that 33.2% of bird species in
SPS were forest-dependent species and 60.5% requires forest patches, which indi-
cates that SPS provides stepping stones for birds in forest patches. Connectivity
of disturb-tolerant bird species also tended to increase in Honduras (Sanfiorenzo
2008). Not only the birds but bats were also found to move between forest patches
using trees in SPS (Medina et al. 2007). Some studies, however, refuted to the
positive impacts of SPS on biodiversity. Ramırez (2007) argued that only few
forest-dependent bird species were observed in SPS, indicating its limited function
for conserving biodiversity in remnant forests. Harvey et al. (2006) also found that
diversity of dung beetles and butterflies had no relation with tree cover.
Cultural Services
The cultural services of SPS were barely investigated in tropics. A few studies
on cultural values of silvopastoral systems were conducted in Europe. Franco et
al. (2003) discussed scenic beauty of traditional agroforestry –a system with inte-
gration of crop and trees – in Italy. Ispikoudis and Sioliou (2004) described that
silvopastoral systems in Europe have values as a cultural heritage associated with
old traditions, and aesthetics of the landscape. In tropics, it was found that farm-
ers appreciate the scenic beauty of trees on pastures in Costa Rica (Plata 2012).
27
Chapter 3
Materials and Method
3.1 Study Site
The study was conducted in Rio Jesus Maria Watershed (N449893.481 E1106874.654–
N423033.769 E1089910.626, WGS84) located in Central Pacific Region (Fig.3.1).
This area was chosen because there was accumulated data that can be utilized
in estimating the ES values. Several studies described the status of Silvopastoral
systems of the region such as the structure of vegetations, which provided general
information of the current status of SPS in the region (Bautista Solıs 2005; Plata
2012; Villanueva Najarro et al. 2013). Zamora-Lopez (2006) and Vega (in-press),
furthermore, investigated the carbon sequestration rates of biomass on farms and
emissions from the cattle production activities, which provide proxy information
for estimating carbon balance. FONAFIFO-CATIE (2011) have developed a model
of the hydrological system in the region that could be used in water-based ES val-
uation. Also Chagoya (2004) and Bravo et al. (2012) have conducted a financial
analysis on SPS. For a cost-efficiency, Jesus Maria River watershed was selected
maximizing its benefits of data and proxies as suggested by UNEP-WCMC (2011).
The study site locates Puntarenas Province and Alajuela Province. The area of
Rio Jesus Maria is 352.8 km2. The watershed administratively consists of districts
of Esparza, Montes de Oro of Puntarenas Province, and San Mateo, Orotina and
San Ramon of Alajuela Province.
The region is of rainy and dry tropical climate. The annual precipitation is
2200–3300 mm, where the average is 2780 mm (FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011). The
region receives 91% of the rainfall between May and November, which is called
the rainy season (FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011). Evapotranspiration is from 1,000
28
Figure 3.1: Location of the study site, Jesus Maria River Watershed, Costa Rica.
The black line marks the boundary of the watershed. (Source: ITCR 2008; Open-
StreetMap 2016)
to 12,000 mm (FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011). The altitude ranges between 0 and
1440 meters from the sea level (FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011). In the region the dry
season is five month long, and the number of rainy days is 190 days (IMN 2016;
FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011). The average temperature is 24.8◦C, and the average
relative humidity is 71.5% (IMN 2016).
The dominant soil type is Alfisols (T. Haplustalfs), characterized by a sandy
surface layer and increasing clay content in the lower layers (ITCR 2008; Sharma
et al. 2005). According to the classification system of life zones of Costa Rica, the
watershed includes six types of life zones: 1) Tropical moist forest (10,364ha), 2)
Premontane to lower montane wet forest (5,279.5ha), 3) Premontane wet forest
(4,359.8, 4) Premontane to lower montane moist forest (3,927.5ha), 5) Tropid-
cal moist to perhumid forest (3,137.5ha), and 6) Tropical moist to dry forest
(2,293.3ha) (Fig.3.2). The classification system is based on altitude (e.g. mon-
tane, premontane, etc.), annual precipitation (e.g. forest, tundra) and humidity
(e.g. wet, perhumid, moist, dry) (ITCR 2008; Hartshorn 1983). The tropical
moist forest, which covers the largest area in the watershed, is characterized with
29
higher temperature (avg. 24-30◦C) and premontane forests and more rainfall than
dry and moist forests (Hartshorn 1983). The premontane and lower forest wet
forests is the second largest zone in the area, which is considered most suitable for
cattle production becuase of low temperature and water stress (Hartshorn 1983;
FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011).
Figure 3.2: Life zones in Jesus Maria River Watershed, Costa Rica
In the watershed, there are 11,933 habitants, of which 40% dwell in Orotina
(FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011). Emigration has been at a high rate in the region
caused by little job opportunity and lack of human development (FONAFIFO-
CATIE 2011). There are migrant labors from Nicaragua who work in farms of
sugarcane, coffee and fruits temporarily (FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011). The major
land-use is ‘Pastures with dispersed trees’, accounting for 37.7% of the territory,
followed by secondary forest (22.3%) (FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011) (Fig.3.3). The
site is one of the regions where cattle production is the major economic activity
in Costa Rica (Ibrahim 2016; FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011). Fruit production and
double-purpose cattle production, which produces both beef and dairy products,
are the major economic activities in the region (Plata 2012; FONAFIFO-CATIE
2011). Monior activities include coffee production (3.4% of the area) and agricul-
tural lands (1.4% of the area) for vegetables and fruits in a small-scale dispersed
over the region (FONAFIFO-CATIE 2011).
30
Figure 3.3: Land uses in Jesus Maria Watershed, Costa Rica in 2005. Most of the
’no forests’ are covered by pastures with dispersed trees
3.2 Analytical Framework
This study was conducted in four stages (Fig.3.4). The first step was to select
key ecosystem services, the indicators to quantify the selected services, and the
adequate methods of the valuation. Based on the chosen ecosystem services and
indicators, required data was gathered through interviews with farmers and lit-
erature review. Collected data was used to quantify each ecosystem service and
estimate their economic values. Synergies and trade-offs between the ecosystem
services were also examined. Lastly, socio-economic factors related to the adoption
of SPS were identified.
3.3 Selection of Ecosystem Services to Valuate
UNEP-WCMC (2011) suggested the followings to consider when selecting ES to
evaluate and indicators to measure for performing a Ecosystem Service Valuation.
• Clear objectives to avoid misinterpretation
• Adoption of a small set of specific policy-relevant indicators
• Valuation beyond provisioning services
31
Figure 3.4: Flowchart of the study
• Utilization of existing data and proxies
• Engagement of stakeholders, including mainstreaming ES and collaborating
with other sectors
• Linkage to national development plans
Through the literature review, the important Ecosystem Services of SPS were
identified. Provisioning services include ‘Enhanced provision of animal products’
and ‘Additional food and raw material provision from trees (e.g. fruits and tim-
ber)’. The major regulating services were ‘Climate change mitigation’, ‘Improved
soil quality’, ‘Flood control’ and ‘Water purification’. The habitat services dis-
cussed were ‘Supply of habitats’ and ‘Buffer for remaining natural areas’. The
Cultural services were rarely studied.
Among the services mentioned above, a few ecosystem services were selected
for the valuation by the following criteria.
• National priorities
• Recognition by farmers
• Easiness in measuring and monetizing
• Data availability
To include ecosystem services that are concerned important in the country, the
ecosystem services designated in the National Program of Payment for Ecosystem
Services (PES) were considered. The services in the PES were watershed con-
servation, biodiversity, conservation and social development (Daniels et al. 2010).
Since the Costa Rican government targets to achieve National Carbon Neutrality
by 2021, the carbon regulating service was included in the research scope (MIDE-
PLAN 2014). The ecosystem services recognized important by farmers were also
considered to indirectly engage the key stakeholders. Plata (2012) has shown that
32
cattle farmers in the region tend to perceive ecosystem services of shades for an-
imal production, timber production, biodiversity, protection of water sources and
scenic beauty.
Table 3.1: Key ecosystem services of Silvopastoral Systems analyzed by criteria
for indicator selection
Ecosystem
Services of SPS
National
Priority
Recognition
by Farmers
Easy to
MeasureData Availability
Enhanced
provision of
animal products
o o o
Additional food
and raw
material
provision
o o o
Climate change
mitigationo o o
Improved soil
quality
Water
purification
Watershed
protectiono o
Supply of
habitatso o o
Buffer for
remaining
natural areas
o
Scenic beauty o
Due to the limited time and labor for investigation, services that are difficult
to measure and lacks proxy data, such as ‘Buffer for remaining natural areas’ and
‘Scenic beauty’, were excluded in the valuation (Table 3.1). ‘Habitat provising
service’ was not included into the services to monetize but was quantified and
33
compared with other services in analyzing trade-offs. ‘Waste purification’ and
‘Watershed protection (run-off)’ was not be able to included even though they
were one of the highly prioritized ES, and there was a hydrological model devel-
oped in the region, because the permission to the model was not given for this
study. ‘Improved soil quality’ was excluded from the valuation to avoid double-
counting, as the benefits of the enhanced fertility was considered to be integrated
in the provision service of animal and tree products by increasing productivity of
the pasture and the trees.
Table 3.2: Selected ecosystem services for valuation
Category Service Indicator
ProvisioningFood Annual yield of meat, milk and fruit
Raw Material Annual yield of timber
Regulating Mitigation of Climate
ChangeCarbon balance
In result, the selected services were the provisioning service of food (milk, beef
and fruit) and raw materials (timber), and the regulating service of climate change
mitigation (Table 3.2). To quantify and monetize the chosen services, indicators
that were easy to measure and frequently used in other studies were selected (De
Groot et al. 2012; Jonsson and Davıðsdottir 2016; UNEP-WCMC 2011). The pro-
visioning services were measured by the annual amount of production per area and
were monetized with the domestic market price using a direct market valuation
approach. To estimate the regulating service, carbon balance (Carbon sequestra-
tion in aboveground biomass subtraced by carbon emission in animal production)
was calculated and monetized with the domestic carbon price compensated by Na-
tional Forest Financing Fund of Costa Rica (FONAFIFO).
3.4 Data Collection
Structured interviews were conducted with cattle farmers in Rio Jesus Maria re-
gion from 11th to 20th of May in 2016. Beef producers and double-purpose (beef
34
and dairy) producers were targeted since they attribute to 94% of cattle produc-
tion in Costa Rica (MAG-CATIE 2010), and there were few milk producers in the
region. In the region, 29 farmers participated the interview, including 21 double-
purpose farms and eight farms producing only beef. The number of farmers for
the interview was allocated through stratification by the land size of each district.
The interviewees were randomly chosen within each district.
Through the interviews, the farmers’ socio-economic information, productivity
and costs of meat, milk, forage, fruit and timber, and amount of auto-consumption
of the farm products were examined. The socio-economic information included
gender, age group, education level, income group, economic dependency on cattle
production, other income sources, and number of family members. During the
interviews, boundaries of the farms and land-uses within the farms were marked
on maps. Status of live fences such as tree species and reasons for selection of the
species was also investigated. Attitudes towards SPS, existence of capacity in SPS
management, existence of technical assistance in SPS, and challenges in adopting
or enhancing SPS were asked.
3.5 Valuation of Ecosystem Services
The ecosystem services in the farms were quantified and valuated in economic
terms. The quantification used the data obtained through the interviews. For
the economic valuation, the Direct Market Method was used since all the chosen
services had actual markets. The average prices of the items in the domestic market
were taken in the period between 2015 and 2016. The inflation rate between the
year of 2015 and 2016 was neglected since it fluctuated between -1% and 1% (BCCR
2016). The local currency was converted to 2015 International Dollar, which is an
adjustment based on Purchasing Power Parties (PPP). This adjustment allows
comparisons of prices relative to income, or purchasing power (Costanza et al.
1997; De Groot et al. 2012). In the calculation, 1 2015-International $ was equal
to 380.12 Costa Rican Colones (CRC) (OECD 2016).
3.5.1 Provisioning Service Valuation
In estimation of the provisioning services of meat, milk, fruit and timber, the val-
ues were categorized into direct and indirect values. The direct value means the
values transacted in the domestic market while the indirect value refers to the
35
auto-consumption by the farmers.
The amount of meat production was calculated by subtracting purchase weight
of cattle from sale weight each year. It was assumed that 50% of the live weight is
dressed out by slaughter (Beef and Zealand 2016). To estimate the economic value
of meat production, the slaughtered weight was multiplied by the average of prices
of beef in the domestic market between June 2015 and May 2016 (CORFOGA
2016).
To estimate the milk provisioning value, milk productivity (L/cow/day) each
in dry and rainy seasons was obtained by the interviews. Assuming that the du-
rations of dry and rainy season are 213 days 152 days respectively, the quantity of
the annual milk production was calculated. The economic values were estimated
using the average of the domestic consumer prices between June 2015 and May
2016, which was $1.51/L (573 CRC).
Fruit and timber production were quantified based on the results of the inter-
views on annually-harvested species and their amount. For the economic valuation
the average of domestic fruit prices between March 2015 and February 2016 was
used (System of Agricultural Product Information, 2016). For valuation of timber,
the stumpage prices in 2015 were used (Barrantes and Ugalde 2015).
3.5.2 Calculation of Carbon Balances
The carbon balances of the farms were calculated by subtracting carbon emissions
from the farm activities from carbon sequestration rate of the farms. The carbon
emissions consist of methane (CH4) emitted from enteric fermentation of animals
and from manure, carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrus oxide (N2O) emissions from
application of fertilizers and herbicides, and CO2 emissions from energy use such
as diesel, gasoline and electricity. In the calculation, the Carbon Emission Cal-
culater developed by Regional Fund for Agricultural Technology (FONTAGRO)
(unpublished) was used. The emission calculator developed by FONTAGRO is a
model of carbon emission in livestock sector in Costa Rica. The model is based on
an emission model of IPCC (2006) but modified the parameters according to local
measurements.
The carbon sequestrations by farms were estimated based on preceding re-
36
searches on carbon sequestration rates by land-uses (Table 3.3) (Ibrahim et al.
2007; Zamora-Lopez 2006). The annual carbon sequestrations (tCO2/year) were
calculated by the areas of each land-use. The areas of each land use was obtained
by asking farmers to mark the land uses on maps. The drawings were analyzed
using QGIS (version 2.16.0) and the atlas of Costa Rica (ITCR 2008), through
which the areas by land uses were calculated. The criterion to designate ‘high tree
density’ and ‘low tree density’ was the tree density of 30 trees per hectare, of which
the diameter is larger than 5cm and the height is greater than 2m (Zamora-Lopez
2006).
The carbon price of $7.5/tCO2 set by a compensation scheme for reducing
carbon emission by FONAFIFO was used to calculate the value of the carbon
regulation service of the farms (FONAFIFO 2016).
Table 3.3: Carbon sequestration rates by land uses
Land Use Carbon
Sequestration Rate
(tCO2/ha/year)
Secondary forest (<20 years) 9.50
Riparian forest 9.50
Secondary shrubby vegetation 10.28
Improved pasture with high tree density 8.55
Forage bank (woody) 5.03
Multi-strata live fence 8.00
Naturalized pasture with high tree density 6.24
Timber plantation (monoculture) 11.78
Naturalized pasture with low tree density 4.95
Improved pasture with low tree density 4.95
Simple live fence 2.61
Naturalized pasture without trees 0.15
Improved pasture without trees 4.77
37
3.5.3 Biodiversity
To estimate the biodiversity in the farms, Ecological Index for Biodiversity devel-
oped by the Integrated Silvopastoral Systems for Ecosystem Management project
was used. The Ecological Index for Biodiversity is a tool to estimate the level of
biodiversity by land use developed by Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Ecosystem
Management Project (Pagiola et al. 2004). The index was scaled from 0 as the
most biodiversity-poor land use to 1 as the most biodiversity-rich (Table 3.4). The
points were assigned by a panel experts, and later the point system was demon-
strated by a follow-up project that measured and compared biodiversity by land
use in Costa Rica, Colombia and Nicaragua (Pagiola et al. 2004).
Ecological Index = Sum of [Index] x [Percentage of each land use]
The same land-use data used in the estimation of carbon sequestration was used
to calculate the Ecological Index.
3.6 Data Analysis
The total values of ecosystem services in the Silvopastoral Systems were compared
by farm type (double-purpose and beef production) and groups with different in-
tensification level. The intensification refers to compact resource input into the
production and productivity per unit area. The level of the intensification is often
represented by animal density, land use, input of supplementary aliments, breed,
labor input and farm size. Among the variables, most determinant variables were
chosen for a hierarchical cluster analysis. When conducting the cluster analysis,
the variables were normalized in order to avoid large figures determining the clas-
sification. The cluster analysis was done using R Statistics (version 3.3.1.).
Trade-offs between the ecosystem services were analyzed by a Spearman’s Cor-
relation Analysis, a non-parametric method, using R since most of the dataset
did not follow a normal distribution. T-test and the Mann-Whitney U test (so-
called Wilcoxon rank sum test), a parametric and non-parametric method each,
were used to identify significance of differences between two sets of data (Fay and
Proschan 2010). To decide analysis tools between parametric and non-parametric
methods, the normalities of the variables were examined by Wilk-Shapiro Normal
Test.
38
Table 3.4: Ecological Index for Biodiversity
Land-Use Ecological Index
Primary forest 1
Secondary forest 0.9
Riparian forest 0.8
Secondary shrubby vegetation 0.6
Improved pasture with high tree density 0.6
Forage bank 0.6
Multi-strata live fence 0.6
Mixed species orchard 0.6
Naturalized pasture with high tree density 0.5
Timber plantation (monoculture) 0.4
Naturalized pasture with low tree density 0.3
Improved pasture with low tree density 0.3
Simple live fence 0.3
Naturalized pasture 0.1
Improved pasture 0.1
Degraded pasture 0
To identify socio-economic factors associated with adoption of SPS, economic
factors including existence of subsidy, income, and economic dependency on cattle
farming, and social factors such as age, education level, capacity in SPS man-
agement, and frequency of capacity building were analyzed. As an indicator of
adoption level of SPS, the Ecological Index within production areas was used.
The level of SPS was defined as tree density on pastures, existence of forage bank
and complexity of live fences. Hence, a farm with a high level of SPS has high tree
density on the grazing lands, forage banks and multi-strata live fences, whereas a
farm with a low level of SPS has low tree density on the pastures and may have
simple live fences without a forage bank. To represent the level of SPS, the Eco-
logical Index within production areas excluding forests and natural regenerations
was regarded suitable because the index reflects both the level of SPS and areas
39
of those SPS elements. Within a range between 0.1 and 0.6 (due to exclusion of
forests and degraded pastures), pastures with high tree density, forage bank and
multi-strata live fences have values between 0.5–0.6, while the values of pastures
no or little tree density and simple live fences range from 0.1 to 0.3 (Table 3.4).
The calculation is also based on the percentage of areas of each land uses. The
total Ecological Index on production areas, therefore, is higher in farms with larger
application of tree density, forage banks and multi-strata live fences. Based on the
indicators mentioned above, correlation analyses and t-test or the Mann-Whitney
U test were conducted between the socio-economic factors and the adoption level
of SPS.
40
Chapter 4
Results
4.1 Farm Characteristics
4.1.1 Spatial Distribution of Farms
The farms of the interviewed 29 farmers were located as displayed in Figure 4.1.
Mostly the number of farmers were close to the desired number of farmers as-
signed by the percentages of land size of the districts within the Jesus Maria River
Watershed (Table 4.1). In some of the regions, however, the actual number of
interviewees did not match the allocated sample size due to the land use status
and chance to encounter farmers. For example, Orotina was a residential area
where cattle farms rarely exist. There were also two farms located outside the
watershed in San Jeronimo in Esparza, of which the owners were met in the study
area, but the location of the farms were identified later. Since estimation of the
water production service was excluded from the valuation, the farms outside were
included in the analyses since there is little difference in the socio-economical and
ecological context between San Jeronimo and the watershed.
Most of the farms were located in the medium-high region of the watershed
(Fig. 3.1). The studied farm lands were covering 2.4–7.6% of the district within
the watershed except in Hacienda Vieja (Table 4.2). The area of the investigated
farms was 30% of the district, caused by a large-scale farm. Only one farm was
examined in Hacienda Vieja, but it was the biggest farm in the study covering
236.5ha.
41
Table 4.1: Coverage of districts inside the watershed and desired and actural num-
ber of farms by districts (*San Jeronimo is located outside the watershed.)
Canton DisctrictArea
(%)
Desired sample
sizeNo. of samples
Atenas San Isidro 0 0 0
Atenas Jesus 0 0 0
Esparza Macacona 5 1 1
Esparza San Jeronimo * 0 2
Esparza San Rafael 12 3 5
Esparza San Juan Grande 10 3 0
Orotina Hacienda Vieja 2 1 1
Orotina Mastate 3 1 0
Orotina Orotina 2 1 0
Orotina Coyolar 0 0 0
Orotina Ceiba 15 4 0
Palmares Santiago 0 0 0
San Mateo San Mateo 22 6 6
San Mateo Desmonte 6 2 3
San Mateo Labrador 7 2 3
San Mateo Jesus Maria 6 2 3
San Ramon San Rafael 5 1 0
San Ramon Santiago 6 2 5
42
Table 4.2: Land sizes of administrative divisions, the studied farm areas and their
coverage in each distict in Jesus Maria River Watershed (*San Jeronimo is located
outside the watershed.)
Canton Disctrict Area (ha) Farm Area (ha) Percentage (%)
Atenas San Isidro 1.3 0 –
Atenas Jesus 1.0 0 –
Esparza Macacona 1,467.6 46.0 3.1
Esparza San Jeronimo * 74.2 –
Esparza San Rafael 3,424.3 150.2 4.4
Esparza San Juan Grande 2,843.1 0 –
Orotina Hacienda Vieja 728.4 236.5 32.5
Orotina Mastate 847.6 0 –
Orotina Orotina 638.0 0 –
Orotina Coyolar 83.3 0 –
Orotina Ceiba 4,267.8 0 –
Palmares Santiago 0.4 0 –
San Mateo San Mateo 6,322.4 456.6 7.2
San Mateo Desmonte 1,774.5 41.9 2.4
San Mateo Labrador 2,116.7 112.2 5.3
San Mateo Jesus Maria 1,875.2 82.4 4.4
San Ramon San Rafael 1364.9 0 –
San Ramon Santiago 1,624.6 122.6 7.6
43
Figure 4.1: Division of districts and locations of the investigated farms (*note that
the black line marks the boundary of the Jesus Maria River Watershed, and the
circles are the farms with their ID)
4.1.2 Production Status
Farm sizes varied from 2.5 ha to 236.5 ha, among which most of the farms were
small-medium scale (Table 4.3)(Fig.4.2). The average stock size was 1.8 AU/ha
(Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: Sizes of the farmlands and the stock
Item Mean S.D Median Min. Max.
Total Area (ha) 45.3 53.6 28.0 2.5 236.5
Production Area (ha) 32.6 36.2 18.7 2.0 145.0
Animal Stock (AU/ha) 1.8 1.6 1.6 0.3 7.9
4.1.3 Socio-Economic Status
Regarding the socio-economic status of the farmers, the major age group was 50–
59 years (Fig.4.3), and the final education of most farmers was ‘Primary school
44
Figure 4.2: Distribution of farm sizes (*note that each box displays the first and
third quartiles as the left-end and right-end of the box, median in the band inside
the box and outliers as circles)
completed’(Fig.4.4). The majority of the farmers earned more than 400,000 CRC
(around $1,050) monthly in total, including economic activities outside the farms
(Fig.4.5). The farmers’ economic dependency on cattle production was 63% in av-
erage, where 28% was fully dedicated in the livestock production. Other economic
activities included pig farming, chicken farming, fruit monoculture, pension, house
rent and profession such as doctor and professor. Among the farmers, 24% was
receiving subsidies in a form of donations of aliment, equipment, seeds of pasture
and forage plants from agricultural government bodies such as MAG and COR-
FOGA.
Figure 4.3: Frequency of age of the farmers
45
Figure 4.4: Education level of the farmers
Figure 4.5: Income of the farmers
4.1.4 Land Uses and Silvopastoral Systems
The land use analysis showed that the major land cover of the farms was ‘Im-
proved pasture with low tree density’ (34%), followed by ‘Improved pasture with
high tree density’ (27%) and ‘Riparian forest’ (11%) (Table 4.4). All farms had
dispersed trees on their farms, which were mostly naturally regenerated. In a few
farms (10% of the farmers), some trees were planted on the pastures for fruit and
timber production and for shades for the animals and human.
46
Table 4.4: Land uses within farms
Land Use Average (%) S.D.
Secondary forest 7.40 11.04
Riparian forest 11.41 12.37
Natural regeneration 1.09 3.99
Improved pasture with high tree density 27.27 20.51
Forage bank 2.15 3.22
Multistrata live fences 8.41 8.50
Natural pasture with high tree density 2.02 6.72
Timber plantation 0.70 2.71
Natural pasture with low tree density 0.08 0.46
Improved pasture with low tree density 34.14 21.12
Simple live fences 1.48 3.30
Improved pasture 3.84 8.90
Silvopastoral systems include pastures with trees of high density, simple and
multi-strata live fences and forage banks. Most of the farms (93%) had part of
pastures with high tree density (>30 trees/ha), although pasture with low tree
density was dominant in most of the farms. The tree species that exist inside
the paddocks mentioned by the farmers were Cordia alliodora, Enterolobium cy-
clocarpum, Tabebuia rosea, Gliricidia sepium, Cedrela odorata and Diphysa ameri-
cana. Use of multi-strata live fences was reported in 86% of the farms, while simple
live fences were reported in 28% of the farms. The structure of live fences were
mostly multi-strata live fences combined with dead fences. The farmers tended to
select fast-growing tree species for the live fences such as Bursera simaruba, Jat-
ropha curcans and Gliricidia sepium. Especially Jatropha curcans was preferred
by the farmers for low chance of damage by the cattle. Regarding the forage bank,
59% of the farms had a forage bank of gramineous plants such as Pennisetum sp.
and sugarcane (Saccharum sp.), among which only 3 farmers had fodder bank of
leguminous perennial plants such as Cratylia sp..
The majority of the farmers (69%) were interested in introducing or enhancing a
Silvopastoral System on their farms (e.g. establishment or increase of forage bank
and live fences, utilization of products from trees). The most common challenge
for farmers to adopt or enhance the silvopastoral system was lack of labor (’Labor’
47
in Table 4.5). The farmers also mentioned other economic limitations such as high
cost for establishing forage bank or multi-strata live fences (’Cost’) and reduction
of pasture productivity (’Productivity’). Another challenge was the complicated
administrative process through which farmers need to get permission to harvest
and sell timber (’Process’). Other obstacles reported by the farmers include lack
of space within the farm for establishing more forage bank or live fences(’Space’),
and steep terrain restricting fruit or timber harvest (’Slope’).
Table 4.5: Challenges in adopting or enhancing silvopastoral systems
Limits Labor Cost Process Space Productivity Slope
No. of farmers 13 6 5 4 3 3
Classification by Level of Intensification
For categorization of farms by intensification, the most determinant variables were
identified through a cluster analysis as follows: stock size, supplementary aliment,
and land use. As indicators of the variables, AU per ha, amount of annual expense
on supplementary aliment, and the Ecological Index within production areas (pas-
tures, live fences and forage bank) were used. Based on the chosen variables, the
farms were classified into Group A, B and C (Fig.4.6). The sizes of the Group A,
B and C were 18 farms, five farms and five farms each. One farm was excluded in
the classification due to its distinct feature from others.
Table 4.6: Characteristics of intensification groups (*note that prices are in 2015-
International Dollars, and that the Ecological Index ranges from 0.1 to 0.6.)
Group A B C
Value Average S.D. Average S.D. Average S.D.
Total Area (ha) 27.43 21.33 24.69 20.95 138.57 66.67
Stock Size (AU/ha) 2.55 1.29 1.34 0.71 0.85 0.49
Expense in Aliment
($/AU/year)160.54 126.95 349.29 205.14 69.96 67.22
Ecological Index in
Production Area0.40 0.09 0.49 0.03 0.50 0.10
48
Figure 4.6: Classification of the farms by intensification indicators
Group A was characterized as small-scale, large stock size per area, medium-
scale of invest on supplementary aliment and relatively low biodiversity value on
the farm (Table 4.6). Group A showed the lower ecological index (0.41) than the
other two groups B(0.49) and C (0.50) (p<0.05). Such characteristics indicate that
the farms in the Group A use the pasture lands intensively with high density of
animal per area and high dependency of feed on grazing, hence fewer trees on the
pastures.
Group B is also small-scale farms like Group A, but its stock density is lower
than the Group A, and the expenditure on supplementary aliment is the largest
among the groups. Its Ecological Index of the pastures is higher than Group A.
These features show that the livestock feeds more on the supplementary aliment
rather than the pasture, resulting low intensity of grazing.
Group C, lastly, is characterized as large farm sizes (average of 138.6 ha) and
low stock density, low expense on supplementary aliment and high biodiversity
value. These features suggest that the farms in the Group C are in an extensive
production, with sufficient amount of pastures, hence not depending much on
additional feeding.
49
4.2 Values of Ecosystem Services
4.2.1 Quantification of Ecosystem Services
Provisioning Services
There were large variances in the amount of production of meat, milk, fruit and
timber among the farms. A few farms (n=2) showed negative values in meat
production due to large investment in purchasing cattle during the past year.
Fruits were collected from the dispersed trees or live fences by 72% of the farmers,
among which 52% sold the fruits to markets directly or through an intermediary.
The fruits include mango(Mangifera indica), avocado (Persea americana), lemon
(Citrus latifolia), orange (Citrus sinensis), mamon (Melicoccus bijugatus), guyaba
(Psidium guajava), maranon (Anacardium occidentale), cas (Psidium friedrich-
sthalium) and coyol (Acrocomia aculeata). It was shown that most of the farmers
who harvested fruits from their farms (79% of the farmers) do not manage the
fruit trees, not conducting planting, pruning or fertilizing.
In terms of timber production, 72% of the farmers were utilizing trees on their
farms for timber, mostly for construction in the farms. The major source of the tim-
ber was dispersed trees on the pasture. The most commonly utilized species were
Gliricidia sepium, Cordia alliodora, Diphysa americana, Cedrela odorata, Tabebuia
rosea, Enterolobium cyclocarpum and Teak (Tectona grandis). Among the timber
users, only 14% (n=3) had sold timber for extra income and 29% (n=5) performed
management activities such as planting (n=1) and pruning (n=5).
Table 4.7: Quantity of provisioning services
Product Mean S.D Median Min. Max.
Beef (kg/ha/year) 81.6 99.7 48.9 -88.3 348.0
Milk (L/ha/year) 1,563.4 1,722.3 1,132.7 0.0 6,413.8
Fruit (kg/ha/year) 209.2 500.9 26.6 0.0 2,014.4
Timber (m3/ha/year) 1.1 1.8 0.2 0.0 7.6
Among the groups classified by the level of intensification, there was no signifi-
cant differences in the amount of meat production although the Group C showed a
relatively low beef production per area in average (Table 4.8). Likewise, the fruit
50
production was not significantly different among the groups, but there was a ten-
dency that Group A produces more fruits per area. Milk productivity, meanwhile,
tended to be high in Group A and B. The difference in milk production between
Group A and B was statistically insignificant. There was no difference in timber
production between the groups at a significant level (95%).
Table 4.8: The averages of quantified annual production of beef, milk, fruit and
timber by intensification group
Intensification Group A B C
Beef (kg/ha/year) 80.3 103.8 10.5
Milk (L/ha/year) 1,972.5 1,331.3 107.1
Fruit (kg/ha/year) 279.0 87.8 121.2
Timber (m3/ha/year) 1.0 1.3 1.6
Regulating Services
The average carbon balance was positive, showing that in general the farms in the
region function as a carbon sink (Table 4.9). There were, however, a few farms
where the carbon emissions were greater than the sequestration (n=4). Digestion
and manure of non-milking cows was the major source of emissions, contributing in
average 60% of the total emission. Emission from milking cows and chemical uses
(ferilizers and herbicides) accounted for 16% and 15% of the emission respectively.
The emission tended to have a positive relation with the expense on additional
aliment supply such as cereals and sugarcane (p<0.05, 0.38).
Table 4.9: The average rates of carbon sequestration, emission and net carbon
sequestration
Carbon Flow Mean S.D Median Min. Max.
Sequestration (tCO2/ha/year) 6.7 1.5 6.9 1.8 8.9
Emission (tCO2/ha/year) 5.0 6.1 3.2 0.6 32.1
Net Sequestration (tCO2/ha/year) 1.7 6.6 3.9 -25.3 8.3
Between the intensification groups, significant dissimilarities in carbon flows
were detected. The carbon sequestration rate was significantly higher in Group C
51
than Group A and B (p<0.05) (Table 4.10). Regarding emissions from the produc-
tion activities, the emission in Group C was substantially smaller than the other
groups (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in emission rates between
Group A and B. Although the average emission rate was higher in Group B (8.6
tCO2/ha/year) than Group A (4.4 tCO2/ha/year), it seemed that the difference
was induced by one farm in Group B with an extremely high emission rate. The
median of the emission rate of Group B (2.71 tCO2/ha/year) was, in fact, lower
than that of Group A (4.37 tCO2/ha/year). In comparison of the net sequestra-
tion rates, Group C showed the highest value among the groups. Although the
average net rate was lower in Group B with the negative value than that of Group
A, it seemed to be derived from the same farm with extremely large emission in
Group B. The median was high in Group B (4.7 tCO2/ha/year) compared to that
of Group A (1.8 tCO2/ha/year).
Table 4.10: The average rates of carbon sequestration, emission and net seques-
tration by groups of intensification
Intensification Group A B C
Sequestration (tCO2/ha/year) 6.3 7.3 7.8
Emission (tCO2/ha/year) 4.4 8.6 1.1
Net Sequestration (tCO2/ha/year) 1.9 -1.3 6.7
Biodiversity
The level of biodiversity was quantified using the Ecological Index for Biodiversity.
The Ecological Index of entire farms including secondary and riparian forests was
0.52 in average (Table 4.11), indicating that their biodiversity is slightly above
the biodiversity in ‘Naturalized pasture with high tree density’. Excluding forests
within the farms and calculating the index only for the areas used for production,
the Ecological Index was 0.44, closer to the level of biodiversity between ‘Pastures
with low tree density’ and ‘Naturalized pasture with low tree density’ (Table 4.11).
There was no evidence of differences in biodiversity between farm type (double-
purpose and beef) and intensification groups.
4.2.2 Total Economic Value
The total ES value from the current SPS was estimated as $3,318.7/ha/year, rang-
ing from -$359.6 to $9,791.1/ha/year (Table 4.12). Provisioning service of the milk
52
Table 4.11: Calulated Ecological Index for Biodiversity
Item Mean S.D Median Min. Max.
Entire farm 0.52 0.11 0.52 0.30 0.71
Production area 0.44 0.10 0.42 0.26 0.60
and meat products was the largest contributer of the total ES value, accounting
for 83% of the total value in average (Table 4.12). Fruit and timber production
values accounted for 10% and 5% respectively. Carbon value was the most minor
value in the total ES value, contributing 2% of the total value.
Table 4.12: Estimated values of ecosystem services (2015-International $/ha/year)
(*Direct values refer to the values obtained by selling products to the market,
whereas indirect values mean the values of products that was consumed in the
farms.)
Ecosystem Service Mean Median Min. Max.
Beef 480.2 288.2 -519.7 2,048.9
Milk 2,356.7 1,707.5 0 9,668.4
Direct 2,309.1 1,682.7 0 9,665.2
Indirect 47.6 19.7 0 316.5
Fruit 340.4 36.4 0 3,186.6
Direct 222.1 0 0 3,091.0
Indirect (Human) 102.9 12.9 0 1,558.8
Indirect (Animal) 15.4 0.9 0 178.8
Timber 128.7 30.9 0 893.3
Direct 36.5 0 0 625.3
Indirect 92.1 20.4 0 593.2
Carbon 12.7 29.1 -189.8 62.6
Total Value 3,318.7 2,855.5 -359.6 9,791.1
Double-purpose (beef and dairy) farms tended to have higher ES values (avg.
$4,345/ha/year) than the beef-only producers (avg. $624/ha/year) (p<0.05) (Fig.4.7).
53
Total farm size had a strong negative relationship with the ecosystem service val-
ues per hectare (p<0.05, coefficient = -0.73) (Fig. 4.8).
Figure 4.7: Estimated total Ecosystem Service value by farm type (*note that each
box displays the first and third quartiles as the left-end and right-end of the box,
median in the band inside the box and outliers as circles)
Figure 4.8: Relation between farm size and total ES value (2015-International
$/ha/year)
Among the groups of different intensification levels, Group C with extensive
54
pastures had lower ES value per area ($686.7/ha/year) than the other groups (A:
$4,033.6/ha/year, B: $2,853.7/ha/year), mainly attributing to the low meat and
milk production per area (Table 4.13, Fig.4.9). There was, however, no evidence
of difference in the total ES values between the Group A and B. Group C showed
relatively higher Carbon value than the other two groups (p<0.05).
The ES values were analyzed with the level of SPS represented as the Ecological
Index in production areas. There was no significant correlation between the total
value and the level of SPS. The fruit provisioning value, however, had a positive
relation with the level of SPS (p<0.05, coefficient = 0.71). The level of SPS was
also positively related with the carbon value (p<0.05, coefficient = 0.57).
Table 4.13: Estimated values of ecosystem services by groups with different level
of intensification (2015-International $/ha/year) (*Direct values refer to the values
obtained by selling products to the market, whereas indirect values mean the values
of products that was consumed in the farms.)
Ecosystem Service A B C
Beef 473.1 610.9 61.7
Milk 2,973.5 2,006.9 161.5
Direct 2,918.6 1,990.3 160.1
Indirect 54.8 16.6 1.3
Fruit 460.4 98.5 218.5
Direct 304.7 89.6 101.6
Indirect (Human) 132.1 5.5 115.7
Indirect (Animal) 23.6 3.3 1.3
Timber 112.4 147.0 194.7
Direct 24.1 0.0 125.1
Indirect 88.3 147.0 69.7
Carbon 14.2 -9.5 50.3
Total Value 4,033.6 2,853.7 686.7
55
Figure 4.9: Estimated total Ecosystem Service values in 2015 International dollars
by intensification group (*note that each box displays the first and third quartiles
as the left-end and right-end of the box, median in the band inside the box and
outliers as circles)
4.3 Synergies and Trade-offs between Ecosystem
Services
Correlations between the provisioning service, the carbon regulating service and
the Ecological Index were analyzed to identify synergies and trade-offs between the
ecosystem services. In terms of synergies, the carbon value was positively related
with the biodiversity index of the entire farms (p<0.05, coefficient=0.62) (Fig.
4.10). Meat and milk production in double-purpose farms also tended to have a
positive correlation (p=0.07, coefficient=0.45). A trade-off, meanwhile, was found
between milk provision and carbon regulation (p<0.01, coefficient=-0.79) (Fig.
4.11).
56
Figure 4.10: Relationship between Carbon regulation value and Ecological Index
of farm (*note that the values are in 2015-International dollar)
Figure 4.11: Relationship between milk provision value and carbon value (*note
that the values are in 2015-International dollar)
57
4.4 Socio-Economic Factors in Adopting Silvopas-
toral Systems
The adoption level of SPS, such as forage bank, dispersed trees on the pasture
lands and live fences, was shown to have relations with economic dependency on
livestock production, existence of subsidy, capacity in the SPS management and
frequency of trainings in SPS management.
In respect of economic factors, the group of the farmers with subsidies tended
to have higher level SPS (0.49 of Ecological Index in production areas) than those
without subsidies (0.43) (p=0.09) (Fig. 4.12). The economic dependency on farm
activities also showed a significant relation with the level of SPS. The farmers were
divided into two groups: high and low economic dependency. Farmers with high
economic dependency refers to the producers of which over 80% of income comes
from cattle farming. Farmers with low economic dependency means the producers
of which less than 80% of their income derives from cattle production. The group
of the farmers with high economic dependency showed lower SPS level (0.40 of
the Ecological index in the production area) than the farmers with lower economic
dependency (0.47) (p<0.05) (Fig. 4.12).
Among the social factors, the frequency of training on SPS management showed
a positive correlation to the level of SPS (p<0.05, coefficient=0.40) (Fig. 4.12).
Farmers who have knowledge in SPS management, mostly on forage bank and
live fences, seemed to have slightly higher Ecological index on the production area
(0.46) than those without capacity (0.40) (p=0.11) (Fig. 4.12).
58
Figure 4.12: The Ecological Index of production areas by existence of subsidy,
economic dependency on cattle farming, existence of capacity on SPS management
and frequency of training related to SPS
59
Chapter 5
Discussions
5.1 Values of Ecosystem Services in Silvopastoral
Systems
The total Ecosystem Service value was $3,318.7/ha/year in average, mainly at-
tributing to food provision ($3,177.3/ha/year). The estimated ES value was higher
than the world average even though many ecosystem services, such as hydrological
services and biodiversity value, were excluded in the evaluation. The global estima-
tion of Ecosystem Services in grasslands including rangelands was $3,330/ha/year,
where the major contributor was food provision ($1,383/ha/year) (De Groot et al.
2012). The high value can be explained by the intense land use in the region.
The average stock size in Costa Rica (0.48–0.75 heads/ha) is relatively larger than
other parts of the world (FAO 2015). For example, the herd sizes in the United
States, the largest beef producing country in the world, range from 0.097 to 0.24
animals per hectare of production area (FAO 2015). Also the global estimation
included natural pastures without grazing, where provisioning services are lower
than rangelands, which may lower the average value.
In this valuation, the total ES value is not comparable with total ES values of
other regions or other ecosystems. It is because the only limited number of ecosys-
tem services were included in the estimation. In this study, mainly provisioning
services of food and raw materials were evaluated, and other key services such
as waste treatment and erosion control were not taken into account. Indirect ES
like regulating services often have larger contribution to the total ES value than
provisioning services (Kumar 2010; Alam et al. 2014). For example, in temperate
agroforestry systems in Canada, indirect values accounted for around 60% of the
total value (Alam et al. 2014). Kumar (2010) estimated that at maximum 67%
60
of the total ES values derived from regulating services, while provisioning services
accounted only for 23% in global grasslands. Based on the estimation by De Groot
et al. (2012), the total ES value with inclusion of waste treatment, erosion control
, and habitat services would be $4,865/ha/year at minimum. In this rough calcu-
lation, the values of waste treatment, erosion control and habitat was 87, 51, and
1,408 2015-Int’l dollars/ha/year respectively.
In the study, it was found that contribution of timber to the total ES value
is minor. The timber provision value was mostly incurred by indirect uses, being
utilized for constructions on farms. The value of timber provision to the market
was only $36.5/ha/year in average. The limited provision is considered to be re-
lated to the current regulation of the government in timber extraction. In Costa
Rica, to harvest timber and sell to the market outside plantations, producers are
not allowed to cut more than three trees per ha annually and need to apply for
permission before harvesting (Plata 2012). In the interviews, farmers who do not
sell timber (n=26) mentioned that they do not sell timber because the processes
for permission is complicated, costly and time-consuming, and the margin is too
small for the processes and costs. The results indicate that timber utilization is
currently limited in SPS even though timber production is often mentioned as a
major benefit in implementing SPS. Supporters of SPS have argued that producing
timber in SPS stabilizes and increases farmers income. In the current regulation,
however, it seems hard to expect such benefits from SPS.
Fruit provision value was, meanwhile, relatively high, compared to timber pro-
vision. Unlike timber, many farmers were selling fruits to the markets, which was
higher than indirect values such consumption by families and animals. Greater
utilization of fruits than timber, seems to be related to absence of regulations and
access to the market. Harvest and sale of fruits from farms are not restricted by
the government, which reduces transaction costs compared to timber production.
Also there are intermediaries who harvest fruits in the farms and sell them to the
markets. Existence of intermediaries allow farmers not to spend their labor on fruit
production and provide extra income without efforts to search for markets. For
the reasons, SPS at the current state in the region showed a substantial amount
of fruit provision.
In the estimation of fruit value, however, there is a chance of underestimation.
It was recognized that farmers tended to provide information of fruit production
61
that was harvested or consumed by the farmers. The indirect uses by livestock
was often neglected in their responses. For example, Guanacaste (Enterolobium
cyclocarpum) was one of the common tree species scattered on the farms. This tree
species produces 37.6 kg of fruits per tree annually (Esquivel 2007). The fruits are
consumed by livestock, but usually not by humans (Esquivel 2007). Despite the
existence of the trees on the farms, none of the farmers mentioned the provision
of the fruits of Guanacaste.
Regarding the estimation of carbon value, the land-use-based estimation seemed
reliable as the calculated cabon sequestration rate fell in the range of carbon se-
questration by aboveground biomass in an agroforestry (4.8 – 13.9 tCO2/ha/year)
(Kim et al. 2016). According to the review of carbon capture in agroforesty by
Kim et al. (2016), a silvopastural farm sequestrates 16.9 ± 8.8 tCO2/ha annu-
ally. Montagnini and Nair (2004) quantified 5.5–12.8 tCO2/ha/year of carbon
sequestration rate in agroforestry in Central America. The estimated carbon se-
questration rate in SPS in this study seems relatively low among other agroforestry
systems in Central America. The range of carbon sequestration rate was lower in
SPS in this study (1.8–8.9 tCO2/ha/year) than the range in agroforestry (5.5–12.8
tCO2/ha/year). It seems to be due to the low tree density compared to other
prevalent agroforestry systems in Central America, such as coffee production and
cacao farms with timber trees. In coffee and cacao agroforestry, carbon sequestra-
tion is high due to sequestrations in crop trees and high density of timber trees
between the crops (Albrecht and Kandji 2003).
The estimation of emission (5.0 tCO2/ha/year), meanwhile, seemed depend-
able when compared to international and local estimations. At the global scale,
the carbon emission rate per mass of product was close to the global average. Ac-
cording to Gerber et al. (2013), carbon emission from beef and milk production
was estimated 46.2 kgCO2 for one kilogram of beef and 2.6kgCO2 for one liter of
milk. When the emission rate was recalculated by unit product, the beef emit-
ted 41.3 kgCO2/kg and 1.65 kgCO2/L. Vega (2016), meantime, estimated 3.25
tCO2/ha/year of carbon emission rate in double-purpose cattle farming in Jesus
Maria Region using the same calculation model, which was close to the median of
emission rates of this study (3.2 tCO2/ha/year).
The results of net sequestration showed that the net sequestration rates vary
from -25.3 to 8.3 tCO2/ha/year. The variety suggests that there is a high poten-
62
tial to enhance carbon values in cattle farms with change of management. (Gerber
et al. 2013) estimated that around 30% of the carbon emission can be reduced in
the livestock sector. The results of the study suggest that SPS is an option for
enhancing carbon values, as the level of SPS showed a positive correlation with
the carbon value.
The monetary value of carbon regulating service was, meanwhile, very small,
accounting only for 2% of the total value in average. The estimate value ($12.7/ha
annually) was also low compared to a global valuation which estimated 10–1927
2015-Int’l Dollars/ha/year (Kumar 2010). It is considered that the carbon value
was under-estimated in the study caused by the methods. In the valuation, the do-
mestic carbon price for subsidies were used for monetization. Using carbon prices
in the market has been often criticized for its representativeness as the value of
climate regulation since climate regulation service is also associated with avoided
costs such as mitigation of natural hazards (De Groot et al. 2002; UNEP-WCMC
2011).
In general, the level of SPS had no impact on the total ES value, even if the
major objective of introducing SPS is to enhance ES values. Preceding studies
have shown that SPS has positive effects on regulating and habitat services. If
those services had been reflected in the total ES value, the level of SPS might have
shown a positive relation with the ES value. Despite the limitation, even the total
provisioning value did not show a positive relationship with the level of SPS. It
seems that beef and dairy production, the majority of the provision value, was
determined by supply of aliment such as corns, sugarcane and cereals rather than
the pasture productivity and aliment provision by trees. Fruit production, however,
increased as the level of SPS increased. This relation indicates enhancement of
supplementary provision values by SPS.
5.2 Trade-offs Between Ecosystem Services
It was expected that there would be synergies between provisioning services, the
carbon regulating service and biodiversity, based on the preceding studies (Pagiola
et al. 2004; Harvey et al. 2008; Alonzo and Ibrahim 2000; Ibrahim et al. 2007).
The correlation analysis, however, only identified a positive relation between the
carbon regulating service and biodiversity. The relation seems to be incurred from
the high sequestration rates in forests and SPS elements such as pastures with
63
high tree density and live fences. The synergy between the carbon balance and
biodiversity have been discussed in many studies (Gilroy et al. 2014).
The provision of milk tended to conflict with biodiversity, which support a neg-
ative relation between productivity and biodiversity. For example, Esquivel (2007)
implied pasture production may reduce by 50% at most if crown cover increases
from 10 to 50%. Even though several studies have argued that increase of tree
cover until a certain level increases dairy productivity by additional fodder pro-
vision and reduced animal stresses (Betancourt et al. 2003; Ibrahim et al. 2001b;
Souza de Abreu et al. 1999), the effect might be minor compared to provision of
concentrations and decreased pasture productivity by shades.
Another trade-off was found between the carbon regulating service and the milk
provisioning service. Since the dairy productivity showed a positive relationship
with carbon emission and a negative relation with carbon sequestration, it can
be argued that the dairy productivity conflicts with the carbon balance service.
In cattle production, enteric fermentation by the cows is the major source of the
greenhouse gas emission, which can be increased by the stock size and the amount
of feeding. Increase of milk productivity is also associated with the number of
animals and the quantity of aliment. Although some studies have proven that
SPS such as dispersed trees on the pasture and live fences help mitigating cli-
mate change by capturing carbon into the tree biomass (Ibrahim et al. 2007; Ruız
Garcıa 2002) and reducing carbon emission through enhanced digestability of the
forage (Benavides 1999; Durr 2001; Belsky 1992), the carbon balance seemed more
likely to be influenced by other factors, such as supplementary aliment. As the
correlation analysis results showed a positive relation between supplied aliment
like cereals and the carbon emission rates per area, it is a reasonable assumption
that the provision of additional aliments outside pastures has a influence on the
trade-off between milk production and carbon values.
5.3 Scocio-Economic Factors on Adopting Silvopas-
toral Systems
The results showed economic dependency on farming and existence of subsidies
and frequency of training are associated with the adoption of SPS among other
socio-economic factors. Farmers with higher economic dependency on cattle pro-
64
duction tended to have lower degree of SPS. The relation seems to be linked to the
perceived disadvantage of tree covers on cattle production (Harvey et al. 2005).
Farmers make decisions on the way of managing their farms largely based on per-
ceived profitability (Current et al. 1995). For the farmers who are dedicated to
the farming are more likely to demand for high profits from the land for living.
Since tree cover on pastures are often considered to have a negative impact on the
pasture productivity (Harvey et al. 2005; Esquivel 2007), farmers, especially with
high dependency, tended to avoid trees on pastures and to enhance animal pro-
ductivity using predominant ways such as application of herbicides and fertilizers
and supply of additional aliments like concentrations. The result of the interviews
also presented that some farmers perceive that tree shades decreases pasture pro-
duction.
The effect of subsidy on SPS adoption was addressed in previous projects and
researches in the Central America. During the Central American Markets for
Biodiversity project (CAMBIo), it was shown that provision of incentives for con-
verting the current farm land uses to the land uses with higher ecological index
(such as improved pasture with high tree density) increased the rate of adoption of
SPS in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Colombia (Pineda and Yuriza 2012). Due to the
high initial cost (Alonzo and Ibrahim 2000; Pagiola et al. 2004; Plata 2012) and
high risk of investment (Cole 2010; Alonzo and Ibrahim 2000), financial incentives
in a form of subsidies, Payment for Environmental Services (PES) or credits have
been recommended in many studies (Emerton 1998; Scherr 1995; Pagiola et al.
2004). The positive influence of the subsidy can also be supported by the fact that
limited finance was one of the major obstacles in adopting or enhancing silvopas-
toral elements reported by the farmers in the interviews.
Technical assistance through training on SPS management presented higher
level of SPS. This positive impact of training and technical support in promoting
SPS adoption have been addressed by several studies (Cole 2010; Pagiola et al.
2004; Plata 2012). The focus of the training and support, however, was mainly
on forage bank, lacking assistance on tree elements dispersed on the pasture and
timber management to enhance the stability of profits and dairy productivity. For
example, the farmers replied that they have no knowledge on tree species that
have the minimum shading effect on pasture productivity and high foliage quality
for cattle. It is possible that the lack of knowledge in balancing productivity with
tree cover underlies the reduced agricultural provision value with higher degree of
65
SPS. It was also found that an Intensive Silvopastoral System (ISS) has not been
introduced in the region. ISS targets to maximize economic and ecological bene-
fits from cattle production with techniques in timber and forage bank management
(Calle et al. 2012; Harvey et al. 2005; Murgueitio et al. 2011). For example, ISS
guides to establish live fences of timber trees with high density on the west side of
paddocks in Colombia, in order to avoid shades restricting pasture production and
encourage commercial timber production (Murgueitio et al. 2011). In the study
region, however, the information on the concept and technologies of ISS was not
transferred.
Other economic factors of land size and income and social factors of age and
final education, meanwhile, were unlikely to be associated with the adoption of
SPS. It was expected that farmers with larger farm and higher income would have
a higher rate of SPS adoption because of lower threshold to the initial cost in es-
tablishment and higher profitability (Alonzo and Ibrahim 2000; Bravo et al. 2012;
Esquivel 2007; Scheelje Bravo 2009). The results, however, suggested that finan-
cial support and acquisition of knowledge on SPS management are more important
factors in motivating farmers to implement SPS.
5.4 Limitations of the Study
The estimation of economic values of ES by SPS has limitations in its scope and
uncertainties. First of all, the scope of the ES valuated was too narrow, taking
limited number of ecosystem services into account. Important ecosystem services
such as watershed protection and soil improvement were excluded, and undiscov-
ered values, especially cultural values of SPS was neglected in the study. The
restricted inclusion of ES in the valuation resulted in underestimation of the total
ecosystem service value and could not provide comprehensive information on the
services.
There were also a number of sources of uncertainties in the study. The uncer-
tainties derived from inaccuracy of survey data, lack of knowledge in underground
carbon sequestration, economic assumptions and use of proxies. There is a high
likelihood that the response of the farmers on the amount of timber and fruit
use was inaccurate since the respondents depended on their memories rather than
records. Especially the answers on fruit production was mostly focused on the
66
fruits utilized by the producers, often disregarding the fruits consumed by cattle.
Another cause of the uncertainties is exclusion of carbon sequestration in the
underground including roots of vegetation and soils. Even though carbon captur-
ing underground is not negligible, it was not included in the estimation due to lack
of data that can be utilized as a proxy.
In the estimation, it was assumed that the value of products and carbon is
represented in the prices of the domestic markets. However, the carbon value
designated in a subsidy scheme cannot be seen as the value that truly reflects pref-
erences of consumers. The carbon price was, nevertheless, used for the estimation
because the market price method was the most commonly used tool for estimating
carbon values and the most accessible data as a revealed value.
The use of proxies in quantifying biological values and carbon sequestration may
also cause uncertainty. Ecological Index used to estimate the degree of biodiversity
was tested in Costa Rica close to the region. Biodiversity is, however, associated
with a variety of variables, not just based on the land use. Other contexts such as
proximity to forest remnants, size of a habitat and relationship with adjacent land
uses is also likely to influence on the biodiversity. Despite the limitations of the
index, it was used for the fact that the number of animal species showed significant
relations with the land use types in general (Pagiola and Arcenas 2013). Use of
carbon sequestration rate in other studies conducted in a nearby region could also
derive transfer errors.
67
Chapter 6
Conclusion
This study attempted to valuate ecosystem services of tropical SPS under the cur-
rent state. Based on the quantified and estimated ES values, the work examined
trade-offs between the services and identified underling factors for adoption of SPS.
The estimated annual value of the services was -$359.6 – $9,791.1 per hectare, with
an average of $3,318.7/ha/year. It was found that use of timber provided from
the cattle farms was limited even with existence of tree components on the farms.
High dairy productivity was associated with low carbon regulating value and low
level of SPS, suggesting the negative relation would hinder adoption of SPS by
farmers. The positive relation of financial and technical assistance with adoption
of SPS implied the importance of such support in promoting SPS. The results
suggest a need of technical and financial aid to minimize and compensate farm-
ers’ economical loss if the government wants to encourage SPS for enhancing its
climate change mitigation service and biodiversity. Small-scale farmers who are
economically dependent on cattle farming activities or rely on grass production
for feeding their animals have to be the major target of SPS promotion because of
their low level of adoption and susceptibility to changes in productivity.
The study has weaknesses of limited range of ES involvement and uncertain-
ties from methods of measurement and analysis and from lack of information on
other services. Despite the limitations, this work is essential in that it estimated
approximate values of ecosystem services in SPS as an initial attempt to aggregate
several ecosystem services by SPS in Costa Rica. Also it is important to under-
stand that the economic valuation offered a means of analyzing dynamics between
the ES rather than providing an exact value of the services. The study also pro-
vides information on actual utilization of ecosystem services especially from the
perspective of farmers which could be utilized in policy designs to maximize their
68
total ecosystem service value.
Further studies on quantifying wider range of ecosystem services are essential
as a stepping stone for a better estimation of the ES values from SPS. Especially
inclusion of watershed protection services in the total ES value could be one of the
early steps since it is an important service perceived by both the nation and the
farmers, and a tool for estimation has been developed. Investigation of cultural
services such as aesthetic values of SPS is also recommended as the social aspect
of SPS is barely understood even if such information help understanding of public
preferences for political decision-making processes.
This study could also be scaled up at the national level after some key ES are
quantified and valuated. When the proxies of key ES values were tested in several
regions in the country, an economic valuation of ES values could be applied for
monitoring ES values from SPS and optimizing ES values at the national level.
Based on the valuation framework of the study, studies on evaluating a change
in total ES over time or under a various land-use change scenarios would also be
useful in deicion-makings, such as conversion of pastures to forests into pasture or
the other way around. Those data could offer basic information for devising a pay-
ment scheme for environmental services in cattle production in order to enhance
their sustainability.
Numerous studies and projects have demonstrated that Silvopastoral Systems
have a potential as a means of supporting natural conservations closely related to
human welfare with sustaining agricultural production at the same time. In reality,
however, there are techincal, political and economic obstacles in implementing
SPS, which hinders optimization of the ES benefits through SPS. The economic
valuation of the ES by SPS in the study is believed to enable comprehension of
the current position of SPS implementation, its gap with the expected advantages
and the barriers in obtaining the advantages. Further efforts to overcome the gap
by continuous monitoring of the services should be entailed.
69
Bibliography
Alam, M., Olivier, A., Paquette, A., Dupras, J., Reveret, J.-P., & Messier, C.
(2014). A general framework for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem
services of tree-based intercropping systems. Agroforestry systems, 88 (4),
679–691.
Albrecht, A. & Kandji, S. T. (2003). Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry
systems. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 99 (1), 15–27.
Alonzo, Y. & Ibrahim, M. (2000). Potential of silvopastoril systems for economic
dairy production in cayo, belize and constraints for their adoption. Potential
of silvopastoral systems for economic dairy production in Cayo, Belize and
constraints for their adoption.
Ayres, E., Steltzer, H., Berg, S., Wallenstein, M. D., Simmons, B. L., & Wall, D. H.
(2009). Tree species traits influence soil physical, chemical, and biological
properties in high elevation forests. Plos One, 4 (6), e5964.
Barrantes, A. & Ugalde, S. (2015). Precios de la madera en costa rica para el primer
semestre del 2015 y tendencias de las principales especies comercializadas.
Bautista Solıs, P. (2005). Evaluacion de tierras para la implementacion de sistemas
silvopastoriles en la region pacıfico central de costa rica.
BCCR. (2016). Indice de precios al consumidor (ipc). Retrieved June 30, 2016, from
http://indicadoreseconomicos.bccr.fi.cr/indicadoreseconomicos/Cuadros/
frmVerCatCuadro.aspx?idioma=1&CodCuadro=%202732#Notas2732
Beef & Zealand, L. N. (2016). Meat and wool production calculator. Retrieved
June 30, 2016, from http://portal.beeflambnz.com/tools/MeatWoolCalc
Belsky, A. J. (1992). Effects of trees on nutritional quality of understorey grami-
neous forage in tropical savannas. Tropical Grasslands, 26 (1), 12–20.
Belsky, A. J. (1994). Influences of trees on savanna productivity: tests of shade,
nutrients, and tree-grass competition. Ecology, 75 (4), 922–932.
Benavides, J. E. (1999). Arboles y arbustos forrajeros: una alternativa agroforestal
para la ganaderıa. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper, 449–477.
70
Betancourt, K., Ibrahim, M., Harvey, C., & Vargas, B. (2003). Efecto de la cober-
tura arborea sobre el comportamiento animal en fincas ganaderas de doble
proposito en matiguas, matagalpa, nicaragua. Agroforesterıa en las Ameri-
cas, 10 (39-40), 47–51.
Bravo, S., MauricioIbrahim, J., Detlefsen, M., Pomareda, G., Lopez, C. S., Janeth,
C., . . . C Bolanos Porras, J. et al. (2012). Beneficios financieros del aprovechamiento
maderable sostenible en sistemas silvopastoriles de esparza, costa rica. CATIE,
Turrialba (Costa Rica).
Bryan, J. A. (1999). Nitrogen fixation of leguminous trees in traditional and mod-
ern agroforestry systems. The Silvicullural Basis for Agroforestry Systems.
CRC Press, NY, 161–182.
Calle, Z., Murgueitio, E., & Chara, J. (2012). Integrating forestry, sustainable
cattle-ranching and landscape restoration. Unasylva, 63 (1), 31–40.
Calvo-Alvarado, J., McLennan, B., Sanchez-Azofeifa, A., & Garvin, T. (2009).
Deforestation and forest restoration in guanacaste, costa rica: putting con-
servation policies in context. Forest Ecology and Management, 258 (6), 931–
940.
Chagoya, J. L. (2004). Investment analysis of incorporating timber trees in live-
stock farms in the sub-humid tropics of costa rica.
Cole, R. J. (2010). Social and environmental impacts of payments for environ-
mental services for agroforestry on small-scale farms in southern costa rica.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 17 (3),
208–216.
CORFOGA. (2016). Precios nacionales - precios canal semanal de machos y hem-
bras en plantas de cosecha nacionales perıodo 2002-2012.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Faber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., . . .
Paruelo, J. et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital.
Current, D., Lutz, E., & Scherr, S. J. (1995). The costs and benefits of agroforestry
to farmers. The World Bank Research Observer, 10 (2), 151–180.
Daniels, A. E., Bagstad, K., Esposito, V., Moulaert, A., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2010).
Understanding the impacts of costa rica’s pes: are we asking the right ques-
tions? Ecological economics, 69 (11), 2116–2126.
De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the
classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and
services. Ecological economics, 41 (3), 393–408.
71
De Groot, R., Brander, L., Van Der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat,
L., . . . Hein, L. et al. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and
their services in monetary units. Ecosystem services, 1 (1), 50–61.
DeClerck, F. A., Chazdon, R., Holl, K. D., Milder, J. C., Finegan, B., Martinez-
Salinas, A., . . . Ramos, Z. (2010). Biodiversity conservation in human-modified
landscapes of mesoamerica: past, present and future. Biological conservation,
143 (10), 2301–2313.
Dennis, P., Shellard, L., & Agnew, R. (1996). Shifts in arthropod species assem-
blages in relation to silvopastoral establishment in upland pastures. In Agro-
forestry forum (united kingdom).
Durr, P. (2001). The biology, ecology and agroforestry potential of the raintree,
Samanea saman (jacq.) merr. Agroforestry systems, 51 (3), 223–237.
Edelman, M. (1995). Rethinking the hamburger thesis: deforestation and the crisis
of central america’s beef exports. The social causes of environmental destruc-
tion in Latin America, 25–62.
Emerton, L. (1998). Djibouti biodiversity: economic assessment. Djibouti national
biodiversity strategy and action plan, International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN), Djibouti.
Esquivel, H. (2007). Tree resources in traditional silvopastoral systems and their
impact on productivity and nutritive value of pastures in the dry tropics of
costa rica.
FAO. (2015). Fao statistical pocketbook.
Fay, M. P. & Proschan, M. A. (2010). Wilcoxon-mann-whitney or t-test? on as-
sumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules.
Statistics surveys, 4, 1.
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R.,
. . . Gibbs, H. K. et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. science,
309 (5734), 570–574.
FONAFIFO-CATIE. (2011). Caracterizacion, diagnostico, lınea base y zonificacion
territorial de la cuenca del rıo jesus marıa. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Gerber, P., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., . . .
Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock – a global
assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities.
Gilroy, J. J., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F. A., Wheeler, C., Medina Uribe, C. A.,
Haugaasen, T., & Edwards, D. P. (2014). Optimizing carbon storage and
biodiversity protection in tropical agricultural landscapes. Global change bi-
ology, 20 (7), 2162–2172.
72
Giorgi, F. (2006). Climate change hot-spots. Geophysical research letters, 33 (8).
Giraldo, V., Botero, J., Saldarrieaga, J., David, P. et al. (1995). Efecto de tres
densidades de arboles en el potencial forrajero de un sistema silvopastorial
natural, en la region atlantica de colombia.
Godoy, R., Overman, H., Demmer, J., Apaza, L., Byron, E., Huanca, T., . . .
Brokaw, N. (2002). Local financial benefits of rain forests: comparative ev-
idence from amerindian societies in bolivia and honduras. Ecological Eco-
nomics, 40 (3), 397–409.
Gumucio, T., Mora Benard, M. A., Clavijo, M., Hernandez, M. C., Tafur, M.,
& Twyman, J. (2015). Silvopastoral systems in latin america: mitigation
opportunities for men and women livestock producers.
Hartshorn, G. (1983). Introduction to plants. In D. Janzen (Ed.), Costa rican
natural history (Vol. 3, pp. 118–157). Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.
Harvey, C. A., Gonzalez, J., & Somarriba, E. (2006). Dung beetle and terrestrial
mammal diversity in forests, indigenous agroforestry systems and plantain
monocultures in talamanca, costa rica. Biodiversity & Conservation, 15 (2),
555–585.
Harvey, C. A., Komar, O., Chazdon, R., Ferguson, B. G., Finegan, B., Griffith,
D. M., . . . Soto-Pinto, L. et al. (2008). Integrating agricultural landscapes
with biodiversity conservation in the mesoamerican hotspot. Conservation
biology, 22 (1), 8–15.
Harvey, C. A., Villanueva, C., Villacıs, J., Chacon, M., Munoz, D., Lopez, M.,
. . . Martınez, J. et al. (2005). Contribution of live fences to the ecological
integrity of agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment,
111 (1), 200–230.
Holmann, F. R., Montenegro, F., Chana, J., Oviedo, C., E Banos, A., Lobo di
Palma, M. R., . . . Holmann, P. et al. (1992). Rentabilidad de sistemas sil-
vopastoriles con pequenos productores de leche en costa rica: primera aprox-
imacionprofitability of silvopastoral systems of small milk producers in costa
rica: a first approximation. FAO, Roma (Italia).
Ibrahim, M. (2016, April 26). Tendencias del sector ganadero a nivel global y
regional. Taller en metodologıas de investigacion en sistemas de produccion
ganadera adaptados al cambio climatico.
Ibrahim, M., Villanueva, C., & Casasola, F. (2007). Sistemas silvopastoriles como
una herramienta para el mejoramiento de la productividad y rehabilitacion
ecologica de paisajes ganaderos en centro america.
73
Ibrahim, M., Franco, M., Pezo, D. A., Camero, A., & Araya, J. (2001a). Promoting
intake of cratylia argentea as a dry season supplement for cattle grazing
hyparrhenia rufa in the subhumid tropics. Agroforestry systems, 51 (2), 167–
175.
Ibrahim, M., Schlonvoight, A., Camargo, C., & Sousa, M. (2001b). Multistrata
silvopastoral systems for increasing productivity and conservation of natural
resources in central america. In International grassland congress (19, 2001.
brasil) proceedings. brasil (pp. 645–649).
IMN. (2016). Climate data. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from https://www.imn.ac.
cr/en/inicio
IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: agriculture, forestry
and other land use. Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
(IGES), 4.
Ispikoudis, I. & Sioliou, K. (2004). Cultural aspects of silvopastoral systems. In
Silvopastoralism and sustainable land management: proceedings of an inter-
national congress on silvopastoralism and sustainable management held in
lugo, spain (pp. 319–323).
ITCR. (2008). Atlas de costa rica [map]. (1:15,000.)
Jonsson, J. O. G. & Davıðsdottir, B. (2016). Classification and valuation of soil
ecosystem services. Agricultural Systems, 145, 24–38.
Kaimowitz, D. (1996). Livestock and deforestation. central america in the 1980s
and 1990s: a policy perspective. jackarta, id, cifor. 88 p. Fuente original.
Kim, D.-G., Kirschbaum, M. U., & Beedy, T. L. (2016). Carbon sequestration and
net emissions of ch 4 and n 2 o under agroforestry: synthesizing available data
and suggestions for future studies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
226, 65–78.
Kumar, P. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and
economic foundations. UNEP/Earthprint.
MA. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment findings. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment.
MAG-CATIE. (2010). Sintesis de los estudios preliminares y analisis de factores que
influyen en la competitividad de la ganaderia en costa rica y recomendaciones
para mejorarla.
Medina, A., Harvey, C. A., Merlo, D. S., Vılchez, S., & Hernandez, B. (2007). Bat
diversity and movement in an agricultural landscape in matiguas, nicaragua.
Biotropica, 39 (1), 120–128.
74
Menezes, R., Salcedo, I., & Elliott, E. T. (2002). Microclimate and nutrient dy-
namics in a silvopastoral system of semiarid northeastern brazil. Agroforestry
systems, 56 (1), 27–38.
MIDEPLAN. (2014). Plan nacional de desarrollo 2015-2018 ”alberto canas es-
calante”/ ministerio de planificacion nacional y polıtica economica.
Milder, J. C., DeClerck, F. A., Sanfiorenzo, A., SAnchez, D. M., Tobar, D. E., &
Zuckerberg, B. (2010). Effects of farm and landscape management on bird
and butterfly conservation in western honduras. Ecosphere, 1 (1), 1–22.
Montagnini, F. (2008). Management for sustainability and restoration of degraded
pastures in the neotropics. In Post-agricultural succession in the neotropics
(pp. 265–295). Springer.
Montagnini, F. & Nair, P. (2004). Carbon sequestration: an underexploited en-
vironmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry systems, 61 (1-3),
281–295.
Murgueitio, E. (2000). Sistemas agroforestales para la produccion ganadera en
colombia. Pastos y Forrajes, 23 (3).
Murgueitio, E., Calle, Z., Uribe, F., Calle, A., & Solorio, B. (2011). Native trees
and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands.
Forest Ecology and Management, 261 (10), 1654–1663.
OECD. (2016). Oecd stats 2016 - 4. ppps and exchange rates. Retrieved June 30,
2016, from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=SNA TABLE4
Pagiola, S., Agostini, P., Gobbi, J., De Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., . . .
Ruız, J. P. (2004). Paying for biodiversity conservation services in agricul-
tural landscapes. Environment department paper, 96, 27.
Pagiola, S. & Arcenas, A. (2013). Regional integrated silvopastoral ecosystem man-
agement project–costa rica, colombia and nicaragua. TEEBcase.
Pineda, G. & Yuriza, M. (2012). Impacto de creditos verdes del proyecto cambio,
en el establecimiento de sistemas silvopastoriles en fincas ganaderas de la
zona central norte de nicaragua.
Plata, O. F. (2012). Analisis ex ante del aprovechamiento maderable de arboles
en potrero, con implementacion de practicas silviculturales, en sistemas sil-
vopastoriles en esparza, costa rica.
Rao, M., Nair, P., & Ong, C. (1998). Biophysical interactions in tropical agro-
forestry systems. In Directions in tropical agroforestry research (pp. 3–50).
Springer.
75
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. (2010). Ecosystem service
bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, 107 (11), 5242–5247.
Reid, R. S., Thornton, P. K., McCrabb, G. J., Kruska, R. L., Atieno, F., & Jones,
P. G. (2004). Is it possible to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in pastoral
ecosystems of the tropics? In Tropical agriculture in transition—opportunities
for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions? (pp. 91–109). Springer.
Restrepo-Saenz, C., Ibrahim, M., Harvey, C., Harmand, J., & Morales, J. (2004).
Relaciones entre la cobertura arborea en potreros y la produccion bovina en
fincas ganaderas en el tropico seco en canas, costa rica. Agroforesterıa de las
Americas (41-42), 29–36.
Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., & Michener, C. D. (2004). Eco-
nomic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101 (34), 12579–
12582.
Rıos Ramırez, N., Cardenas, A. Y., Andrade Castaneda, H. J., Ibrahim, M.,
Jimenez Otarola, F., Sancho, F., . . . Woo, A. (2006). Escorrentıa superfi-
cial e infiltracion en sistemas ganaderos convencionales y silvopastoriles en
el tropico subhumedo de nicaragua.
Ruız Garcıa, A. (2002). Fijacion y almacenamiento de carbono en sistemas sil-
vopastoriles y competitividad economica en matiguas, nicaragua.
Saenz, J., Ibrahim, F., Fajardo, M., & D Perez, M. (2007). Relacion entre las comu-
nidades de aves y la vegetacion en agropaisajes dominados por la ganaderıa
en costa rica, nicaragua y colombiathe relation between bird communities
and vegetation in agricultural landscapes dominated by cattle in costa rica,
nicaragua and colombia. Agroforesterıa en las Americas (CATIE) no. 45 p.
37-48.
Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D., Cullen, R., & Case, B. (2008). The future of farming:
the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. an
experimental approach. Ecological economics, 64 (4), 835–848.
Sanfiorenzo, A. (2008). Contribucion de diferentes arreglos silvopastoriles a la con-
servacion de la biodiversidad, mediante la provision de habitat y conectividad
en el paisaje de la subcuenca del rıo copan, honduras (Doctoral dissertation,
Tesis Mag. Sc. Turrialba, Costa Rica. CATIE).
Scheelje Bravo, J. M. (2009). Incidencia de la legislacion sobre el aprovechamiento
del recurso maderable en sistemas silvopastoriles de costa rica.
76
Scherr, S. J. (1995). Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: patterns
observed in western kenya. World development, 23 (5), 787–804.
Schroter, M., Zanden, E. H., Oudenhoven, A. P., Remme, R. P., Serna-Chavez,
H. M., Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem services as a contested
concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters,
7 (6), 514–523.
Sharma, K., Mandal, U. K., Srinivas, K., Vittal, K., Mandal, B., Grace, J. K., &
Ramesh, V. (2005). Long-term soil management effects on crop yields and
soil quality in a dryland alfisol. Soil and Tillage Research, 83 (2), 246–259.
Souza de Abreu, M., Ibrahim, M., & Sales Silva, J. (1999). Arboles en pastizales y
su influencia en la produccion de pasto y leche. Memorias del VI Seminario
Internacional sobre Sistemas Agropecuarios Sostenibles. CIPAV, Cali.
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kessler, M., Barkmann, J., Bos, M. M., Buchori, D., Erasmi,
S., . . . Gradstein, S. R. et al. (2007). Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity,
and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agro-
forestry intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
104 (12), 4973–4978.
Tobar, D. E. & Ibrahim, M. (2010). ?‘ las cercas vivas ayudan a la conservacion
de la diversidad de mariposas en paisajes agropecuarios? Revista de Biologıa
Tropical, 58 (1), 447–463.
Tobias, D. & Mendelsohn, R. (1991). Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rain-forest
reserve. Ambio, 20 (2), 91–93.
UNEP-WCMC. (2011). Developing ecosystem service indicators: experiences and
lessons learned from sub-global assessments and other initiatives. Technical
Series, (58), 118.
Vega, A. (in-press). Impacto de las estrategias de alimentacion en bovinos de
doble proposito en la emision de gases de efecto invernadero (gei) en fin-
cas ganaderas, cuenca del rıo jesus marıa, costa rica. CATIE, Turrialba, CR.
Villanueva Najarro, C., Tobar Lopez, D., Ibrahim, M., Casasola Coto, F., Bar-
rantes, J., & Arguedas, R. (2013). Arboles dispersos en potreros en fincas
ganaderas del pacıfico central de costa rica.
Woodward, R. T. & Wui, Y.-S. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: a
meta-analysis. Ecological economics, 37 (2), 257–270.
Zamora-Lopez, S. E. (2006). Efecto de los pagos por servicios ambientales en la
estructura, composicion, conectividad y el stock de carbono presente en el
paisaje ganadero de esparza, costa rica. CATIE, Turrialba, CR.
77
Appendix. Interview Questions
Producer:
Residence in farm: � Yes � No
Farm type:
A. Information of farmer
Gender: � male � female
Age: � younger than 20 � 20-29 � 30-39 � 40-49 � 50-59 � older than 60
1. What is your latest education?
� No education
� Primary school incomplete
� Primary school complete
� Secondary school incomplete
� Secondary school complete
� University incomplete
� University complete
2. In which category is your income per month?
� less than 100,000 CRC � 100,000 – 199,999 CRC � 200,000 – 299,999 CRC �
300,000 – 399,999 CRC � More than 400,000 CRC
3. What percentage of your total income comes from the livestock farm-
ing? ( )%. Other income sources:
4. How many are your family members who depend directly on the
farm activity?
( ) persons
5. Who manages the farm?
� Farmer manahges it directly.
� Farmer contracts a manager who makes basic decisions on farm.
78
B. Land uses
Land use Area (ha) Obervations
Naturalized pasture
Improved pasture
Degraded pasture
Primary forest
Secondary forest
Riparian forest
Secondary shrubby vegetation
Woody forage bank
Grass forage bank
Mixed species orchard
Timber plantation (monoculture)
Permanent cultivation
Others
C. Forage production
1. Do you produce fodders from your farm
� Yes � No (Why not?: )
2. What is the source of the fodders?
� Forage bank � Live fences � Trees dispersed on paddocks � Weeds on pasture
� Others:
3. What species do you use in the forage bank?
4. How much fodder do you produce monthly?
And in which period of year do you produce them?
( )kg/month Period:
5. Do you sell the produced fodders?
� No � Yes (Amount: kg/year Price: CRC/kg)
79
6. What activities do you do for forage production? And what are the
costs in each activity?
Activity FrequencyLabor Materials
OthersHours Wage Material Amount Price
Family labor: ( )% Contract labor: ( )%
D. Trees on farm
1. Do you have trees dispersed on paddocks?
� Yes � No
2. What are the species of the trees?
3. What type of fences do you use?
� Posts � Electronic fences � Simple live fences �Multi-strata live fences
4. What are the tree species used for the live fences?
5. Why did you choose the species for the live fences?
6. How often do you perform pruning on the live fences?
7. How many hours does it take to do prune the live fences?
80
E. Non-timber production
1. Do you produce fruits, medicinal plants or ornamental plants on your
farmland?
� Yes � No (Why not?: )
2. Which part of your farm do you produce them?
� Live fences � Trees dispersed on the pasture � Others:
3. What are the products and how much do you produce each of
them annually? What percentages of the products are consumed by
the household and the animals?
Product Amount UnitUses (%)
Price ObservationSale Animal Family
4. What are the activities to produce them? What are the associated
costs?
Activity FrequencyLabor Materials
OthersHours Wage Material Amount Price
Family labor: ( )% Contract labor: ( )%
81
F. Timber production
1. Do you harvest timber either for sales or auto-consumption from the
farmland?
� Yes � No (Why not? )
2. Which part of your farm do you harvest the timber from?
� Live fences � Trees dispersed on pastures � Others:
3. Have you sold timber? When was the last time you sold the timber?
4. What species do you harvest? How much volume do you harvest
annually?
Species VolumeUse (%)
Price for saleSale Auto-consumption
5. What was the motivation to sell the timber?
6. Do you conduct any management activities such as pruning and thin-
ning in your timber production?
� Yes � No
7. What activities are involved in the timber production? What is the
amount of labor and cost for the production?
Activity FrequencyLabor Materials
OthersHours Wage Material Amount Price
Family labor: ( )% Contract labor: ( )%
82
G. Cattle inventory
1. How many animals do you have?
Category No. of animals Breed
Cows pruducing milk
Cows that have given birth*
Cows not producing milk
Heifer >2 years
Heifer 1-2 years
Heifer calves
Bulls
Bulls >2years
Bulls 1-2 years
Bull calves
Horses
Others
Total
2. How many animals do you buy annually?
Category No. of animals Price Weight (kg) Origin
3. How many animals do you sell annually?
Category No. of animals Price Weight (kg) Place
83
H. Milk production
1. How do you extract the milk?
� Manually � Mechanically
2. How many times extract the milk a day?
� 1 � 2
3. How many liters of milk is produced from a cow a day in your farm?
Dry season: kg/cow/day Rainy season: kg/cow/day
4. Do you have information on the contents of fat, protein and total
solid in the milk produced from your farm?
� No information � Fat: % Protein: % Solid: %
5. What is the price of milk produced on your farm?
( ) CRC/liter
6. Do you produce byproducts for sale? (e.g. cheese)
� No
� Yes (Product: , Amount: /month, Price: CRC)
7. Do you consume any of your dairy products (e.g. milk and cheese)?
If so, how much of them do you consume monthly?
Product Amount/month Observations
84
I. Costs in cattle production
1. What products do you use for fertilization and weed control? What
are the amounts of usage, and how much do the products cost?
Name of productAmount
/year
Cost
/unit
Application
area (ha)Observations
2. What are the additional aliment given to the animals? How much
do you supply them, and what are their prices?
Aliment Unit Amount/day Cost Animal Observation
(Dry season)
(Rainy season)
85
3. What products do you use for vaccinations on your animals? How
much do you use them, and how much does it cost?
Name of product Applied animal Amount Cost Frequency of application
4. What products do you use for bathing the animals? How much do
you use them, and how much does it cost?
Name of product Applied animal Amount Cost Frequency of application
5. How much of fuels and electricity do you spend for farm activities
monthly?
Category Amount Cost Observations
Gasoline
Dissel
Electricity
6. How many hours of family labor and contracted labor is dedicated
to the farming?
Type of labor Hours/month Wage/hour Observations
Family
Permanent
Temporal
86
J. Knowledge and opinions on Silvopastoral Sys-
tems
1. Have you heard of Silvopastoral Systems? If so, could you explain a
little bit?
2. What is your opinion on the Silvopastoral Systems?
� favorable � neutral � esceptico � opuesto � inseguro
Why?:
3. Are you receiving any information about management of live fences,
forage bank or trees dispersed on pastures?
� Yes (About what?: ) � No
4. How often do you receive such information mentioned above?
� Every year � Every 1–2 years � Every 2–5 years � Less than every 5 years
5. Where do you obtain such information?
6. Do you receive any subsidies for the farm management? If so, which
organization is the subsidy from, and what do you receive?
7. Are you willing to establish or improve forage bank, live fences or
trees on paddocks in the future?
� Yes (Which? � Forage bank � Dispersed trees � Simple live fences � Multi-
strata live fences)
� No � Not sure
8. What are obstacles in adopting or improving current forage bank,
live fences or utilization of timber/non-timber products from the farm?
87
