ارزش اقتصادی خدمات بوم نظام های تولیدی گندم (aestivum L. Triticum) استان خراسان رضوی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

بوم نظام‌های طبیعی و زراعی به دلیل ماهیت چند کارکردی خود علاوه بر تولید غذا، علوفه، پوشاک، سوخت و دارو خدمات متنوع و با ارزش دیگری را نیز ارائه می‌کنند که اهمیت اقتصادی آن‌ها پنهان مانده است. ارزش گذاری خدمات بوم‌نظام مناسب ترین راه حل برای جلب توجه جامعه و سیاست گذاران به این خدمات و در نتیجه تلاش در جهت حفظ و ارتقاء آن‌ها می‌باشد. در این پژوهش ارزش اقتصادی خدمات و تبعات محیطی ناشی از روش‌های مدیریت در مزارع گندم (aestivum L. Triticum) استان خراسان رضوی در طی سال‌های 85-1370 مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. اطلاعات لازم از طریق پرسشنامه‌های تکمیل شده در 40 مزرعه گندم که از نظر مساحت، روش مدیریت و میزان مصرف نهاده‌ها متفاوت بودند استخراج گردید. با توجه به اطلاعات حاصل، ارزش شش نوع از خدمات اکوسیستمی این مزارع (تولید غذا و علوفه، ترسیب کربن، تولید اکسیژن، تنوع زیستی، حفظ رطوبت و گردشگری) و دو مورد تبعات منفی آن‌ها (تولید گاز‌های گلخانه‌ای و نشت نیتروژن و فسفر به محیط) بر اساس بهای دلار (معادل ریالی ارزش دلار در سال 2007 میلادی) برآورد گردید. نتایج نشان داد که میانگین ارزش کل خدمات اکوسیستم در مزارع تحت بررسی با کسر ارزش تبعات منفی معادل 106× 85/66 ریال در هکتار در سال بود. خدمات اتمسفری (تولید اکسیژن و ترسیب کربن) در حدود 65 درصد از ارزش کل خدمات در مزارع گندم را به خود اختصاص دادند در حالی‌که ارزش غذا و علوفه تولید شده در مزارع که مهمترین خدمات اکوسیستم‌های زراعی محسوب می‌شوند 21 درصد و تنوع زیستی 3/9 درصد از ارزش کل را شامل می‌شدند. سهم سایر موارد از ارزش کل خدمات در مزارع تحت بررسی ناچیز و کمتر از پنج درصد بود. به طور کلی ارزش خدمات غیرقابل فروش در حدود 60 درصد بیشتر از ارزش غذا و علوفه تولید شده بود. بر اساس یافته‌های این تحقیق با افزایش عملکرد گندم به بالاتر از چهار تن در هکتار، ارزش کل خدمات اکوسیستم کاهش یافت در حالی‌که با افزایش ارزش خدمات تأمین کننده (غذا و علوفه)، هزینه تبعات منفی محیطی افزایشی خطی داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Economic Value of Agroecosystem Services within Wheat Fields in Khorasan Razavi Province

نویسندگان [English]

  • a Koocheki
  • m Nassiri Mahallati
  • A amin ghafoori
  • M Mahlooji
  • F Fallahpour
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Due to its multifunctional nature agriculture play important roles in ecological processes such as carbon sequestration, flood control, groundwater recharge, nutrient cycling, and purifying water, soil and air in addition to providing food, feed and fiber. These cover almost all ecological services provided by natural ecosystems, including provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services and cultural services (MEA, 2005). Provisioning services are the products obtained from ecosystems, including food, fiber and fuel. Regulating services are the benefits arising from the regulation of ecosystem processes, such as climate regulation, water purification, pollination and the control of pests and diseases. Cultural services are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems, as spiritual enrichment, recreation and aesthetic experiences. Supporting services are those services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling (Norris et al., 2010). However, most of these services are not recognized and their values are hidden to the society. On the other hand, unlike natural ecosystems that only produce positive ecological services, agro-ecosystems also contribute to some negative externalities e.g. emission of greenhouse gases, leaching of chemicals into soil and water resources and reduction of biodiversity that should be taken into account (Norris et al., 2010). Economic valuation of these services makes them attractive for the society and policymakers to pay more attention towards conservation of ecosystem services. In Iran, studies on ecosystem services are scared and in global scale researches are mainly focused on natural ecosystems. In this study the economic value of ecological services as well as negative environmental externalities of wheat fields were estimated in the Khorasan Razavi province.
Materials and methods
Information was extracted from questionnaires collected from 40 fields varying in area, management and inputs level. Using these data economic value of feed and food, carbon sequestration, oxygen production, biodiversity, water retention and tourism together with greenhouse gas emission and nitrogen and phosphorous leakage as environmental externalities was quantified. Calculations were based on standard methods described by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Economic values were estimated as international dollar as proposed by De Groot et al. (2012) and reported as equivalent national price.
Results and discussion
The mean value of the total agroecosystem services of wheat fields excluding externalities, were estimated as 66.85×106 Rls.ha-1.y-1. The value of non-marketable services was 3.46 times more than food and feed and on average atmospheric services (oxygen production and carbon sequestration) contributed up to 62% of total value while biodiversity and provisional services included 9.3 and 21% of total, respectively and the other services below 5%. Net value of services was increased with increasing field size. However, doubling field size resulted in 50% increase in net value because larger fields were more intensified leading to higher negative impacts. Economic value of services was significantly dependent on wheat total dry matter and yield. Nonlinear relation was found between wheat yield and total value of services where a break point was found at yields above 4 t.ha-1. However, negative externalities were increased linearly with increasing both total dry matter and grain yield.
Conclusion
Results of this study indicated that despite to intensive management wheat production systems of Khorasan province are able to provide several regulating and supporting services and their economic value is 3-4 folds higher than provisional services harvested as grain and feed. However, negative externalities will be increased in more intensified fields with higher yield. Feeding a growing human population is obviously critically important and can only be done by recognizing and embracing the concept that food production systems are embedded within ecosystems. They depend on ecosystem services and have ecosystem impacts. Promotion of multifunctional characteristics of agroecosystems to maintain high yield together with ecological services, should be considered as an alternative for conventional management practices.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Biodiversity
  • Economic value
  • Ecosystem services
  • Environmental externalities
Antle, J.M., and Capalbo, S.M. 2002. Agriculture as a managed ecosystem: Policy implications. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27(1): 1-15.
Basso, B., and Ritchie, J.T. 2005. Impact of compost, manure and inorganic fertilizer on nitrate leaching and yield for a 6-year maize-alfalfa rotation in Michigan. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 108: 329-341.
Canadell, P. 2007. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proceedings of the National Academy USA 104: 18866-18870.
Carpenter, S.R., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Mooney, H.A., Polasky, S., Reid, W.V., and Scholes, R.J. 2006. Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314: 257-258.
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., DeGroot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruel, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., and VandenBelt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem service and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.
Crossman, N.D., and Bryan, B.A. 2009. Identifying cost-effective hot spots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multi-functionality. Ecological Economics 68: 654-668.
Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., and Summers, D.M. 2011. Carbon payments and low-cost conservation. Conservation Biology 25: 835-845.
Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington 392 pp.
Dale, V.H., and Polasky, S. 2007. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64: 286-296.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., and Boumans, R.M.J. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem function, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393-408.
De Groot, R., Brander, L., Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermand, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela, R., Rodriguez, L.C., Brink, P., and van Beukering, P. 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services 1: 50-61.
Del Grasso, S.J. 2002. Refinement, testing and application of the DEYCENY model to investigate ecological impacts of agriculture. PhD thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.
Fitter, A., Elmqvist, T., Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Rinaldo, A., Setala, H., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Zobel, M., and Murlis, J. 2010. An Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in Europe. In: Hester, R.E. and R.M. Harrison. 2010 (Eds.). Ecosystem Services. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing, UK. 1-28.
Grandy, A.S., Loecke, T.D., Parr, S., and Robertson, G.P. 2006. Long-term trends in nitrous oxide emissions, soil nitrogen, and crop yields of till and no-till cropping systems. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 1487-1495.
Grandy, A.S., and Robertson, G.P. 2007. Land-use intensity effects on soil organic carbon accumulation rates and mechanisms. Ecosystems 10: 58-73.
Guo, Z.W., Xiao, X.M., and Li, D.M. 2000. An assessment of ecosystem services: water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production. Ecological Application 10: 925-36.
Hansen, B., Alroe, H.F., and Steen, K.E. 2001. Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83(1-2): 11-26.
Hein, L., Koppen, K., Groot, R., and Ierland, E. 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystems services. Ecology 57: 209-228.
Kosonen, K. 2005. Fiscal instruments for internalizing external costs. http://www. externe.info/brussels/br1140.pdf.
Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecological Letters 8: 468-79.
Lai, R. 2003. Global potential of soil carbon sequestration to mitigate the greenhouse effect. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 22(2): 151-184.
Lai, R., Grifin, M., Apt, J., Lave, L., and Morgan, M.G. 2004. Managing soil carbon. Science 304: 393.
Li, J., Wang, W., Huc, G., and Weic, Z. 2010. Changes in ecosystem service values in Zoige Plateau, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139: 766-770.
Lv, Y., Gu, S., and Guo, D. 2010. Valuing environmental externalities from rice–wheat farming in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River. Ecological Economics 69: 1436-1442.
Madureira, L., Rambonilaza, T., and Karpinski, I. 2007. Review of methods and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader decisional contexts. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 120: 5-20.
McSwiney, C., and Robertson, G.P. 2005. Nonlinear response of N20 flux to incremental fertilizer addition in a continuous maize (Zea mays) cropping system. Global Change Biology 11: 1-8.
MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
Murty, D., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., McMurtrie, R.E., and McGilvray, H. 2002. Does forest conversion to agricultural land change soil organic carbon and nitrogen? A review of the literature. Global Change Biology 8: 105-123.
Nassiri, M., and Koocheki, A. 2014. Trend analysis of nitrogen use and productivity in wheat production systems of Iran. Journal of Agroecology (accepted). (In Persian with English Summary)
Nijkamp, P., and Vindigni, G. 2003. The Economics of Biodiversity: A Multivariate Meta-analysis. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
Norris, K., Potts, S.G., and Mortimer, S.R. 2010. Ecosystem Services and Food Production. In: Hester, R.E. and R.M. Harrison. 2010 (Eds.) Ecosystem Services. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing, UK. 52-69.
Nunes, P., and Bergh, J. 2001. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense. Ecology 39: 203-222.
OECD, 2002. Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation. A Guide for Policy Makers. OECD, Paris, France.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R. 2005. Environment, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55: 573-581.
Pretty, J.N. 2002. Agriculture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.
Pretty, J.N., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R.E., Mason, C.F., Morison, J.I.L., Raven, H., Rayment, M.D., and Vander Bijl, G. 2000. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65: 113-136.
Randall, A. 2002. Valuing the out puts of multifunctional agriculture. European Review of Agriculture Economics 29: 280-307.
Syswerda, S.P. 2009. Ecosystem services from agriculture across a management intensity gradient in Southwest Michigan. PhD thesis, Michigan State University.
Sandhu, H.S., Wtatten, S.D., Cullen, R., and Case, B. 2008. The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecological Economic 64: 835-848.
TEEB Foundations, 2010. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earth Scan, London, Washington.
Thornes, J. 2010. Atmospheric services. In: Hester, R.E. and Harrison, R.M. 2010 (Eds.) Ecosystem Services. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing, UK. 70-104.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K., Matson, P., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and the costs and benefits of intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677.