Economic Evaluation of Pollination Services Comparing Coffee Landscapes in Ecuador and Indonesia
By R. Olschewski, T. Tscharntke, P. Benítez, S. Schwarze, Alexandra-Maria Klein. 2006
221 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Biodiversity conservation through land-use systems on private land is becoming a pressing environmental policy issue. Agroforestry, such as shade-coffee production, contributes to biodiversity conservation. However, falling coffee prices force many coffee growers to convert their sites into economically more attractive land uses. We performed an economic evaluation of coffee pollination by bees in two distinct tropical regions: an area of low human impact with forests neighboring agroforestry in Indonesia and an area of high human impact with little remaining forest in Ecuador. We evaluated bee pollination for different forest-destruction scenarios, where coffee yields depend on forests to provide nesting sites for bees. We used two novel approaches. First, we examined how coffee net revenues depend on the pollination services of adjacent forests by considering berry weight in addition to fruit set, thereby providing a comprehensive evaluation. Second, we determined the net welfare effects of land-use changes, including the fact that former forestland is normally used for alternative crops. In both regions, crop revenues exceeded coffee pollination values, generating incentives to convert forests, even if owners would be compensated for pollination services. The promotion of certified "biodiversity-friendly" coffee is a feasible option to maintain shade-coffee systems. This is of special importance in high-impact areas where only small forest fragments remain. We conclude that a comprehensive economic analysis is necessary to adequately evaluate rainforest preservation for the enhancement of ecosystem services, such as pollination.
Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Global and Planetary Change, Horticulture
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6908ac0c6554f2a11e6480638f499470f765ee54
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
In Global and Planetary Change
Citations in the corpus
- Ecosystem Services: Origins, Contributions, Pitfalls, and Alternatives (2013, background): “, Olschewski et al. (2006) found that even after factoring in the”
- From research to action: Enhancing crop yield through wild pollinators (2014, background): “Farmers generally face implementation costs, such as those for planting hedgerows, and opportunity costs, such as those for setting aside natural habitats that could otherwise be cultivated (Olschewski et al. 2006).”
- Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. (2007, unknown): “Bee abundance and species richness (B OX C ) is positively associated with the abundance and richness of flowering plant species (B OX D ) (Banaszak 1996; Steffan-Dewenter & Tscharntke 2001; Potts et al. 2003a).”
- Where is the value in valuing pollination ecosystem services to agriculture (2015, unknown): “Although this technique was initially restricted to regional assessments of pollination value for single crop species, largely coffee (Jha and Dick, 2010; Olschewski et al., 2006; Priess et al., 2007; Ricketts et al., 2004; Scullion et al., 2011; Veddeler et al., 2008), it has been recently applied ”
- The Economic Value of the Pollination Service, a Review Across Scales (2009, background): “An exception is the study of Olschewski et al. (2006), who study the marginal value of the pollination service in forest patches near coffee fields in Indonesia and Ecuador.”
- Optimal design of agricultural landscapes for pollination services (2008, background): “…spatial models to the mapping of ecosystem services in extant landscapes, including changes in service delivery under different land-use change scenarios (e.g., Bodin et al. 2006; Chan et al. Conservation Letters 1 (2008) 27–36 c© 2008 Blackwell Publishing, Inc. 27 2006; Olschewski et al. 2006).”