مقایسه ارزش خدمات اکوسیستمی بوم نظام‌های مختلف کشاورزی (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان دزفول- استان خوزستان)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتر گروه کشاورزی اکولوژیک، پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ایران

2 استاد گروه کشاورزی اکولوژیک، پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه کشاورزی اکولوژیک، پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، ایران

چکیده

در پژوهش حاضر، ضمن ارزش‌گذاری خدمات اکوسیستمی در سه سیستم کشاورزی (رایج، محصول سالم، گلخانه)، خدمات اکوسیستمی آنها نیز مقایسه شد. بدین منظور ارزیابی میدانی هر خدمت اکوسیستمی و محاسبه ارزش آن بر اساس پژوهش (Sandhu et al., 2008) و با استفاده از پرسشنامه‌هایی که توسط کشاورزان هر سیستم تکمیل گردید صورت گرفت. ارزش اقتصادی محاسبه ‌شده برای هر سیستم متشکل از دو ارزش بازاری و غیربازاری بود. بر این اساس خدمت تولیدی محصولات کشاورزی با استفاده از قیمت بازاری آن تعیین و برای سایر خدمات از روش‌های غیربازاری ارزش‌گذاری استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد بیشترین ارزش خدمات اکوسیستمی متعلق به گلخانه‌ها با میانگین 621 میلیون ریال/ هکتار/ سال بود. اگرچه بیش از نیمی از این مقدار (425 میلیون ریال/ هکتار/ سال) سهم خدمات بازاری و ارزش تولیدی این واحدهای کشاورزی بود که با توجه به رویکرد تولید محور در کشاورزی صنعتی ارزش‌گذاری صورت گرفته منطقی به نظر می‌رسد. بیشترین میزان خدمات غیربازاری در سیستم تولید محصول سالم (226 میلیون ریال/ هکتار/ سال) ارزش‌گذاری شده است که از لحاظ ریالی از مقدار کل تولید (157 میلیون ریال/ هکتار/ سال) در این سیستم بیشتر است. سهم عمده‌ای از ارزش ایجاد شده به‌واسطه نقش این نوع از سیستم در ایجاد اشتغال است که بیشتر در ارزیابی‌های مقایسه‌ای بین سیستم‌های زراعی مغفول می‌ماند. همچنین این نوع سیستم از لحاظ خدمات اکوسیستمی حفاظت آب و خاک نیز دارای بیشترین ارزش فراهمی می‌باشد. به‌طورکلی نیز سیستم‌های تولید محصول سالم پس از گلخانه‌های صنعتی دارای بیشترین ارزش از لحاظ کل خدمات اکوسیستمی محاسبه ‌شده بودند. باغ‌های مرکبات نیز در هر دو سیستم تولید محصول سالم و رایج دارای بیشترین میزان خدمات اکوسیستمی غیر بازاری (به ترتیب 244 و 247 میلیون ریال/ هکتار/ سال) بودند. براساس این نتایج توسعه کشاورزی چندکارکردی با هدف بهینه‌سازی خدمات اکوسیستمی و ترکیب دو روش کشاورزی صنعتی و سالم پیشنهاد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Comparative Analysis of Ecosystem Services Valuation in Alternative Agricultural Systems (Case of Dezful County, Khuzestan Province)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Samaneh Sohrabi 1
  • Hadi Veisi 2
  • Kours Khoshbakht 3
1 Ph.D student, Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Iran
3 Associate professor, Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Iran
چکیده [English]

This study quantified and compared the economic value of ecosystem services in three agricultural systems (conventional, healthy food production, greenhouses) in Dezful county, Khuzestan province, Iran. This quantification was based on an experimental and field method from Sandhu et al., 2008. Accordingly, the yield of agricultural products was determined through market price, and for other services, non-market valuation methods were used. The results showed that the greenhouses systems with an average of 621 million Rials / hectare / year had highest the economic value of ecosystem services. However, more than half of amount of reported rate (425 million Rials/ ha/ year) was the market services and provisioning value of these agricultural systems which compatible with the production-driven approach in industrial agriculture. The highest non-market services are valued at the healthy production system (226 million Rials/ hectare/ year), which is greater than the total amount of production (157 million Rials/ hectare / year). The major portion of the value is gained by the role of this f system in job creation which is mostly ignored in the comparative assessments of agarin systems. This system also has the highest value for services of water and soil protection. Generally, healthy production systems obtained the second highest value after industrial greenhouses systems in terms of entire evaluated ecosystem services. Citrus gardens also have the highest non-market ecosystem services in both of the healthy and conventional systems (244 and 247 million Rials/ ha/ year, respectively). At the end, developing a multifunctional agriculture approach was recommended to optimize ecosystem services through policies and institutions that facilitate multifunctional agriculture be strengthened.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Ecosystem services
  • Agricultural Systems
  • Valuation
  • Multifunctionality
Altieri, M.A. 2018. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press; 2 edition (October 13, 1995).
Antle, J.M. & Capalbo, S.M. 2002. Agriculture as a Managed Ecosystem: Policy Implications. Journal of agricultural and resource economics. 27:1-15.
Asgari, H. A. 2013.The economic value of Oak forest. Journal of Natural Resource Economics. 2(2):77 – 88 (In Persian).
Barral, M.P.; Rey Benayas, J.M.; Meli, P. &. Maceira, N.O. 2015. Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: a global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 202: 223–231.
Bengtsson, J.; Ahnström, J. & Weibull, A.C. 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology. 42(2): 261-269.
Bonini, A.N. 2008. Cross-National Variation in Individual Life Satisfaction: Effects of National Wealth, Human Development, and Environmental Conditions. Social Indicators Research. 87: 223–236.
Calvo, G.; Fonte, M.; Ishii-Eiteman, M.; Jiggins, J.; Leakey, R. & Plencovich, C. 2009. Towards Multifunctional Agriculture for Social, Environmental and Economic Sustainability. UNESCO-SCOPE-UNEP Policy Briegs. 8:1-6.
Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Sutton, P.C.; Van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S. & Turner, R.K. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change. 26: 152–158.
Cowling, R.M.; Egoh, B.; Knight, A.T.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Roux, D.J.; Welz, A. & Wilhelm-Rechman, A. 2008. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105:9483–9488.
Dale, V.H. & Polasky, S. 2007. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics. 64(2):286–296.
Daw, T.; Brown, K.; Rosendo, S. & Pomeroy, R. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environment Conservation. 38: 370–379
Dendoncker, N. & Crouzat, E. 2018. Can ecosystem services help the new agricultural transition?. Sustainability science as social learning process. Routledge, London, UK.
Dendoncker, N.; Boeraeve, F.; Crouzat, E.; Dufrêne, M.; König, A. & Barnaud, C. 2018. How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?. Ecology and Society. 23(1):12-25.
Duru, M. & Thérond, O. 2015. Designing agroecological transitions: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 35 (4): 1237–1257.
Ericksen, P.J.; Ingram, J.S.I. & Liverman, D.M. 2009. Food security and global environmental change: Emerging challenges. Environmental Science and Policy. 12(4): 373–377.
Fisher, J.A.; Patenaude, G.; Giri, K.; Lewis, K.; Meir, P.; Pinho, P.; Rounsevell, M.D.A. & Williams, M. 2014. Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: a conceptual framework. Ecosystem Services. 7: 34–45.
Garbach, K.; Milder, J.; DeClerck, F.; Montenegro de Wit, M.; Driscoll, L. & Gemmill-Herren, B. 2017. Examining multi- functionality for crop yield and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological intensification. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 15(1):11–28.
Huang, J.; Tichit, M.; Poulot, M.; Darly, S.; Li, S.; Petit, C. & Aubry, C. 2015. Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Environmental Management. 149: 138–147.
Huntsinger, L. & Oviedo, J.L. 2014. Ecosystem service are social-ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: the case of California’s Mediterranean rangelands. Ecology and Society. 19(1):8.
Jacobs, S.; Martín-López, B.; Barton, D.N.; Dunford, R.; Harrison, P.A.; Kelemen, E.; Saarikoski, H.; Termansen, M.; García- Llorente, M.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Kopperoinen, L.; Luque, S.; Palomo, I.; Priess, J.A.; Rusch, G.M.; Tenerelli, P.; Turkelboom, F.; Demeyer, R.; Hauck, J.; Keune, H. & Smith. R. 2018. The means determine the end—pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosystem Services. 29: 515-528.
Kremen, C. & Miles, A. 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society. 17(4): 40.
Landis, D.A. 2017. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic and Applied Ecology. 18:1–12.
Lescourret, F.; Magda, D.; Richard, G.; Adam-Blondon, A.F.; Bardy, M.; Baudry, J.; Doussan, I.; Dumont, B.; Lefèvre, F.; Litrico, I. & Martin-Clouaire, R. 2015. A social–ecological approach to managing multiple agro ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 14: 68-75.
Mahlouji Rad, M.; Mobarghaei, N.; Rezvani Moghaddam, P.; Parsa, M.; Shahnoushi Froshani, N. & Asadi, G. 2016. Comparison of value of ecosystem services in conventional and Wheat and Potato organic farms in Fariman city. Journal of Agroecology [online]. 6(1): 151-165 (In Persian).
MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Mills, J. 2012. Exploring the social benefits of agri-environment schemes in England. Journal of Rural Studies. 28 (4): 612–621.
Mobarghei, N. 2009. The spatial valuation pattern of forest ecosystem services using Geographic Information System (Case study: Kheyrudkenar forest, Noshahr). Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, 321p (In Persian).
Mobarghei, N. & Sharzei, Gh. 2007. Analysis of survey base methods in ecosystem services valuation and introduce more appropriate methods to achieve reliable result especially in developing countries, International conference of Reinventing Sustainability: A Climate for Change Noosaville, Australia.
Nadal, G.; Di Sbroiavacca, N. & Bravo, G. 2016. Sustainability indicators for biofuels. In: Argentina, in: E. Ackom (Ed). Biofuel Sustainability: Case Studies and Practical Lessons for South-South Experience Sharing. Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development (GNESD). UNEP DTU Partnership. Technical University Denmark (DTU).
Parrott, L. & Meyer, W.S. 2012. Future landscapes: managing within complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 10 (7): 382-389.
Pimentel, D.; Hepperly, P.; Hanson, J.; Douds, D. & Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience. 55 (7): 573-582.
Polasky, S. 2011. Theory of Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem services seminar series.
Ponisio, L.; M’Gonigle, L.K.; Mace, K.C.; Palomino, J.; de Valpine, P. & Kremen, C. 2014. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 282: 20141396.
Power, A.G. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 365: 2959–2971.
Pretty, J.; Brett, C.; Gee, D.; Hine, R.; Mason, C. F.; Morison, J.I.L.; Raven, H.; Rayment, M. & van der Bijl, G. 2000. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems. 65: 113–136.
Rabbinge, R. & Bindraban P.S. 2012. Making more food available: Promoting sustainable agricultural production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 11: 1–8.
Rapidel, B.; Ripoche, A.; Allinne, C.; Metay, A.; Deheuvels, O.; Lamanda, N.; Blazy, J.M.; Valdés-Gómez, H. & Gary. C. 2015. Analysis of ecosystem services trade-offs to design agroecosystems with perennial crops. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 34(4):1373–1390.
Rockström, J.; Williams, J.; Daily, G.; Noble, A.; Matthews, N.; Gordon, L.; Wetterstrand, H.; DeClerck, F.; Shah, M.; Steduto, P.; de Fraiture, C.; Hatibu, N.; Unver, O.; Bird, J.; Sibanda, L. & Smith J. 2016. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio. 1-14.
Sandhu, H.S.; Wratten, S.D. & Cullen, R. 2010. Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy. 13 (1):1–7.
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: 835- 848.
Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J.A. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature. 485: 229–232.
Swinton, S.M.; Jolejole-Foreman, C.B.; Lupi, F.; Ma, S.; Zhang, W. & Chen, H. 2015. Economic value of ecosystem services from agriculture. The Ecology of Agricultural Landscapes: Long-Term Research on the Path to Sustainability. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
Swinton, S.M.; Lupi, F.; Robertson, G.P. & Hamilton, S.K. 2007. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics. 64 (2): 245-252.
Tilman, D. & Clark, M. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 515 (7528): 518–522.
Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Vandermeulen, V.; Mettepenningen E. & Verspecht, A. 2007. Multifunctionality of Agriculture: A Review of Definitions, Evidence and Instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research. 1(3): 1-43.
Zarandian, A., Yavari, A. R., Jafari H. R. & Amirnejad, H. 2016. Modeling of land cover change impacts on habitat quality of a forested landscape in the Sarvelat and Javaherdasht. Environmental Researches. 6(12): 183 - 194 (In Persian).
Zhang, W.; Ricketts, T.H.; Kremen, C.; Carney, K. & Swinton, S.M. 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics. 64:253–260.