Journal of The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science (한국초지조사료학회지)

The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science (한국초지조사료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Economic Valuation of Multi-functionality on an Eco-pastoral system in Alpine grassland

산지생태축산의 다원적 기능에 대한 가치 평가

  • Kim, Se-Hyuk (Department of Agricultural Economics, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Kyun (Department of Agricultural Economics, Kyungpook National University)
  • 김세혁 (경북대학교 농업생명과학대학 농업경제학과) ;
  • 김태균 (경북대학교 농업생명과학대학 농업경제학과)
  • Received : 2018.11.12
  • Accepted : 2018.11.26
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the multi-functionality of an eco-pastoral system in alpine grassland and measured its economic value. The multi-functionality can be divided into three categories: direct-use value, indirect-use value, and heritage value. Direct-use value includes both extractive (forage and livestock production) and non-extractive (recreation and tourism) functions. Indirect-use value includes the functions of water conservation, soil erosion control, atmospheric control, landscape, livestock-manure management, and forest firebreaks. The heritage value includes the function of species diversity. The results showed that the annual value for 1 hectare of the eco-pastoral system in alpine grassland's direct use was estimated to be 21,090,874 Korean won; the indirect-use value was 15,562,203 won when the landscape in grassland system, and 16,018,224 won when the landscape comprised in silvopastoral system. The value of the species diversity in heritage terms ranged from 767,273 to 1,578,845 won, depending on whether it included any endangered species. The total value of multi-functionality of the eco-pastoral system in alpine grassland was estimated to be a minimum of 37,420,350 won/ha and a maximum of 38,687,942 won/ha. The results of this study can provide useful insights for the eco-pastoral system in alpine grassland policies in Republic of Korea.

본 연구는 산지생태축산이 가진 다원적 기능을 제시하고 그에 따른 가치를 평가하였다. 산지생태축산의 다원적 기능은 크게 직접이용가치, 간접이용가치, 유산가치의 세 가지로 분류할 수 있으며, 직접이용가치의 경우 조사료 및 축산물 생산과 같은 채집 기능과 레크리에이션 및 관광과 같은 비채집 기능이 존재한다. 간접이용가치의 경우 수자원 관리, 토양 침식 조절, 대기 조절, 경관, 축산분뇨처리, 산불확산억제 기능이 존재하며, 유산가치의 경우 종다양성 기능이 존재한다. 분석결과 산지생태축산 운영지 1ha의 연간가치는 직접이용가치 21,090,874원, 간접이용가치는 경관이 초지일 때 15,562,203원, 경관이 임간초지 일 때 16,018,224원으로 추정되었고, 유산가치의 경우 종다양성 가치로 멸종위기종의 개체수에 따라 최소 767,273원에서 최대 1,578,845원으로 추정되어, 다원적 가치의 총합은 최소 37,420,350원에서 최대 38,687,942원으로 분석되었다. 본 연구의 결과를 통하여 국내 산지생태축산 정책수립에 유용한 정보를 제공할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. AIFM. 2011. Wild prevention in the Mediterranean. Position Paper. International Association for Mediterranean Forests.
  2. Anderson, R. and Rockel, M. 1991. Economic valuation of wetlands. Discussion Paper #65. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
  3. Bentley, J.R. 1967. Conversion of chaparral areas to grassland: techniques used in California. Agriculture Handbook. 328:1-35.
  4. Bernues, A., Rodriguez-Ortega, T., Ripoll-Bosch, R. and Alfnes, F. 2014. Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. PLoS ONE. 9:e102479. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102479
  5. Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are ecosystem service? the need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics. 63:616-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
  6. Cheon, D.W., Lee, M.S., Park, M.S., Park, H.S., Hwang, K.J., Yun, S.H. and Ko, M.S. 2007. Study on amenity and economical efficiency of multi-functionality on the grassland. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science. 27:297-312. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2007.27.4.297
  7. Choi, J.Y. and Shin, E.S. 1999. A study on the management of livestock pollution considering land environmental capacity. Korea Environment Institute. 99:118-122.
  8. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. and Van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387:253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
  9. Dominguez-Torreiro, M. and Solino, M. 2011. Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas. Ecological Economics. 70:2523-2531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.021
  10. Dumortier, P., Aubinet, M., Beckers, Y., Chopin, H., Debacq, aA., Motte, L. Gourlez de la., Jerome, E., Wilmus, F. and Heinesch, B. 2017. Methane balance of an intensively grazed pasture and estimation of the enteric methane emissions from cattle. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 232:527-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.09.010
  11. Englin, J. and Shonkwiler, J.S. 1995. Estimating social welfare using count data models: an application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 77:104-112. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109996
  12. Eom, K.C., Jung, P.K., Choi, S.H., Eom, K.R., Lee, G.B. and Kim, S.H. 2010. Basic research for soil erosion diminish. Ministry of Environmental.
  13. Greene, W.H. 2012. Econometric analysis, 7th ed., Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey, USA. p. 1169.
  14. Grunhage, L., Dammgen, U., Haenel, H.D. and Jager, H.J. 1994. Response of a grassland ecosystem to air pollutants: III-The chemical climate: vertical flux densities of gaseous species in the atmosphere near the ground. Environmental Pollution. 85:43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(94)90236-4
  15. Haby, V.A., Stout, S.A., Hons, F.M. and Leonard, T. 2006. Nitrogen fixation and transfer in a mixed stand of alfalfa and bermudagrass. Agronomy Journal. 98:890-898. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0084
  16. Kim, J.H., Kim, K.D., Kim, R.H., Park, C.Y., Yoon, H.J., Lee, S.W., Choi, H.T. and Kim, J.J. 2010. Research on quantification of public welfare functions in forest. National Institute of Forest Science. Korea.
  17. Kim, S.H. and Kim, T.K. 2018a. Estimating the demand and benefits Pyeongchang pasture experience tourism using travel cost method: comparison of single and multi-destination trips. International Journal of Tourism Management and Sciences. 33:125-142. https://doi.org/10.21719/IJTMS.33.1.7
  18. Kim, S.H. and Kim, T.K. 2018b. Estimating the potential demand of pasture experience tourism: a comparison of onsite interview and online survey modes. Journal of Tourism Sciences. 42:11-28.
  19. Kim, S.H. and Kim, T.K. 2018c. Economic valuation for landscape and species diversity of mountainous pasture. Annals of Animal Resources Sciences. 29:50-55.
  20. Kim, T.K. and Lee, J.H. 2007. Measuring the willingness to pay for visit attributes for the gradation of entrance fee in Jirisan national park. Journal of Tourism Sciences. 31:69-81.
  21. KOSIS(Korea Statistics Information Service). 2015b. Retrieved Auguest 15, 2018. from http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=136&tblId=TX_13601_A020&vw_cd=MT_ZTITLE&list_id=136_13625&seqNo=&lang_mode=ko&language=kor&obj_var_id=&itm_id=&conn_path=MT_ZTITLE#
  22. KOSIS(Korean Statistical Information Service). 2015a. Retrieved Auguest 15, 2018. from http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsListIndex.do?menuId=_01_01&vwcd=MT_ZTITLE& parmTabId=M_01_01#SelectStatsBoxDiv.
  23. Lee, H.H. and Lee, C.W. 1994. Water storage characteristics of surface soil by the different forest floor conditions(II). Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science. 83:473-479.
  24. Ma, S. and Swinton, S.M. 2011. Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices. Ecological Economics. 70:1649-1659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.004
  25. Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics, Cambridge Univ. Press, UK. p. 401.
  26. MAFRA. 2013. Nature, people and animals happy livestock : an excellent case study of mountainous eco-pasture. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Korea.
  27. MAFRA. 2017. Agricultural, food and rural affairs statistics yearbook. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2016:396-402.
  28. MAFRA. 2018. Government's support for forage production. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Korea.
  29. ME. 2011. A study on the economic analysis and the improvement of the installation and operation of the livestock treatment facilities. Ministry of Environment. pp. 117-120.
  30. Moon, S.H., Kim, S.W., Choi, G.J., Jang, S.Y., Park, J.H., Jeon, B.T., Kim, M.H., Kim, S.J. and Oh, M.R. 2015. Current status of forage use on the goat farming in mountainous pasture. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science. 35:112-118. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2015.35.2.112
  31. Moreno, G., Franca, A. Pinto Correia, M.T. and Godinho, S. 2014. Multifunctionality and dynamics of silvopastoral systems. Options. 109:421-436.
  32. NIAS. 2016. Subtropical Livestock Research Institute survey. National Institute of Animal Science. Korea.
  33. NIFS. 2014. Report on the result of forest function evaluation for 2014. National Institute of Forest Science. Korea.
  34. Nuernberg, K., Dannenberger, D., Nuernberg, G., Ender, K., Voigt, J., Scollan, N.D., Wood, J.D., Nute, G.R. and Richardson, R.I. 2005. Effect of a grass-based and a concentrate feeding system on meat quality characteristics and fatty acid composition of longissimus muscle in different cattle breeds. Livestock Production Science. 94:137-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.036
  35. Pearce, D.W. and Turner, R.K. 1989. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
  36. Rodriguez-Ortega, T., Oteros-Rozas, E., Ripoll-Bosch, R., Tichit, M., Martin-Lopez, B. and Bernues, A. 2014. Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe. Animal. 8:1361-1372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114000421
  37. Rybanic, R., Seffer, J. and Cierna, M. 1999. Economic valuation of benefits from conservation and restoration of floodplain meadows. Morava River Floodplain Meadows - Importance, Restoration and Management, Slovakia. pp. 147-160.
  38. Seok, H.D., Moon, J.M. and Park, S.H. 2013. Mountainous pasture Europe case and implications. Agri-Policy Focus. 79:1-27.
  39. Thibodeau. F.R. and Ostro, B.D. 1981. An economic analysis of wetland protection. Journal of Environmental Management. 12:19-30.
  40. Yoon, S.H., Lee, J.K. and Park, G.J. 2002. Forage and Cattle Productivities of intensive grazing system. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science. 22:45-50. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2002.22.1.045