Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: A case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 58-68

  Vihervaara, P ^a,b   Marjokorpi, A ^c   Kumpula, T ^d   Walls, M ^b,e   Kamppinen, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^b FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c Stora Enso   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^e FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Afforestation; Biodiversity; Conservation; Environment policy; Human environment system; Land use change

Indexed keywords

AFFORESTATION; CARBON CYCLING; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CULTURAL VALUE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; ENVIRONMENT POLICIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES; GENERAL PUBLICS; HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT SYSTEMS; LAND USE CHANGE; LOCAL PEOPLE; PINE PLANTATIONS; RAPID CHANGES; SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE; TREE PLANTATIONS; URUGUAY; WATER EFFECTS; WOOD AVAILABILITY;

AVAILABILITY; BIODIVERSITY; LAND USE; PLANT EXTRACTS; REFORESTATION; TROPICS; WATER QUALITY;

ECOSYSTEMS;

EUCALYPTUS;

EID: 80255137415     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.008     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Altesor A., Piñeiro G., Lezama F., Jackson R.B., Sarasola M., Paruelo J.M. Ecosystem changes associated with grazing in subhumid South American grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science 2006, 17:323-332.
2. Andréassian V. Waters and forests: from historical controversy to scientific debate. Journal of Hydrology 2004, 55:3-22.
3. Bashkin M.A., Binkley D. Changes in soil carbon following afforestation in Hawaii. Ecology 1998, 79(3):828-833.
4. Beckett K.P., Freer-Smith P.H., Taylor G. Urban woodlands: their role in reducing the effects of particulate pollution. Environmental Pollution 1998, 99(3):347-360.
5. Brown S., Lugo A.E., Chapman J. Biomass of tropical tree plantations and its implications for the global carbon budget. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 1986, 16:390-394.
6. Brussa C., Grela I. Flora arbórea del Uruguay. Con énfasis en las especies de Rivera y Tacuarembó 2007, COFUSA, Rivera, 544 pp.
7. Cáceres C.A., Silveira L. Sustitución de pasturas por plantaciones de eucalyptus y sus efectos sobre la calidad de las aguas. XXIII Congreso Latinoamericano de Hidráulica, Cartagena de Indias Colombia 2008, Septiembre 2008.
8. Cannell M.G.R. Environmental impacts of forest monocultures: water use, acidification, wildlife conservation, and carbon storage. New Forests 1999, 17:239-262.
9. CBD Ecosystem Approach. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme 2005.
10. Chazdon R.L. Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 2008, 320:1458-1460.
11. CIA Factbook The World Factbook at, [retrieved 16 December 2009]. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.
12. Climate change and variability in the mixed crop/livestock production systems of the Argentinean. A final report submitted to assessments of impacts and adaptations to climate change (AIACC) 2006, Project No. LA 27. A. Giménez (Ed.).
13. Cossalter C., Pye-Smith C. Fast-Wood Forestry: myths and realities. Forest Perspectives number 1 2003, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
14. Delgado S., Alliaume F., García Préchac F., Hernández J. Efecto de las plantaciones de Eucalyptus sp. sobre el recurso suelo en Uruguay. Agrociencia 2006, 2:95-107.
15. Nature and society-anthropological perspectives 1996, Routledge, London, UK. P. Descola, G. Pálsson (Eds.).
16. Dudley N., Stolton S. Running pure: the importance of forest protected areas for drinking water 2003, World Bank, Washington D.C.
17. FAO FAO/Unesco Soil Map of the World. Revised Legend with Corrections. World Soil Resources Report 60 1988, FAO, Rome.
18. FAO World Reference Base for Soil Resources. World Soil Resources Report 84 1998, FAO, Rome.
19. FAO Payment schemes for environmental services in watersheds: regional forum, 9-12 June 2003, Arequipa, Peru. Land and Water Discussion Paper 3 2004, FAO, Roma, 88pp.
20. FAO Global forest resources assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 147 2005, FAO, Rome.
21. FAO Global planted forests thematic study: results and analysis. Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper 38 2006, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 178 pp.
22. FAO Uruguay country profile summarized at, [retrieved 1 December 2009]. http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/default.asp?lang=en.
23. FAO, UNDP, UNEP UN collaborative programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (UN-REDD). Framework document 2008, 27 pp.
24. Farley K.A. Grasslands to tree plantations: forest transition in the Andes of Ecuador. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2007, 97(4):755-771.
25. Farley K.A., Kelly E.F. Effects of afforestation of a páramo grassland on soil nutrient status. Forest Ecology and Management 2004, 195:281-290.
26. Farley K.A., Kelly E.F., Hofstede R.G.M. Soil organic carbon and water retention after conversion of grasslands to pine plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes. Ecosystems 2004, 7:729-739.
27. Farley K.A., Jobbágy E.G., Jackson R.B. Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Global Change Biology 2005, 11:1565-1576.
28. Gibert J.E. Enumeratio plantarum sponte nascentium agro montevidensi cum synonimis selectis 1873, Asociación Rural del Uruguay, Montevideo, 145 pp.
29. Gibert J.E. Flora Uruguaya. Anales del Museo Nacional 1903, 4:132-148.
30. Godet M. Creating futures-scenario planning as strategic management tool 2001, Economica, London.
31. Guo L.B., Gifford R.M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change Biology 2002, 8:345-360.
32. Hanson C., Finisdore J., Ranganathan J., Iceland C. The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review. Version 1.0. World Resources Institute, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Meridian Institute 2008, Available at, [retrieved 9 February 2010]. http://www.wri.org/publication/corporate-ecosystem-services-review.
33. Hooper D.U., Chapin F.S.I.I.I., Ewel J.J., Hector A., Inchausti P., Lavorel S., Lawton J.H., Lodge D.M., et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 2005, 75(1):3-35.
34. Hukkinen J. Institutions of environmental management. Routledge/EUI Environmental Policy Series 1999, London and New York.
35. ISRIC World Soil Information at, [retrieved 1 December 2009]. http://www.isric.org/UK/About+Soils/Introduction+to+Soils/.
36. Jackson R.B., Jobbágy E.G., Avissar R., Roy S.B., Barrett D.J., Cook C.W., Farley K.A., le Maitre D.C., McCarl B.A., Murray B.C. Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 2005, 310:1944-1947.
37. Kanowski P. The Forests Dialogue on Intensively Managed Planted Forests. The Forests Dialogue Secretariat, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA 2005, Available at, [retrieved 9 February]. http://environment.yale.edu/tfd/uploads/Kanowski_TFD_Background_Paper.pdf.
38. Kemmis S., McTaggart R. Participatory Action Research. Handbook of Qualitative Research 2000, 567-605. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. 2nd ed. N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln (Eds.).
39. Kontoleon A., Pascual U., Swanson T. Biodiversity economics. Principles, methods and applications 2007, Cambridge University Press, 664 pp.
40. Lambin E., Geist H.J. Causes of land-use and land-cover change. The Encyclopedia of Earth 2007, available at, [retrieved 1 December 2009]. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Causes_of_land-use_and_land-cover_change.
41. Lambin E.F., Meyfroidt P. Land use transitions: socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:108-118.
42. Lambin E.F., Turner B.L., Geist H.J., Agbola S.B., Angelsen A., Bruce J.W., et al. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 2001, 11:261-269.
43. Landell-Mills N., Porras I. Silver bullet or fools' gold?. A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor 2002, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
44. Le Maitre D.C., Scott D.F., Colvin C. A review of information on interactions between vegetation and groundwater. Water SA 1999, 25:137-152.
45. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932, 140:1-55.
46. Lindenmayer D.B., Hobbs R.J. Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests - a review. Biological Conservation 2004, 119:151-168.
47. Little C., Lara A., McPhee J., Urrutia R. Revealing the impact of forest exotic plantations on water yield in large scale watersheds in South-Central Chile. Journal of Hydrology 2009, 374:162-170.
48. Locklin C. Uruguayan savannah ecoregion summarized at, [retrieved 25 November 2009]. http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/nt/nt0710_full.html.
49. Loumento J.J., Huttel C. Understorey vegetation in fast-growing tree plantations on savanna soils in Congo. Forest Ecology and Management 1997, 99:65-81.
50. Mather A.S. The forest transition. Area 1992, 24(4):367-379.
51. Mather A.S., Needle C.L. The forest transition: A theoretical basis. Area 1998, 30(2):117-124.
52. Milder J.C., Scherr S., Bracer C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 2010, 15(2):4.
53. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA] Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington DC.
54. Ministerio de Ganaderia, Agricultura y Pesca - Dirección Forestal [MGAP] Código nacional de buenas prácticas forestales. Montevideo 2004, 80 pp.
55. Ministerio de Ganaderia, Agricultura y Pesca - Dirección Forestal [MGAP] Anuario estadístico agropecuario 2007. Montevideo 2007.
56. Ministerio de Ganaderia, Agricultura y Pesca - Dirección Forestal [MGAP] Anuario estadístico agropecuario 2009 Available at, [retrieved 1 December 2009]. http://www.mgap.gub.uy/diea.
57. Moran V.C., Hoffmann J.H., Donnelly D., van Wilgen B.V., Zimmermann H.G. Biological control of alien, invasive Pine trees (Pinus species) in South Africa. Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, 4-14 July 1999, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA 1999, 941-953pp.
58. Morgan M.G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A., Atman C.J. Risk communication. A mental models approach 2001, Cambridge University Press.
59. Nores M., Cerana M.M., Serra D.A. Dispersal of forest birds and trees along the Uruguay River in southern South America. Diversity and Distributions 2005, 11(3):205-217.
60. Ostrom E. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
61. Peng Y., Thomas S.C., Tian D. Forest management and soil respiration: Implications for carbon sequestration. Environmental Reviews 2008, 16:93-111.
62. Perz S.G. Grand theory and context-specificity in the study of forest dynamics: Forest transition theory and other directions. The Professional Geographer 2007, 59(1):105-114.
63. Pi Hugarte R. Los indios de Uruguay 1993, Mapfre, Madrid, 355 pp.
64. Piñeiro G., Paruelo J.M., Jobbagy E.G., Jackson R.B., Oesterheld M. Grazing effects on belowground C and N stocks along a network of cattle exclosures in temperate and subtropical grasslands of South America. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2009, 23:GB2003.
65. Richards M., Jenkins M. Potential and challenges of payments for ecosystem services from tropical forests. ODI Forestry Briefing paper 16 2007.
66. Richardson D.M. Forestry trees as invasive aliens. Conservation Biology 1998, 12(1):18-26.
67. Rudel T.K., Coomes O.T., Moran E., Achard F., Angelsen A., Xu J., Lambin E. Forest transitions: Towards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environmental Change 2005, 15:23-31.
68. Saarinen S., Kamppinen M. The models of nature and the politics of sustainable development in the Peruvian Amazon. International Journal Sustainable Society 2009, 1(4):311-324.
69. Sedjo R.A. The potential of high-yield plantation forestry for meeting timber needs. New Forests 1999, 17:339-359.
70. Shakesby R.A., Coelho C.O.A., Schnabel S., Keizer J.J., Clarke M.A., Contador J.F.L., Walsh R.P.D., Ferreira A.J.D., Doerr S.H. A ranking methodology for assessing relative erosion risk and its application to dehesas and montados in Spain and Portugal. Land Degradation and Development 2002, 13(2):129-140.
71. Silveira L., Alonso J. Runoff modifications due to the conversion of natural grasslands to forests in a large basin in Uruguay. Hydrological Processes 2009, 23(2):320-329.
72. Silveira L., Alondo J., Martinez L. Efecto de las plantaciones forestales sobre el recurso agua en el Uruguay. Agrociencia 2006, 2:75-93.
73. Skutsch M.M., van Laake P.E., Zahabu E.M., Karky B.S., Phartiyal P. Community monitoring in REDD+. Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options 2009, 101-112. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. A. Angelsen (Ed.).
74. Smith J., Scherr S.J. Forest carbon and local livelihoods: Assessment of opportunities and policy recommendations. CIFOR Occasional Paper no. 37 2002, Centre for International Forestry Research, Jakarta, Indonesia.
75. Spradley J. The Ethnographic Interview 1979, Holt Rinehart & Winston, Orlando.
76. Stora Enso Medio Antropico. Investigaciones de expertos nacionales para la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto Forestal de Stora Enso Uruguay 2007.
77. Stora Enso The potential environmental and social impacts of a plantation project in Uruguay - with tools for planning and monitoring. A report for Stora Enso: April 2009 2009, 318 pp.
78. Stora Enso, WWF Resultados talleres LOAM: La Paloma y Villa del Carmen. Durazno, Uruguay 2008, Septiembre 2008.
79. Urguiza Almandoz O.F., Gonzaga Cerrudo L. Historia de concepción del Uruguay. Entre Ríos 2002, 414 pp.
80. Van Dijk A.I.J.M., Keenan R.J. Planted forests and water in perspective. Journal of Hydrology 2007, 251:1-9.
81. Vatn A. Payments for environmental services: An institutional analysis. The 10th biennial conference of ISEE "Applying Ecological Economics for Social and Environmental Sustainability", Nairobi 2008, 7-11 August, 2008. 20 pp.
82. Vihervaara P., Kamppinen M. The Ecosystem Approach in Corporate Environmental Management - Expert Mental Models and Environmental Drivers in the Finnish Forest Industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2009, 16(2):79-93.
83. Vitousek P.M. Can planted forests counteract increasing atmospheric carbon-dioxide. Journal of Environmental Quality 1991, 20(2):348-354.
84. Von Stackelberg N.O., Chescheir G.M., Skaggs R.W., Amatya D.M. Simulation of the hydrologic effects of afforestation in the Tacuarembo River basin, Uruguay. Transactions of the ASABE 2007, 50(2):455-468.
85. Ward A.D., Trimble S.W. Environmental Hydrology 2003, Lewis Publishers CRC Press Company, London, New York, 472 pp.
86. World Bank Cumulative impact study Uruguay pulp mills. Annex B: Plantations 2006, International Finance Corporation, EcoMetrix, September 2006.
87. World Resources Institute Earth trends: The environmental information portal. Biodiversity and protected areas: country profile Uruguay 2009, Available at, [retrieved 1 December 2009]. http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/biodiversity-protected/country-profile-191.html.
88. Wright J.A., DiNicola A., Gaitan E. Latin American forest plantations: opportunities for carbon sequestration, economic development, and financial returns. Journal of Forestry 2000, September 20-23.