Benefits and Value of Big Trees in Urban Area: A Study in Bang Kachao Green Space, Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Green Space is very important for the conservation of biodiversity in the urban areas of Thailand. In the case of Bang Kachao, Green Space has been improved by the development of gardens in the city. The objective of this study focused on an evaluation of the benefits of big trees in the urban area at Bang Kachao Green Space, Samutprakan province. Data was collected from six types of tree habitat classified as road side, abandoned area, public area, private area, temple area, and park located across six sub districts of Bang Kachao. Data were analyzed to evaluate the monetary value of big trees from direct and indirect benefits in three parts consisting of timber value, carbon credits value, and spiritual value. The results reveal that the most valuable big trees are in the parks, followed by temple area, road side, private area, abandoned area, and public area respectively. The total monetary value of big trees was 23,447 USD of which timber value was 13,844 USD, carbon credits value was 7,309 USD, and spiritual value was 2,294 USD. The evaluation suggests that management of high value big trees in park, temple, and road side areas is important from a stakeholder perspective. The recommendations based on this study will help develop appropriate policies for sustaining ecosystem services and contributions to human wellbeing.
Article Details
Published articles are under the copyright of the Environment and Natural Resources Journal effective when the article is accepted for publication thus granting Environment and Natural Resources Journal all rights for the work so that both parties may be protected from the consequences of unauthorized use. Partially or totally publication of an article elsewhere is possible only after the consent from the editors.
References
2. Bank of Thailand. Exchange rate [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Nov 29]. Available from: https:// www.bot.or.th/thai/_layouts/application/exchangerate/exchangerate.aspx (in Thai)
3. California Climate Action Registry. California carbon dashboard carbon credit price 2017 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 1]. Available from: http://calcarbondash.org/
4. Cooper N, Brady E, Steen H, Bryce R. Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosystem Services 2016; 21:218-29.
5. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist E, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Gret-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, Dunk Avd. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2012;109(23):8812-9.
6. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. London; 2007.
7. Dwyer JF, Schroeder HW, Gobster PH. The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture 1991;17(10):276-84.
8. Endreny T, Santagata R, Perna A, Stefano CD, Rallo RF, Ulgiati S. Implementing and managing urban forests: A much needed conservation strategy to increase ecosystem services and urban wellbeing. Ecological Modelling 2017;360:328-35.
9. Food and Agriculture Organization. Building greener cities: nine benefits of urban trees [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Apr 4]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/zhc/detail-events/en/c/454543/
10. Hirano Y, Fujita T. Simulating the CO2 reduction caused by decreasing the air conditioning load in an urban area. Energy and Buildings 2016;114:87-95.
11. Husch B, Miller CI, Beers TW. Forest Mensuration. 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York; 1982.
12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. International Panel on Climate Change. IGES, Japan; 2006.
13. Kankam-Kwarteng C, Donkor J, Acheampong S. Determinants of wood prices: analysis of wood retailers in Kumasi. Journal of Business and Management 2016;4:36-44.
14. Laosuwan T, Uttaruk P, Klinhom U, Navanugraha C. The achievement of Inpang community network under participation in global warming mitigation through forest sector. Thaksin Journal 2013;16(2):44-54.
15. Le Roux DS, Ikin K, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Gibbons P. The future of large old trees in urban landscapes. PLoS ONE 2014;9(6):e99403.
16. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC, USA; 2005.
17. Mukherjee A. Importance of urban forestry with special reference to Kolkata. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science 2015;20(8):89-94.
18. Nesbitt L, Hotte N, Barron S, Cowan J, Sheppard S. The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: a review and suggestions for future research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2017;25:103-11.
19. Nowak DJ, Heisler GM. Air quality effects of urban trees and parks. National Recreation and Park Association; 2010.
20. Ogawa H, Yoda K, Ogino K, Kira T. Comparative ecological studies on three main types of forest vegetation in Thailand II. Plant Biomass. Nature and Life in Southeast Asia 1965;4:49-80.
21. Pandit R, Laband DN. Energy saving from tree shade. Ecological Economics 2010;69(2010):1324-9.
22. Phetrut A. Willingness to Pay for the Benefits of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Bang Ka Chao, Prapadang District, Samutprakarn Province. Report of the Royal Forest Department; 2016.
23. Royal Forest Department. Bang Krachao data 2017 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Sep 14]. Available from: https://www.forest.go.th/orip/index.php?option=com_conten&view=article&id=447 (in Thai)
24. Simpson JR, McPherson EG. Potential of tree shade for reducing residential energy use in California. Journal of Arboriculture 1996;22(1):10-8.
25. Singapore Botanic Gardens. History of Singapore botanic gardens [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 1]. Available from: https://www.sbg.org.sg
26. Small N, Munday M, Durance I. The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Global Environmental Change 2017;44:57-67.
27. Sun S, Xu X, Lao Z, Liu W, Li Z, Garcia EH, He L, Zhu J. Evaluating the impact of urban green space and landscape design parameters on thermal comfort in hot summer by numerical. Building and Environmental 2017;123:277-88.
28. Sutherland IJ, Gergel SE, Bennett EM. Seeing the forest for its multiple ecosystem services: indicators for cultural services in heterogeneous forests. Ecological Indicators 2016;71:123-33.
29. Tsutsumi T, Yoda K, Sahunalu P, Dhanmanonda P, Prachaiyo B. Forest: Felling, Burning and Regeneration. In: Kyuma K, Pairintra C, editors. Shifting Cultivation. Tokyo; 1983.
30. Varuwanshop. Price of cultural shopping 2017 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2017 Nov 29]. Available from: http://www.varuwan.com/ (in Thai)
31. World Wildlife Fund. 100% sustainable timber markets the economic and business case. UK; 2016.
32. Zhang X, Xu B, Wang L, Yang A, Yang H. Eliminating illegal timber consumption or production: which is the more economical means to reduce illegal logging? Forests 2016;7(191):1-13.