ارتباط کیفیت عرصۀ رویشگاهی و مقدار بهره‌‌برداری آنغوزه شیرین جهت تخمین مکانی ارزش اقتصادی آن در استان خراسان جنوبی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه محیط زیست، دانشکده منابع و محیط زیست، دانشگاه بیرجند

2 دانشکده منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست، دانشگاه بیرجند

3 استادیار گروه علوم و مهندسی محیط‌زیست، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه اردکان، اردکان، ایران

‎10.22052/deej.2025.255307.1070

چکیده

ارتباط کیفیت عرصۀ رویشگاهی و مقدار بهره‌‌برداری آنغوزه شیرین جهت تخمین مکانی ارزش اقتصادی آن در استان خراسان جنوبی

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Relationship between habitat quality and amount of exploitation of Ferula assafoetida to spatially estimate its economic value In South Khorasan Province

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fatemeh Jahanishakib 1
  • Mohammad Saghari 2
  • Tahere Ardakani 3
1 Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Birjand,
2 Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental studies, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran.
3 Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ardakan ‎University, P.O. Box 184, Ardakan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Quantifying ecosystem services within habitats provides a relative understanding of an ecosystem's status. However, for effective development, proper utilization, and informed decision-making, the spatial valuation of these services is essential after they have been quantified. Understanding the economic value of ecosystem services and biodiversity is crucial for several reasons. Notably, the persuasive power of economic language, specifically the monetary value that nature provides, serves as a powerful tool to communicate the importance of conservation to a broader, and often skeptical, audience. Consequently, when ecosystem service management becomes an institutional priority, various policies can be implemented to influence human interaction with the environment and to promote sustainable conservation planning of these valuable resources. This study aims to estimate the spatial economic value by quantifying habitat service quality in South Khorasan Province using the InVEST model.
 
Materials and Methods
This research focuses on the rangelands of South Khorasan Province. Specifically, the primary habitats of Ferula assafoetida are located in the Tabas and Boshruyeh counties. Initially, habitat quality was modeled using the InVEST method. This model is capable of assessing habitats based on human threats, the relative weight of each threat, land use, habitat sensitivity to threats, distance from habitat to threat sources, and habitat presence or absence. Subsequently, using reliable data on Ferula assafoetida harvesting in these rangelands, the relationship between habitat quality and plant yield was examined. This relationship was analyzed through spatial statistics, comparing habitat quality maps with the average yield in productive rangeland areas of Ferula assafoetida within the study area. The findings were then extrapolated to the entire rangeland area of Ferula assafoetida within the region, based on the derived regression equation. Finally, yield was estimated based on habitat quality and the corresponding spatial regression equation. In the final stage, using the pixel-level yield estimates and the market price of Ferula assafoetida products, the economic value of the rangeland areas was calculated.
Results
The threats identified in the habitat quality modeling included those arising from transportation (major roads, secondary roads, and railways), industry and mining, settlements, agriculture, dust sources, and grazing areas. Based on spatial statistical analysis, a spatial regression equation (Y = 0.000003 + 0.008542X) was derived, relating habitat quality maps to yield in productive areas. This equation was then extrapolated to the entire Ferula assafoetida rangeland area within the study region, and the estimated yield was mapped accordingly. Subsequently, the economic value of the Ferula assafoetida rangelands was determined based on the yield map and market prices, resulting in a pixel-level map illustrating the spatial distribution of economic value in millions of Rials. Spatial statistics indicated that the highest economic value within the studied pixels (900 square meters, equivalent to 0.09 hectares) was 0.085 million Rials, or 850,000 Rials. The mean and variance of the economic value in the rangeland areas were estimated to be 0.042 million Rials and 0.026 million Rials, respectively. The total economic value was estimated at 443,466.1 million Rials, approximately 0.44 trillion Rials.
 
Discussion and conclusion
The habitat service quality distribution map for South Khorasan Province, based on the habitat quality index, revealed that the majority of high-quality areas are concentrated in the northeastern part of the province. This concentration is attributed, in part, to the more favorable climate and higher average rainfall in these regions. Similar conditions are observed in the western-central part of the province, albeit these areas are situated within the desert regions of South Khorasan. Methodologically, this study diverges from other research, such as Sekouti Eskooie (2014), which utilized the soil quality index to evaluate rangeland production potential. While rangeland production potential represents another form of ecosystem service, this study focused on assessing the habitat quality index by considering habitat threat factors and sources, and habitat ecosystem services. Regarding the economic valuation of medicinal plants, numerous studies have been conducted, often overlooking the spatial aspect of habitat value. For example, Khosravi and Mehrabi (2005) performed an economic analysis of Ferula assafoetida harvesting in the Tabas region. Over a four-year harvesting period across seven Ferula assafoetida habitats in Tabas County, they reported a total revenue of approximately 6,030.5 million Rials, with a production yield of 96,440 kilograms. Although direct comparison between their findings and this study is challenging due to temporal and inflationary differences, the non-spatial and quantitative nature of their reported figures is evident. Employing such assessments provides policymakers with valuable information to balance financial benefits with the preservation of diverse plant species, especially in areas prone to land degradation. The innovative and practical approach of this study offers land managers a rapid understanding of the area, considering cost, time, and data volume constraints. A key advantage of this research is its potential to justify and promote the sustainable utilization of medicinal plants. This is crucial because economic development, job creation, and export promotion depend on awareness of ecosystem status and the value of medicinal plant habitats, which this study addresses.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Threat
  • Habitat service
  • South Khorasan
  • Market price
  • Benefit
  1. Abdullahi, S., & Ilderami, A. (2017). Valuation of ecosystem services; Concepts and methods. Scientific Journal of Man and Environment, 20(1), 1-18.
  2. Amirnejad, H., Atai Salut, K., & Zarandian, A. (2011). Economic valuation of environmental resources. Masih Publishing House, 432 Pp.
  3. Ataian, M., & Shaiste, K. (2023). Estimating willingness to pay for the protection and restoration of medicinal plants in Salas Babajani forest areas using conditional valuation method (CVM). Iranian Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research, 39(4), 534-550.
  4. Atkinson, G., Bateman, I. J., & Mourato, S. (2014). Valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. Nature in the balance: The economics of biodiversity, 28(1), 101-134.
  5. Badam Firouz. J., & Musa Zadeh, R. (2019). Providing a guide model for economic valuation and estimating the cost of damage to the native biological services of Iran's wetlands. Quarterly scientific journal of environment and cross-sectoral development, 67(1), 67-94.
  6. Barot, S., Yé, L., Abbadie, L., Blouin, M., & Frascaria-Lacoste, N. (2017). Ecosystem services must tackle anthropized ecosystems and ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering, 99(1), 486–495.
  7. Berta Aneseyee, A., Noszczyk, T., Soromessa, T., & Elias, E. 2020. The InVEST habitat quality model associated with land use/cover changes: A qualitative case study of the Winike Watershed in the Omo-Gibe Basin, Southwest Ethiopia. Remote Sensing, 12(7), 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12071103
  8. Brock, W. A., & Xepapadeas, A. (2003). Valuing biodiversity from an economic perspective: a unified economic, ecological, and genetic approach. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1597-1614.
  9. Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., & Hyde, T. (2006). Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological economics, 58(2), 304-317.
  10. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
  11. Forman, R. (2003). Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press. New York, New York.
  12. Guerry, A. D., Ruckelshaus, M. H., Arkema, K. K., Bernhardt, J. R., Guannel, G., Kim, C.-K., Marsik, M., Papenfus, M., Toft, J. E., & Verutes, G. (2012). Modeling benefits from nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8(1–2), 107–121.
  13. Issazadeh, S., Jalili Kamjo, S.P., Maddi, S., & Mahmoudinia, D. (2011). Selection test: Valuation of non-market (environmental) goods based on expressed preferences approach. Economics of natural resources, 9(1). 21-36.
  14. Khosravi, H., & Mehrabi, A.. (2006). Economic study of ferula harvesting in tabass region. Iranian journal of natural Resources, 58(4), 933-944.
  15. Khosravi Mashizi, A. (2014). Ecological assessment of shrublands in semi-arid areas with emphasis on ecosystem services (case study: Berdesir, Kerman province). Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Fisheries and Environment, Gorgan University of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
  16. Kremen, C. (2005). Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters, 8(5), 468–479.
  17. Kroeger, T., Loomis, J., & Casey, F. (2008). Introduction to the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit. National Council for Science and the Environment Wildlife Habitat Policy Research Program, Washington DC.35 Pp
  18. Kumar, P. (2012). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Routledge. 456 Pp
  19. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being (Vol. 5). Island press United States of America.
  20. Moghari, M. , Arzani, H. , Tavali, A. , Azarnivand, H. , Saravi, M. , & Farahpour, M. (2013). Identifying and determining the suitability of medicinal plants in Lasem Heraz watershed pastures, Amel city, Mazandaran province. Research of medicinal and aromatic plants of Iran, 30(6), 914-898.
  21. Motamedi, J., Arzani, H. , Asri, Y. , Najafpour Navaei, M., & Khalifazadeh, R. (2022). Evaluating the possibility of using medicinal plants in pasture habitats of the semi-steppe region based on ecological and economic indicators. Iranian Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research, 38(3), 373-389. doi:10.22092/ijmapr.2022.357110.3112.
  22. Nunes, P. A., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2001). Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?. Ecological economics, 39(2), 203-222.
  23. Sekoti Eskoi, R. (2013). Application of soil quality index to evaluate the production potential of pastures. Watershed Engineering and Management, 6(4), 201-311. doi: 10.22092/ijwmse.2015.100488.
  24. Sharp, R., Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D., Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Foster, J., Forrest, J., Cameron, D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., Verutes, G., Kim, C.K., Guannel, G., Papenfus, M., Toft, J., Marsik, M., Bernhardt, J., Griffin, R., Glowinski, K., Chaumont, N., Perelman, A., Lacayo, M. Mandle, L., Hamel, P., Vogl, A.L., Rogers, L., Bierbower, W., Denu, D., and Douglass, J. 2018. InVEST +VERSION+ User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University.
  25. Swift, M. J., Izac, A. M. N., & Van Noordwijk, M. (2004). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes - Are we asking the right questions?. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104(1), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.013
  26. Van Jaarsveld, A S, Biggs, R., Scholes, R. J., Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., Lynam, T., Musvoto, C., & Fabricius, C. (2005). Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SA f MA) experience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1454), 425–441.
  27. Yao, R. T., Scarpa, R., Turner, J. A., Barnard, T. D., Rose, J. M., Palma, J. H., & Harrison, D. R. (2014). Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecological Economics, 98(1), 90-101.
  28. Yin, L., Zheng, W., Shi, H., & Ding, D. (2022). Ecosystem services assessment and sensitivity analysis based on ANN model and spatial data: A case study in Miaodao Archipelago. Ecological Indicators, 135(1), 108511.