Forest ecosystem services – assessment methods

Open access


Forest ecosystems represent the most important values of natural assets. In economic valuation techniques, to estimate the value of forest ecosystem services, the attention is still focused mainly on their market values, i.e. the value of benefits measured in the economic calculation based, first of all, on the price of timber. The valuation of natural resources is currently supported by considerations of the global policy, in order to strengthen the argumentation justifying the need to incur expenditure related to the protection of biodiversity. There is increasing evidence that biodiversity contributes to forest ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Natural capital of forests can be consumed directly as food, wood and other raw materials or indirectly – by benefitting from purified water and air, safeguarded soils or protected climate. At the same time, forest ecosystems provide us with a range of intangible values – scientific, cultural, religious as well as encompass heritage to pass on to future generations. In the era of increasing pressure on the use of free public goods (natural resources), it is necessary to improve understanding of the role of forests in creating national natural capital, and in enhancing the quality of human life. All things considered, the so called non-market forest ecosystem services may have a much higher value than the profits from the production of timber and raw materials. Needless to say, non-market values of forest ecosystems are of great importance for the quality of human life, and the awareness of this should translate into social behavior in the use of natural resources. This paper reviews the methods to estimate the value of forest ecosystem services in view of recently acknowledged paradigm to move forward from economic production to sustainable human well-being.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ahlheim M. 1998. Contingent valuation and the budget constraint. Ecological Economics 27 (2) 25–211. Bartczak A. 2006. Wartość funkcji rekreacyjnej lasów w Polsce. Ekonomia i Środowisko 2 (30) 23–41.

  • Bartczak A. Lindhjem H. Navrud S. Zandersen M. Żylicz T. 2008. Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy. The Case of Poland. MPRA Paper No. 11483.

  • Bateman I.J. Langford I.H. 1997. Non-users’ Willingness to pay for a national park: an application and critique of contingent valuation method. Regional Studies 31 6

  • Constanza R. et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387.

  • Costanza R. Hart M. Posner S. Talberth J. 2009. Beyond GDP: The need for new measures of progress. The Pardee Papers 4. Boston University Creative Services. Trustees of Boston University.

  • Czajkowski M. Buszko-Briggs M. Hanley N. 2009. Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecological Economics 68 (12) 2910–2917.

  • Czajkowski M. 2013. Metody wyboru warunkowego i wyceny warunkowej. [07.09.2013].

  • De Groot R.S. Wilson M.A. Boumans R.M.J. 2002. A typology for the classification description and valuation of ecosystem functions goods and services. Ecological Economics 41 393–408.

  • Eckehard G. Brockerhof L. Castagneyrol B. Forrester D.I. Gardiner B. González-Olabarria J.R. Lyver P. Meurisse N. Oxbrough A. Taki H. Thompson I.D. Van der Plas F. Jactel H. 2017. Forest biodiversity ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation 26 (13) 3005–3035.

  • EEA. 2010. Scaling up ecosystem benefits: A contribution to the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study Ecosystems goods and services. EEA Report No 4/2010.

  • FOREST EUROPE. 2014. Expert Group and Workshop on pan-European approach to valuation of forest ecosystem services. Final report. Group of Experts (2012–2014) & Belgrade Workshop (Republic of Serbia) 24–25 September 2014.

  • Getzner M. 2009. Economic and cultural values related to protected areas. Part A: Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Tatra (PL) and Slovensky Raj (SK) National Parks Final report WWF-DCP Vienna.

  • Getzner M. 2010. Ecosystem services financing and the regional economy: A case study from Tatra National Park Poland. Biodiversity 11 1/2 55–61. DOI: 10.1080/14888386.2010.9712648

  • Giergiczny M. 2009. Rekreacyjna wartość Białowieskiego Parku Narodowego. Ekonomia i Środowisko 2 (36) 116–128.

  • Haines-Young R. Potschin M.B. 2017. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available from:

  • Holland D.N. Lilieholm R.J. Roberts D.W. 1994. Economic trade-offs of managing forests for timber production and vegetative diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24 (6) 1260–1265.

  • Hölzinger O. Dench D. 2011. The Economic Evaluation of Gwen Finch Wetland Reserve. Case Study for the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Worcester November 2011.

  • Hølleland H. Skrede J. Holmgaard S.B. 2017. Cultural heritage and ecosystem services: A literature review. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 19 (3) 210–237. DOI: 10.1080/13505033.2017.1342069

  • Johnston R.J. Wainger L.A. 2015. Benefit transfer for ecosystem service valuation: An introduction to theory and methods. In: The economics of non-market goods and resources. A guide for researchers and practitioners (eds.: J. Rolfe R.J. Johnston R.S. Rosenberger R. Brouwer) 237–273.

  • Juutinen A. 2008. Old-growth boreal forests: Worth protecting for biodiversity? Journal of Forestry Economics 14 (4) 242–267.

  • Klocek A. Płotkowski L. 1997. Las i jego funkcje jako dobro publiczne. In: Kongres leśników polskich. Materiały i dokumenty t. II cz. 2 (ed.: T. Borecki). Agencja Reklamowo-Wydawnicza A. Grzegorczyk Warszawa.

  • Klocek A. 2005. Wielofunkcyjność gospodarki leśnej – dylematy ekonomiczne. Sylwan 6 3–16.

  • Klocek A. Płotkowski L. 2007. Wyzwania przyszłości polskiego leśnictwa. In: Wyzwania przyszłości polskiego leśnictwa. Polskie Towarzystwo Leśne Kraków Poland.

  • Kostka M.S. 2008. Las jako kategoria ekonomii. Ekonomia i Środowisko 1 (33) 25–38.

  • MacMillan D.C. Hanley N.D. Lienhoop N. 2006. Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine? Ecological Economics 60 (1) 299–307.

  • Maes J. Liquete C. Teller A. Erhard M. Paracchini M.L. Barredo J.I. Grizzetti B. Somma F.A. Petersen J.E. Meiner A. Royo G.E. Zal N. Kristensen P. Bastrup-Birk A. Biala K. Piroddi Ch. Egoh B. Degeorges P. Fiorin C. Santos-Martín F. Naruševičius V. Verboven J. Pereira J.M. Bengtsson J. Gocheva K. Marta-Pedroso C. Snäll T. Estreguil C. San-Miguel-Ayanz J. Pérez-Soba M. Grêt-Regameyn A. Lillebøo A.I. Abdul Malak D. Condé S. Moenr J. Czúczs B. Drakou E.G. Zulian G. Lavalle C. 2016. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services 17 14–23.

  • Maguire J. 2009. Does mode matter? A comparison of telephone mail and in-person treatments in contingent valuation survey. Journal of Environmental Management 90 3528–3539.

  • Mandziuk A. Janeczko K. 2009. Turystyczne i rekreacyjne funkcje lasu w aspekcie marketingowym. Studia i Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Leśnej 11 4 (23) 65–66.

  • Marks-Bielska R. Zielińska A. 2014. Ocena wybranych metod szacowania pozaprodukcyjnych funkcji lasów. Ekonomia i Środowisko 1 34–45.

  • MEA. 2005. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.

  • Meyerhoff J. Liebe V. 2006. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics 57 (4) 583–594.

  • Ninan K.N. Inoue M. 2013. Valuing forest ecosystem services: What we know and what we don’t. Ecological Economics 93 137–149.

  • Ninan K.N. Kontoleon A. 2016. Valuing forest ecosystem services and disservices – Case study of a protected area in India. Ecosystem Services 20 1–14.

  • Norgaard R.B. 2009. Ecosystem services: From eyeopening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69 1219–1227. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009

  • Pearce D.W. Turner R.K. 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. JHU Press.

  • Pearce D.W. Atkinson G. Mourato S. 2006. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Recent developments. OECD Paris.

  • Pearse P.H. 1990. Introduction to Forestry Economics. University of British Columbia Press Vancouver.

  • Płotkowski L. 1996. Ekonomiczne aspekty ochrony różnorodności biologicznej lasu. In: Ochrona i zrównoważone użytkowanie lasów w Polsce. Fundacja IUCN Warszawa Poland.

  • Płotkowski L. 2008. Ekonomiczne aspekty oceny funkcji lasu czyli gospodarka leśna w koncepcji zrównoważonego rozwoju. Studia i Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Leśnej 10 3 (19) 252–272.

  • Poskrobko B. 2012. Metodyczne aspekty ekonomii zrównoważonego rozwoju. Ekonomia i Środowisko 3 (43) 10–27.

  • Smith R.I. Dick J.McP. Scott E.M. 2011. The role of statistics in the analysis of ecosystem services. Evironmetrics 22 (5) 608–617. DOI:10.1002/env.1107

  • TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature.

  • Tisdell C.A. 2007. Knowledge and the valuation of public goods and experiential commodities: information provision and acquisition. Global Business and Economics Review 9 (2/3) 170–182.

  • Turner K. 2010. A pluralistic approach to ecosystem services Evaluation. CSERGE Working Paper EDM No 10–07 CSERGE School of Environmental Sciences UEA Norwich

  • Ward F.A. Beal D. 2000. Valuing nature with travel cost models. A manual. New Horizons in Environmental Economics series Edward Elgar Cheltenham.

  • Venkatachalam L. 2004. The contingent valuation method. A review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 (1) 89–124.

  • Wróblewska A. 2014. Wartościowanie dóbr środowiskowych w świetle badań ankietowych według metody wyceny warunkowej. Woda-Środowisko-Obszary Wiejskie 14 2 (46) 155–171.

  • Welsh H. Kuhling J. 2008. Using happiness data for environmental valuation: issues and applications Journal of Economic Surveys 23 385–406.

  • Welsh H. 2009. Implications of happiness research for environmental economics. Ecological Economics 68 2735–2742.

  • Van der Plas F. et al. 2017. Continental mapping of forest ecosystem functions reveals a high but unrealised potential for forest multifunctionality. Ecology Letters 21 (1) 1–150.

  • Zawilińska B. 2015. Ekonomiczna wartość obszarów chronionych. Zarys problematyki i metodyka badań. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie 12 (936) 113–129.

  • Żylicz T. 2010. Wycena usług ekosystemów. Przegląd wyników badań światowych. Ekonomia i Środowisko 1 (37) 31–45.

  • Żylicz T. Giergiczny M. 2013 Wycena pozaprodukcyjnych funkcji lasu. Raport końcowy. Uniwersytet Warszawski Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych Warszawa Poland.

  • Żylicz T. 2013. Wycena usług ekosystemów leśnych. Panel Ekspertów: Wartość. Lasy jako czynnik rozwoju cywilizacji: współczesna i przyszła wartość lasów. Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa Sękocin Stary.


Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.67

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.312
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.569

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 105 105 3
PDF Downloads 187 187 12