4.7 Article

Economic Valuation of Carbon Storage and Sequestration in Retezat National Park, Romania

期刊

FORESTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f12010043

关键词

ecosystem services; economic valuation; carbon storage; carbon sequestration; forest ecosystems

类别

资金

  1. Transilvania University of Brasov

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated carbon storage and sequestration in Retezat National Park, Romania, estimating the economic value and cross-validating the model using LiDAR technology. The results show comparable stocks of carbon with forest management plans, emphasizing the feasibility of financial mechanisms to direct ecosystem services values into ecosystem management.
Carbon storage and sequestration is one of the most important services provided by forest ecosystems, the most powerful tools for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Its value is not always captured and appreciated at a fair level, with people taking for granted these benefits provided by the ecosystems. Our first objective was to evaluate the amount of carbon storage and sequestration within a specific area-Retezat National Park (RNP), Romania, in a specific timeframe, using mainly the data from forest management plans. The second objective was to estimate the economic value of the carbon sequestered by the ecosystems within the national park. Based on the carbon market price, we calculated the monetary value of the sequestered carbon. The third objective was to cross-validate the model using mobile terrestrial LiDAR scanner 3D mapping technology in several field plots. Our results reveal comparable stocks of carbon with the ones modelled based on the forest management plans, enabling us to use these plans as an accurate source of information. The present study underlines that the financial effort for the management of the ecosystems which provide these services can be sustained by implementing financial mechanisms aiming to direct ecosystem services values into the management of these ecosystems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据