Nutritious or Nuisance on Net?

Values of Natural Capital in a Competitive Terrestrial Rangeland Ecosystem

by Aaron Strong, Craig A. Bond

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.4 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Rangelands across the western United States provide considerable benefits. However, with nitrogen deposition, climate change and invasive species, the composition of these grassland ecosystems have experienced changes in the flow of services that they provide and, in turn, in the value of the natural capital that characterized the ecosystem. Expanding on the methods developed in Fenichel and Abbott (2014) in conjunction with a General Equilibrium Ecosystem Model (GEEM), we illustrate how the value of these grassland ecosystems may change as invasive species alter the landscape. In particular, by modeling three grass species as opposed to a single grass stock, we are able to identify two major sources of value to the system. First, grasses that provide nutritional value to cattle stocked on the rangeland provide a final ecosystem service value. Second, different populations of grass species competing for energy against other species can both provide both positive and negative values from these indirect, supporting ecosystem services. Our results show that even with positive nutrition values, competition effects can render the total marginal value of some grasses negative depending on the state of the ecosystem. Finally, we provide a validation check to the method by noting that the value of the land estimated by the extension of the Fenichel and Abbott method for a relatively intact native grass ecosystem corresponds almost exactly to land prices observed for agricultural rangeland in Wyoming.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Rangeland Ecosystem Model

  • Chapter Three

    Numerical Approximation of the Value Function

  • Chapter Four

    Choice of Nodes and Evaluation of Ecosystem Model

  • Chapter Five

    Results

  • Chapter Six

    Discussion and Conclusion

This research was conducted by RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers' latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but may not have been formally edited or peer reviewed.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.