Silvio Viglia, Pier Paolo Franzese, Amalia Zucaro, Andrzej Nienartowicz, Mieczysław Kunz and Sergio Ulgiati

Trends and Future of Sustainable DevelopmentTampere, Finland, 9-10 June 2011Tampere, Finland, 9-10 June 2011

HOW AND HOW MUCH CAN FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

SUPPORT A SUSTAINABLE LIVING IN INDUSTRIALIZED SOCIETIES?

silvio.viglia@uniparthenope.itsilvio.viglia@uniparthenope.it

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

A) HOW TO MEASURE THE NATURAL CAPITAL AND HOW TO COMPARE IT WITH THE HUMAN-BUILT CAPITAL;

B) HOW TO MEASURE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES;

C) HOW TO MEASURE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS;

D) IS IT WORTH TO INVEST INTO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

CASE STUDY:

BORY TUCHOLSKIE NATIONAL PARK

Located in the northern Poland,Pomerania region, is the main core area of the Biosphere Reserve Tuchola Forest.

MAIN OBJECTIVE

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A BIOPHYSICAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A BIOPHYSICAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ABLE TO EXPLORE BOTH NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES ABLE TO EXPLORE BOTH NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES

WITHIN AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK. WITHIN AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK.

• TO STUDY THE ENERGY METABOLISM OF A NATURAL PARK, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE EVALUATION OF NATURAL CAPITAL AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES.

• TO CALCULATE INDICATORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY FOR THE MAIN ACTIVITIES, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES GENERATED BY THE INVESTIGATED SYSTEM.

• TO ASSESS THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF A NATURAL PARK RESOURCES, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THEIR POTENTIAL IN SUPPORT OF A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY (ECOTOURISM , AGRO-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, ETC.).

Total area: 4613 ha85% forests11.5% lakes

Bory Tucholskie National Park

Provisioning services:- Wood- Forage

Provisioning services:-Fishing-Hunting

Cultural services:-Educational activities

- Tourism

UPSTREAM METHODS

Embodied Energy Analysis Accounts for the total commercial energy directly and indirectly used up over the production chain of a product. It is also a proxy for a process contribution to the depletion of fossil fuels. (Herendeen, 1998)

Emergy SynthesisEmergy is the total amount of available energy of one kind (usually solar) that is directly or indirectly required to make a given product or to support a given flow. Due to its reference to solar energy, it is also used as a measure of environmental support. (Odum, 1996)

Material Flow Accounting Accounts for the materials directly and indirectly supplied to a process, and diverted from their natural pattern. TMR has been suggested as a measure of environmental disturbance, so-called “environmental backpack”. (Hinterberger and Stiller, 1998)

CML 2 (baseline 2000) Method Withdrawals and emissions are assigned to ecological impact categories. Environmental impacts associated to airborne, liquid and solid emissions by a process are evaluated and described by means of appropriate indicators. Indicators are based on equivalency factors to reference compounds, the contribution of which to the relative impact category is well known. (Centre of Environmental Science of Leiden University, NL, 2001)

Eco-indicator 99 method. Withdrawals and emissions are assigned to three main impact categories (Human health, Ecosystem Integrity and Resource depletion). Indicators are based on impact factors from previous ecological, ecotoxicological and resource availability studies.

DOWNSTREAM METHODS

2. Data collection (on field, statistical, GIS)

6.Trends and Procedures for

multiple optimization

3. Calculation Procedures and Tables

4. Results and Indicators

•Energy• Material Flows• Emergy• Emissions

SUMMA: how it works1. Identification of the

problem and design of a system diagram

Renewable Sources

NaturalEcosystems

Agriculture

Commerce& Industry

Infra-Structure

PeopleGov't

$

Waste

Fuel Goods Services

People

Support Region

City

GreenSpace

7. Assessing complexity and dynamics of the

system.Suggesting optimization patterns

THE SYSTEM DIAGRAM:

RESULTS: Embodied Energy

g oil eq. J

unit/g 1.10 4.60E+04unit/J 7.98E-05 3.34

unit/g 0.02 822.15unit/J 9.82E-07 0.04

unit/g 0.15 6.21E+03unit/J 1.24E-05 0.52

Tourism and educational activities unit/person/day 37.69 1.58E+06

Total energy demand of the Park unit/yr 3.61E+07 1.51E+12

ENERGY INDICATORS

Fishery and hunting products

Forestry products

Agricultural products

RESULTS: Embodied matter

g abiotic g water

g/g 5.68 64.61g/J 5.08E-12 4.69E-03

g/g 0.10 1.16g/J 5.08E-06 5.78E-05

g/g 0.77 8.72g/J 6.39E-05 7.27E-04

Tourism and educational activities g/person/day 194.89 2.22E+03

Cumulative material demand g/yr 1.87E+08 2.12E+09

MATERIAL INDICATORS

Fishery and hunting products

Forestry products

Agricultural products

RESULTS: Emergy (Embodied environmental support and time)

Re ne wable Input (locally available)

Sun J/yr 1.37E+17 1 1.37E+17

Wind J/yr 5.67E+15 2.51E+03 1.42E+19

Rainfall (Evapotranspiration) J/yr 5.66E+13 3.05E+04 1.73E+18

Geothermal flow J/yr 5.82E+13 1.20E+04 6.98E+17

Total Re ne wable Input (only the largest flow, to avoid double counting) 1.42E+19

Non-re ne wable Input (locally available)

Wood g/yr 3.72E+07 5.04E+04 1.88E+12

Importe d Input

Diesel and heavy fuels J/yr 5.70E+11 1.11E+05 6.31E+16

Gasoline J/yr 1.62E+11 1.11E+05 1.80E+16

L.P.G. J/yr 1.42E+11 1.18E+05 1.67E+16

Electricity J/yr 1.30E+11 2.79E+05 3.63E+16

Water (from acqueduct) g/yr 1.44E+08 7.61E+05 1.10E+14

Asphalt g/yr 6.12E+07 9.56E+09 5.85E+17

Steel and Iron g/yr 1.10E+06 5.31E+09 5.86E+15

Alluminum g/yr 1.88E+05 3.25E+10 6.13E+15

Rubber and plastic material g/yr 1.35E+04 3.69E+09 4.96E+13

Copper g/yr 4.04E+04 3.36E+09 1.36E+14

Total Importe d Input 7.31E+17

Labor €/yr 4.20E+05 7.55E+12 3.17E+18

Services €/yr 4.84E+05 7.55E+12 3.65E+18

Total Eme rgy with Labor & Se rvice s 2.18E+19

Total Eme rgy w/o Labor & Se rvice s 1.50E+19

Products and Se rvice s ge ne rate d

Mass of fishery and hunting products g/yr 1.10E+06 1.99E+13

Mass of forestry products g/yr 1.38E+09 1.58E+10

Mass of agricultural products g/yr 4.21E+07 5.18E+11

Tourists & Students n°/year 4.19E+04 5.20E+14

Net Primary Production (NPP) g/yr 1.39E+10 1.02E+09 1.42E+19

Standing wood biomass g 5.24E+11 1.02E+09 5.37E+20

Economic investment from Government €/yr 7.81E+05 7.55E+12 5.90E+18

Ite ms UnitsRaw

amount

Eme rgy

Inte sity (se J/unit)

Eme rgy (se J/yr)

RESULTS: Breakdown into environmental support categories

RESULTS:Emergy-basedPerformanceindicators

with L&S w/o L&S

seJ/€ 5.33E+15 3.66E+15seJ/g 1.99E+13 1.37E+13seJ/J 1.44E+09 9.92E+08

seJ/€ 2.37E+14 1.63E+14seJ/g 1.58E+10 1.09E+10seJ/J 7.90E+05 5.43E+05

seJ/€ 1.03E+15 7.05E+14seJ/g 5.18E+11 3.55E+11seJ/J 4.31E+07 5.43E+05

Tourism and educational activities seJ/person 5.20E+14 3.57E+14Extensive indicators

Local renewable inputs, R seJ/yrLocal nonrenewable inputs, N seJ/yrPurchased inputs, F seJ/yrDirect Labor, L seJ/yrIndirect labor (Services, S) seJ/yrTotal emergy inputs , U= (R+N+F+L+S) seJ/yr

with L&S w/o L&S

Emergy Yield Ratio U/(F+L+S) 2.88 20.46Environmental Loading Ratio (N+F+L+S)/(R) 0.53 0.05%REN 1/(1+ELR) 65% 95%ESI EYR/ELR 5.43 398.05

Forestry products

Agricultural products

3.17E+183.65E+182.18E+19

7.31E+17

EMERGY INDICATORS

1.42E+191.88E+12

Fishery and hunting products

CML2 - baseline 2000 INDICATO RS GWP 100yr (g CO 2 eq.)

Acidification (g SO 2 eq.)

Fishery and Hunting Emissions allocated to the sector in the Park 3.64E+06 2.58E+04 Emissions per gram of product 3.33 0.02 Forestry Emissions allocated to the sector in the Park 8.19E+07 5.81E+05 Emissions per gram of product 0.06 4.22E -04 Agriculture Emissions allocated to the sector in the Park 1.89E+07 1.34E+05 Emissions per gram of product 0.45 3.18E -03 Tourism and educational activities Emissions allocated to the se ctor in the Park 4.78E+06 3.39E+04 Emissions per visitor per day 114.10 0.81

RESULTS: Airborne emissions

CONCLUSIONS:

Monitoring energy and material costs over time would allow to ascertain to what extent the Park management is resource-efficient

The Bory Tucholskie National Park showed a good environmental performance but a problem arises when the focus is placed on the economic self-sufficiency. Nevertheless assessing the benefits of a park only in terms of economic return prevents a proper understanding of the complexity of ecosystem services

If the emergy equivalent value of the investment from Government, is compared with the emergy value of the business generated (fishery, hunting, forestry and tourism) as well as the emergy values of the ecosystem services, and biomass standing storage, it comes out that business, ecosystem services and biomass storage are respectively 3.7, 2.4 and 91 times the governmental investment. This result confirms the advantage and benefits of investing into natural capital conservation.

THANK YOU FOR THE ATTENTION!

silvio.viglia@uniparthenope.it