10.57647/j.jrs.2025.1502.16

Valuation and conservation of the Peruvian Puna Ecosystem: Economic and ecological perspectives

PDF
  • Jorge Alarc´on-Novoa*1,
  • Enrique R. Flores2,
  • Cecilio Barrantes-Campos2,
  1. Department of Economics and Planning, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (UNALM), Peru
  2. Rangeland Ecology and Utilization Laboratory, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (UNALM), Peru

Received: 2024-02-16

Revised: 2024-06-21

Accepted: 2024-06-21

Published in Issue 2025-04-20

Copyright (c) -1 Jorge Alarc´on-Novoa, Enrique R. Flores, Cecilio Barrantes-Campos (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Alarc´on-Novoa, J., Flores, E. R., & Barrantes-Campos, C. (2025). Valuation and conservation of the Peruvian Puna Ecosystem: Economic and ecological perspectives. Journal of Rangeland Science, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.jrs.2025.1502.16
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 411

Abstract

Focusing on the Andean Puna ecosystem, a network of interconnected grasslands, wetlands, and shrublands, this review article examines how Andean communities in Peru perceive their economic value. The Puna’s ecological services are crucial, making it a vital natural resource. The research was conducted by the authors in two Peruvian regions (Ancash in 2014 and Pasco in 2011) and we compared residents’ perceptions of the grasslands’ economic value and the indirect environmental benefits they provide. Both studies utilized the well-established contingent valuation method, as common tool in economic valuation. Interestingly, while residents in both regions expressed a willingness to pay for these services, the amounts differed significantly (US$ 1.60 per  household/month in Pasco compared to $ 0.82 in Ancash). This disparity suggests that environmental context, the directness with which communities experience benefits, and variations in social environments and economic activities all play a role in shaping  perceptions. The study emphasizes the importance of increasing education and awareness to ensure communities fully appreciate the valuable environmental products and services provided by the Puna ecosystem.

Keywords

  • Puna ecosystem,
  • Grassland economic valuation,
  • Ecosystem services,
  • Andean communities,
  • Peru
PDF

References

  1. Alarcón J.A, Flores E.R., Barrantes, C. 2018. Determination of the Availability of Payment for Conservation and Improvement Activities of Wetlands Ecosystem of the Huaraz City, Peru. Journal of Environmental Pollution Management, 1: 105.
  2. Arzamendia, Y., Rojo, V., Gonzalez, N.M., Baldo, J.L., Zamar, M.I., Lamas, H.E., Vila, B.L. 2021. The Puna Pastoralist System: A Coproduced Landscape in the Central Andes. Mountain Research and Development, 41(4): R38–R49. Doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-21-00023.1.
  3. Barrantes, C., Flores, E.R. 2013. Estimando la disposición a pagar por la conservación de los pastizales altoandinos. Ecología Aplicada, 12(2): 91-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21704/rea.v12i1-2.442.
  4. Bengtsson, J., Bullock, J.M., Egoh, B., Everson, C., Everson, T., O’connor, T., Lindborg, R. 2019. Grasslands: more important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere, 10(2): e02582. Doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2582.
  5. Bishop, R., Heberlein, T. 1979. Measuring values of extra market goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 39(3): 263-88. Doi.org/10.2307/3180348.
  6. Cooper, J. 1993. Optimal bid design for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 24: 25-40.
  7. Finkelstein, A., Hendren, N. 2020. Welfare analysis meets causal inference. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(4):146-67. DOI:10.1257/jep.34.4.146.
  8. Flores, E. 2016. Cambio Climático: pastizales altoandinos y seguridad alimentaria. Revista de Glaciares y Ecosistemas de Montaña, 2016(1): 73-80. DOI: 10.36580/rgem.i1.73-80.
  9. Gujarati, D., Porter, D. 2009. Basic Econometrics. McGraw-Hill /Interamerican Ed. S.A. 5th. Edition. https://cbpbu.ac.in/userfiles/file/2020/STUDY_MAT/ECO/1.pdf.
  10. Greene, W. 2018. Econometric Analysis. Pearson Editorial. 8Th Edition. New York. ISBN-10: 0134461363.
  11. Hanemann, M. W. 1984. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3): 332-341. Doi.org/10.2307/1240800.
  12. Ignatyeva, M., Yurak, V., Dushin, A. 2022. Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use. Sustainability, 14(2): 1901. Doi.org/10.3390/su14031901.
  13. Instituto Nacional de Investigación en Glaciares y Ecosistemas de Montaña (INAIGEM). 2023. Memoria Descriptiva del Inventario Nacional de Bofedales del Perú, 2023. https://doi.org/10.36580/inaigem.document16.
  14. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI). 2020. Estado de la población peruana. Lima – Perú. https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1743/Libro.pdf.
  15. Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM). 2019. Mapa Nacional de Ecosistemas del Perú. Memoria Descriptiva. Lima, Peru. https://cdn.www.gob.pe/uploads/document/file/309735/Memoria_descriptiva_mapa_Nacional_de_Ecosistemas.pdf.
  16. Ning, J., Jin, J., Kuang, F., Wan, X., Zhang, C., Guan, T. 2019. The valuation of grassland ecosystem services in Inner Mongolia of China and its spatial differences. Sustainability, 11(24), 7117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247117.
  17. Plataniaa, M., Rizzo, M. 2018. Willingness to pay for protected areas: A case of Etna Park. Ecological Indicators, 93(3): 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.079.
  18. Schmidt, J., Bijmolt, T.H.A. 2020. Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00666-6
  19. Scholtz, R., Twidwell, D. 2022. The last continuous grasslands on Earth: Identification and conservation importance. Conservation Science and Practice, 4, e626. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.626.
  20. Vasquez, F., Cerda, A., Orrego, S. 2007. Valoración económica del ambiente. Thomson Learning Editores.
  21. Villena, M., Lafuente, E. 2013. “Valoración económica de bienes ambientales por beneficiarios circundantes y no circundantes”. Cuadernos de Economía, 32(59): 67-101. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4359273.
  22. Young, K.R., Alata, E., Chimner, R.A., Boone, R.B., Bowser, G., Bourgeau-Chavez, L. and Zarria-Samanamud, M. 2023. Ecological Change and Livestock Governance in a Peruvian National Park. Land, 12, 2051. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112051.
  23. Zhao, Y., Liu, Z., Wu, J. 2020. Grassland ecosystem services: a systematic review of research advances and future directions. Landscape Ecology, 35, 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-00980-3.