Can payments solve the problem of undersupply of ecosystem services?

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 35, Issue , 2013, Pages 83-91

  Robert, Nicolas ^a,b,c   Stenger, Anne ^b,c  

^a INSTITUT GÉOGRAPHIQUE NATIONAL   (France)

^b CEMAGREF   (France)

^c AGROPARISTECH   (France)

Author keywords

Bundling; Economic modeling; Ecosystem services; Joint production; Payment; Stacking

Indexed keywords

BUNDLING; ECONOMIC MODELING; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; JOINT PRODUCTION; PAYMENT; STACKING;

BIODIVERSITY; ECONOMICS; FORESTRY; PROFITABILITY;

COSTS;

BIODIVERSITY; COSTS; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEMS; PAYMENT; PRODUCTION CONTROL; PROFITABILITY; STACKING;

EID: 84882662880     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.06.012     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Asquith N.M., Vargas M.T., Wunder S. Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):675-684.
2. Barton D.N., Faith D.P., Rusch G.M., Acevedo H., Paniagua L., Castro M. Environmental service payments: evaluating biodiversity conservation trade-offs and cost-efficiency in the Osa conservation area, Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90(2):901-911.
3. Bishop J., Landell-Mills N. Forests environmental services: an overview. Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development 2002, Earthscan Ltd, UK. S. Pagiola, J. Bishop, N. Landell-Mills (Eds.).
4. Boscolo M., Vincent J. Nonconvexities in the production of timber, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 46(2):251-268.
5. Burton A., Chilton S., Jones M. The WTP/WTA discrepancy: a preliminary qualitative examination. Environmental Values 2000, 9(4):481-491. (Nov).
6. Calkin D.E., Montgomery C.A., Schumaker N.H., Polasky S., Arthur J.L., Nalle D.J. Developing a production possibility set of wildlife species persistence and timber harvest value. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2002, 32(8):1329-1342.
7. Coase R.H. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 1960, 3:1-44.
8. de Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 2002, 41(3):393-408.
9. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):663-674.
10. Fare R., Grosskopf S., Lovell C.A.K., Pasurka C. Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable - a nonparametric approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1989, 71(1):90-98.
11. Faustmann M. Calculation of the value which forest land and immature stands possess fo forestry. Allgemeine Forst und Jagd Zeitung 1849, 441-455.
12. Giampietro M. Socioeconomic constraints to farming with biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 1997, 62(2-3):145-167.
13. Gibbons J.M., Nicholson E., Milner-Gulland E.J., Jones J.P.G. Should payments for biodiversity conservation be based on action or results?. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48(5):1218-1226.
14. Gregersen H., El Lakany H., Karsenty A., White A. Does the opportunity cost approach indicate the real cost of REDD+? Rights and realities of paying for REDD+. Tech. Rep., Rights and Resources 2010, CIRAD, (http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/index.php?pubID=1555).
15. Hailu A. Pollution abatement and productivity performance of regional Canadian pulp and paper industries. Journal of Forest Economics 2003, 9(1):5-25.
16. Hotelling H. Letter of June 18, 1947, to Newton B. Drury. Tech. rep., National Park Service, included in the report. The Economics of Public Recreation: An Economic Study of the Monetary Evaluation of Recreation in the National Parks, 1949 1947, Land and Recreational Planning Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., (Mimeographed).
17. Jacobsen J.B., Boiesen J.H., Thorsen B.J., Strange N. What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus 'iconised' species when valuing biodiversity. Environmental and Resource Economics 2008, 39(3):247-263.
18. Jaffe A., Newell R., Stavins R. Environmental policy and technological change. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:41-70. 10.1023/A:1015519401088.
19. Juutinen A., Luque S., Monkkonen M., Vainikainen N., Tomppo E. Cost-effective forest conservation and criteria for potential conservation targets: a Finnish case study. Environmental Science and Policy 2008, 11(7):613-626.
20. Kant S. The marginal cost of structural diversity of mixed uneven-aged hard maple forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2002, 32(4):616-628.
21. Kemkes R.J., Farley J., Koliba C.J. Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecological Economics 2010, 69(11):2069-2074.
22. Kline J.D., Alig R.J., Johnson R.L. Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat. Ecological Economics 2000, 33(1):29-43.
23. Knetsch J. Outdoor recreation demands and benefits. Land Economics 1963, 39(4):387-396.
24. Knetsch J., Sinden J. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded - experimental-evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1984, 99(3):507-521.
25. Lichtenstein M.E., Montgomery C.A. Biodiversity and timber in the coast range of Oregon: inside the production possibility frontier. Land Economics 2003, 79(1):56-73.
26. Martinez Cruz D., Bustamante González A., Jaramillo Villanueva J., Silva Gómez S., Tornero Campante M., Vargas López S. Willingness to accept payments by forest owners for maintaining hydrologic environmental services. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 2010, 12(3). (http://www.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.php/TSA/article/view/489).
27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Current State and Trends 2005, Island Press, Washington DC.
28. Mitchell R., Carson R. Evaluating the validity of contingent valuation studies. Amenity Resource Valuation: ntegrating Economics with Other Disciplines 1988, 187-200. Venture Publishing Co., State College, PA. G. Peterson, B. Driver, R. Gregory (Eds.).
29. Montgomery C.A. Compatibility of timber and conservation: tracing the tradeoff frontier. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report Pacific Northwest 2002, vol. 563:225-232. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland. A. Johnson, R. Haynes, R. Monserud (Eds.).
30. Montgomery C.A., Brown G.M., Adams D.M. The marginal cost of species preservation - the northern spotted owl. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26(2):111-128.
31. Nalle D.J., Montgomery C.A., Arthur J.L., Polasky S., Schumaker N.H. Modeling joint production of wildlife and timber. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2004, 48(3):997-1017.
32. Nelson E., Polasky S., Lewis D.J., Plantinga A.J., Lonsdorf E., White D., Bael D., Lawler J.J. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105(28):9471-9476.
33. Pagiola S., Platais G. Payments for environmental services. Environment Strategy Notes 3, 4 2002, World Bank.
34. Peters C.M., Gentry A.H., Mendelsohn R.O. Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature 1989, 339(6227):655-656.
35. Piot-Lepetit I., Le Moing M. Productivity and environmental regulation: the effect of the nitrates directive in the French pig sector. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 38(4):433-446.
36. Polasky S., Nelson E., Camm J., Csuti B., Fackler P., Lonsdorf E., Montgomery C., White D., Arthur J., Garber-Yonts B., Haight R., Kagan J., Starfield A., Tobalske C. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation 2008, 141(6):1505-1524.
37. Robert N. Sustaining the supply of multiple ecosystem services - an analysis based on the simulation of the joint production of wood and non-wood goods in forests 2013, Thesis manuscript. 216 pp.
38. Robert N., Stenger A. Compatibility between timber, biodiversity and recreation productions in forests: modeling the production set. 19th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), Prague, Czech Republic 2012.
39. Stenger A. Vers le paiement des services environnementaux, coase encore et toujours. Revue orestière Française LXIV - 3- 2012, 225-233.
40. Stone M., Reid R. Opportunity costs of spotted owl management options for British Columbia. Canadian Public Policy 1997, 23(1):69-82.
41. Swallow S.K., Parks P.J., Wear D.N. Policy-relevant nonconvexities in the production of multiple forest benefits. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1990, 19(3):264-280.
42. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations 2010, A TEEB volume, Earthscan Ltd, UK. P. Kumar (Ed.).
43. Toth Sandor F., McDill Marc E. Finding efficient harvest schedules under three conflicting objectives. Forest Science 2009, 55(2):117-131.
44. Vincent J.R., Binkley C.S. Efficient multiple-use forestry may require land-use specialization. Land Economics 1993, 69(4):370-376.
45. Wossink A., Swinton S.M. Jointness in production and farmers' willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 2007, 64(2):297-304.
46. WRI Stacking payments for ecosystem services. WRI Fact Sheet 2009.
47. Wunder S. Payments for environmental se ices: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper 2005, 42. CIFOR, Bogor, (http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf).
48. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 2007, 21(1):48-58.
49. Zelek C.A., Shively G.E. Measuring the opportunity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical agriculture. Land Economics 2003, 79(3):342-354.
50. Zhang D., Stenger A. Value and valuation of forest ecosystem services. Working Paper 2012, (22 pp.).