Payments for ecosystem services (PES): a flexible, participatory, and integrated approach for improved conservation and equity outcomes

Environment, Development and Sustainability

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 617-644

  Wegner, Giulia Irene ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Deliberative participation; Distributive equity; Economic efficiency; Government and governance; Motivation crowding in crowding out effects; Payments for ecosystem services; Regulatory pluralism; Rural development

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION PLANNING; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EQUITY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INSTITUTIONAL REFORM; INTEGRATED APPROACH; LAND USE PLANNING; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; NATIONAL STRATEGY; REGULATORY APPROACH; RURAL DEVELOPMENT; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS;

EID: 84930328234     PISSN: 1387585X     EISSN: 15732975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10668-015-9673-7     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. Adhikari, B., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Understanding the social and ecological outcomes of PES projects: A review and an analysis. Conservation and Society,11(4), 359–374.
2. Adhikari, B., & Boag, G. (2013). Designing payments for ecosystem services schemes: Some considerations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,5(1), 72–77.
3. Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development,27(4), 629–649.
4. Akram-Lodhi, A. H., Kay, C., & Borras, S. M. (2009). The political economy of land and the agrarian question in an era of neoliberal globalization. In A. H. Akram-Lodhi & C. Kay (Eds.), Peasants and globalization: Political economy, rural transformation and the agrarian question. London: Routledge.
5. Andersson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analysing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences,41(1), 71–93.
6. Arrow, K. J. (1969). The organization of economic activity: Issues pertinent to the choice of market versus nonmarket allocation. In The analysis and evaluation of public expenditures: The PBB system. Joint Economic Committee Compendium, 91st Congress, 1st Section, Vol. 1. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
7. Asquith, N., Vargas, M., & Wunder, S. (2008). Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics,65(4), 675–684.
8. Asquith, N., Vargas-Ríos, M., & Smith, J. (2002). Can forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project, Bolivia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,7, 323–337.
9. Barrett, C. B., Brandon, K., Gibson, C., & Gjertsen, H. (2001). Conserving tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. BioScience,51(6), 497–502.
10. Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behaviour. American Economic Review,96(5), 1652–1678.
11. Bennett, M. T. (2008). China’s sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecological Economics,65, 700–712.
12. Beymer-Farris, B. A., & Bassett, T. J. (2012). The REDD menace: Resurgent protectionism in Tanzania’s mangrove forests. Global Environmental Change,22, 332–341.
13. Binot, A., Blomley, T., Coad, L., Nelson, F., Roe, D., & Sandbrook, C. (2009). The ‘3Es’—Empowerment, economics, environment. In D. Roe, F. Nelson, & C. Sandbrook (Eds.), Community management of natural resources in Africa: Impacts, experiences and future directions. IIED: UK.
14. Blomley, T. (2013). The view from the mountain top. Lessons learned from the equitable payment for watershed services (EPWS) project, Tanzania. Copenhagen: CARE Denmark.
15. Bond, I., & Mayers, J. (2010). Fair deals for watershed services: Lessons from a multi-country action-learning project. Natural Resource Issues No. 13. IIED, London.
16. Bowles, S., & Polonía-Reyes, S. (2012). Economic incentives and social preferences: Substitutes or complements? Journal of Economic Literature,50(2), 368–425.
17. Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., & Lopez-Carr, D. (2014). What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy,36, 122–133.
18. Bromley, D. W. (1997). Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond ‘market failure’. Ecological Economics,63, 676–683.
19. Cardenas, J. C., Stranlund, J., & Willis, C. (2000). Local environmental control and institutional crowding-out. World Development,28, 1719–1733.
20. Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S., & McDermott, C. (2007). Can non-state governance ‘ratchet up’ global environmental standards? Lessons from the forest sector. Reciel,16(2), 158–171.
21. Claassen, R., Cattaneo, A., & Johansson, R. (2008). Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: US experience in theory and practice. Ecological Economics,65, 737–752.
22. Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics,3, 1–44.
23. Coomes, O. T., Grimard, F., Potvin, C., & Sima, P. (2008). The fate of the tropical forest: Carbon or cattle? Ecological Economics,65(2), 207–212.
24. Corbera, E., Brown, K., & Adger, W. N. (2007). The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change,38(4), 587–613.
25. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science,302(5652), 1907–1912.
26. Dobson, A. (1998). Justice and the environment. Conceptions of environmental sustainability and dimensions of social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Dougill, A. J., Stringer, L. C., Leventon, J., Riddell, M., Rueff, H., Spracklen, D. V., & Butt, E. (2012). Lessons from community-based payment for ecosystem service schemes: From forests to rangelands. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,367, 3178–3190.
28. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Duchelle, A. E., Cromberg, M., Gebara, M. F., Guerra, R., Melo, T., Larson, A., et al. (2014). Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: Lessons from REDD+ initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development,55, 53–67.
30. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics,65, 663–674.
31. Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review,96(5), 1611–1630.
32. Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics,69(11), 2060–2068.
33. Ferraro, P. J. (2008). Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics,65, 810–821.
34. Fisher, J. (2012). No pay, no care? A case study exploring motivations for participation in payments for ecosystem services in Uganda. Oryx,46(1), 45–54.
35. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2007). The state of food and agriculture 2007: Paying farmers for environmental services. FAO Agriculture Series No. 38.
36. Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys,15(5), 589–611.
37. Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out. American Economic Review,87, 746–755.
38. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2006). Environmental morale and motivation. Working Paper No. 288. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
39. García-Amado, L. R., Ruiz Pérez, M., Reyes Escutia, F., Barrasa García, S., & Contreras Mejía, E. (2011). Efficiency of payments for environmental services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a biosphere reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics,70(12), 2361–2368.
40. García-Amado, L., Ruiz Pérez, M., & Barrasa García, S. (2013). Motivation for conservation: assessing integrated conservation and development projects and payments for environmental services in La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics, 89, 92–100.
41. Gatzweiler, F. W. (2006). Organizing a public ecosystem service economy for sustaining biodiversity. Ecological Economics,59(3), 296–304.
42. Gawel, E. (2000). Sind Probleme intrinsischer Motivation für die Umweltpolitik relevant? Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht,23, 187–222.
43. Gebara, M. F. (2013). Importance of local participation in achieving equity in benefitsharing mechanisms for REDD+: A case study from the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve. International Journal of the Commons, 7(2), 473–497.
44. Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behaviour. Journal of Economic Perspectives,25(4), 191–210.
45. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics,115(3), 791–810.
46. Goldman-Benner, R. L., Benitez, S., Boucher, T., Calvache, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., et al. (2012). Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: Practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx,46(1), 55–63.
47. Gross-Camp, N. D., Martin, A., Mc Guire, S., Kebede, B., & Munyarukaza, J. (2012). Payments for ecosystem services in an African protected area: Exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and effectiveness. Oryx,46(1), 24–33.
48. Gunningham, N. (2009). Environment law, regulation and governance: Shifting architectures. Journal of Environmental Law,21(2), 179–212.
49. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
50. Ibarra, J. T., Barreau, A., Del Campo, C., Camacho, C. I., Martin, G. J., & McCandless, S. R. (2011). When formal and market-based conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty: Impacts of community conservation and payments for environmental services on an indigenous community of Oaxaca, Mexico. International Forestry Review,13(3), 318–337.
51. Iftikhar, U. A., Kallesoe, M., Duraiappah, A., Sriskanthan, G., Poats, S. V., & Swallow, B. (2007). Exploring the inter-linkages among and between compensation and rewards for ecosystem services (CRES) and human wellbeing. ICRAF Working Paper No. 36. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.
52. Ingram, J. C., Wilkie, D., Clements, T., McNab, R. B., Nelson, F., Baur, E. H., et al. (2014). Evidence of payments for ecosystem services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Ecosystem Services,7, 10–21.
53. Kerr, J. (2002). Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India. World Development, 30, 1387–1400.
54. Kinzig, A. P., Perrings, C., Chapin, F. S., Polasky, S., Smith, V. K., Tilman, D., & Turner, B. L. (2011). Paying for ecosystem services—Promise and peril. Science,334, 603–604.
55. Konow, J. (2001). Fair and square: The four sides of distributive justice. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization,46(2), 137–164.
56. Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics,69(6), 1228–1236.
57. Kroeger, T. (2013). The quest for the “optimal” payment for environmental services program: Ambition meets reality, with useful lessons. Forest Policy and Economics,37, 65–74.
58. Landell-Mills, N., & Porras, T. I. (2002). Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
59. Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., de Groot, R., & Leemans, R. (2015). Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosystem Services,12, 16–28.
60. Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,31, 297–325.
61. Lin, L., Pattanayak, S. K., Sills, E. O., & Sunderlin, W. D. (2012). Site selection for forest carbon projects. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, & L. V. Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. CIFOR: Bogor.
62. Lopez, M. C., Murphy, J. J., Spraggon, J. M., & Stranlund, J. K. (2009). Comparing the effectiveness of regulation and pro-social emotions to enhance cooperation: Experimental evidence from fishing communities in Colombia. Working Paper No. 2009-5. Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
63. Luttrell, C., Loft, L., Gebara, M. F., & Kweka, D. (2012). Who should benefit and why? Discourses on REDD+ benefit sharing. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, & L. V. Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. CIFOR: Bogor.
64. MA. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: WRI.
65. Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., & McGuire, S. (2014). Measuring effectiveness, efficiency and equity in an experimental payments for ecosystem services trial. Global Environmental Change,28, 216–226.
66. McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenbergc, K. (2013). Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy,33, 416–427.
67. Milder, J. C., Scherr, S. J., & Bracer, C. (2010). Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society,15(2), 4.
68. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Our human planet: Summary for decision makers. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: WRI.
69. Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J. M., & Braña, J. (2008). Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics,65(4), 725–736.
70. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics,69(6), 1202–1208.
71. Murphree, M. W., & Taylor, R. (2009). CBNRM in Africa: Current constraints and opportunities. In D. Roe, F. Nelson, & C. Sandbrook (Eds.), Community management of natural resources in Africa: Impacts, experiences and future directions. IIED: UK.
72. Mwangi, E., & Markelova, H. (2009). Collective action and property rights for poverty reduction: A review of methods and approaches. Development Policy Review,27(3), 307–331.
73. Namirembe, S., Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., Bernard, F., & Bacwayo, K. E. (2014). Co-investment paradigms as alternatives to payments for tree-based ecosystem services in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,6, 89–97.
74. Noordwijk, M., & Leimona, B. (2010). Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia: Payments, compensation, or co-investment? Ecology and Society,15(4), 17.
75. O’Neill, J. (2001). Property, care, and environment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,19, 695–711.
76. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,14(3), 137–158.
77. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science,284, 278.
78. Pagiola, S., & Platais, G. (2007). Payments for environmental services: From theory to practice. Washington DC: World Bank.
79. Pagiola, S., Rios, A. R., & Arcenas, A. (2008). Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua. Environment and Development Economics,13, 299–325.
80. Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L. C., & Duraiappah, A. (2010). Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecological Economics,69(6), 1237–1244.
81. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, B., Corbera, E., Martin, A., et al. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience,64(11), 1027–1036.
82. Pereira, S. N. C. (2010). Payment for environmental services in the Amazon forest: How can conservation and development be reconciled? The Journal of Environment and Development,19(2), 171–190.
83. Perrot-Maître, D. (2006). The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: A ‘perfect’ PES case? Project Paper No.3. London: IIED.
84. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press.
85. Porras, I. (2010). Fair and green? Social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
86. Poteete, A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). Heterogeneity, group size, and collective action: The role of institutions in forest management. Development and Change,35(3), 435–461.
87. Proctor, W., Koellner, T., & Lukasiewicz, A. (2009). Equity considerations and markets for ecosystem services. In P. Kumar & R. Muradian (Eds.), Payments for ecosystem services. India: Oxford University Press.
88. Reeson, A. F., & Tisdell, J. G. (2008). Institutions, motivations and public goods: An experimental test of motivational crowding. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization,68(1), 273–281.
89. Richards, M. (2012). What do we know about gender and other social impacts of IWS projects? A literature review. Prepared for the partner leadership meeting and social impact assessment workshop, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 12–15 June 2012.
90. Robertson, M. (2007). Discovering price in all the wrong places: The work of commodity definition and price under neoliberal environmental policy. Antipode,39(3), 500–526.
91. Rode, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Krause, T. (2015). Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics,109, 80–92.
92. Roe, D., & Nelson, F. (2009). The origins and evolution of community-based natural resource management in Africa. In D. Roe, F. Nelson, & C. Sandbrook (Eds.), Community management of natural resources in Africa: Impacts, experiences and future directions. UK: IIED.
93. Roe, D., Nelson, F., & Sandbrook, C. (2009). Community management of natural resources in Africa: Impacts, experiences and future directions. UK: IIED.
94. Rosa, H., Barry, D., Kandel, S., & Dimas, L. (2004). Compensation for environmental services and rural communities: Lessons from the Americas. Working Paper Series 96. Political Economy research Institute, University of Massachusetts.
95. Rubio Alvarado, L. X., & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. (2009). Why are we seeing “REDD”? An analysis of the international debate on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries. Paris: IDDRI.
96. Schomers, A., & Matzdorf, B. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services,6, 16–30.
97. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
98. Sen, A. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring poverty. In D. B. Grusky & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty and inequality. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
99. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Penguin Books.
100. Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P. G., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010a). The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions. A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics,69(6), 1262–1271.
101. Sommerville, M., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Rahajaharison, M., & Jones, J. P. G. (2010b). Impact of a community-based payment for environmental services intervention on forest use in Menabe, Madagascar. Conservation Biology,24, 1488–1498.
102. Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Economics of the public sector. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
103. Swallow, B., Kallesoe, M., Iftikhar, U., van Noordwijk, M., Bracer, C., Scherr, S., Raju, K. V., et al. (2007). Compensation and rewards for environmental services in the developing world: Framing pan-tropical analysis and comparison. ICRAF Working Paper No. 32. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.
104. Titmuss, R. M. (1970). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. London: George Allen and Unwin.
105. To, X. P., Dressler, W. H., Mahanty, S., Pham, T. T., & Zingerli, C. (2012). The prospects for payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Vietnam: A look at three payment schemes. Human Ecology,40, 237–249.
106. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. London: Allen Lane and Penguin Books.
107. Van Hecken, G., & Bastiaensen, J. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: Do market-based approaches work? Development and Change,41, 421–444.
108. Vatn, A. (2005). Institutions and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
109. Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics,69(6), 1245–1252.
110. Vollan, B. (2008). Socio-ecological explanations for crowding-out effects from economic field experiments in Southern Africa. Ecological Economics,6(7), 560–573.
111. Vyrastekova, J., & van Soest, D. (2003). Centralized common-pool management and local community participation. Land Economics,79, 500–514.
112. Wegner, G., & Pascual, U. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human wellbeing: A multidisciplinary critique. Global Environmental Change,21, 492–504.
113. Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42, Jakarta.
114. Wunder, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics,13, 1–19.
115. Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics,65(4), 834–852.
116. Yin, R., Tianjun, L., Shunbo, Y., & Minjuan, Z. (2013). Designing and implementing payments for ecosystem services programs: Lessons learned from China’s cropland restoration experience. Forest Policy and Economics,35, 6–72.
117. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
118. Zabel, A., & Roe, B. (2009). Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives. Ecological Economics,69, 126–134.