Improving payments for ecosystem services (PES) outcomes through the use of Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and the software OPTamos

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 47-55

  Grima, Nelson ^a   Singh, Simron J ^b   Smetschka, Barbara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KLAGENFURT   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision support; Multi criteria approaches; Participatory process; Payment for Ecosystem Services

Indexed keywords

EID: 85036562782     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.019     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Allen, C.R., Gunderson, L.H., Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive management. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (2011), 1379–1384, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.063.
2. Álvarez Grzybowska, N.S., Gerritsen, P.R.W., Construyendo poderes locales: Microdestilerías y agave azul en el Sur de Jalisco. Editorial Universitaria. CU Costa Sur. 2013, Universidad de Guadalajara.
3. Ananda, J., Herath, G., The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. For. Policy Econ. 5 (2003), 13–26, 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00043-6.
4. Arriagada, R., Perrings, C., Making payments for ecosystem services work. Values, Payments and Institutions for Ecosystem Management: A Developing Country Perspective, 2009, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
5. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5 (2013), 27–39, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004.
6. Belton, V., Stewart, T., Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. 2002, Springer Science & Business Media.
7. Buchholz, T., Rametsteiner, E., Volk, T.A., Luzadis, V.A., Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments. Energy Policy 37 (2009), 484–495.
8. Coase, R.H., Problem of social cost. J. Law Econ., 3, 1960, 1.
9. Cook, H., Benson, D., Couldrick, L., Partnering for bioregionalism in England: a case study of the Westcountry Rivers Trust. Ecol. Soc., 21, 2016, 10.5751/ES-08504-210238.
10. Corbera, E., Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environ. Change 17 (2007), 365–380.
11. Corbera, E., Gonzalez, C., Brown, K., Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ., 2009, 743–761.
12. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2009), 21–28, 10.1890/080025.
13. Ehrlich, P., Ehrlich, A., Extinction: the Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. 1981, Random House, New York.
14. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008), 663–674, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011 Payments for Environmental Services in Developing and Developed Countries.
15. Farley, J., Costanza, R., Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 2060–2068, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010.
16. Favretto, N., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Dallimer, M., Perkins, J.S., Reed, M.S., Atlhopheng, J.R., Mulale, K., Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to identify dryland ecosystem service trade-offs under different rangeland land uses. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), 142–151, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.005.
17. Ferraro, P.J., Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008), 810–821, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.029.
18. Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 1993, 739–755.
19. Gamboa, G., Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation in Practice: Two Real-world Case Studies. (PhD Thesis), 2008, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
20. Gerritsen, P.R.W., Perspectivas campesinas sobre el manejo de los recursos naturales. 2010, Universidad de Guadalajara, Mundiprensa, CU Costa Sur.
21. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-Perez, M., Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr., 2011, 613–628.
22. Grima, N., Singh, S.J., Smetschka, B., Ringhofer, L., Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), 24–32, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010.
23. Grima, N., Singh, S.J., Smetschka, B., Decision making in a complex world: using OPTamos in a multi-criteria process for land management in the Cuitzmala watershed in Mexico. Land Use Policy 67 (2017), 73–85, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.025.
24. Hack, J., Application of payments for hydrological ecosystem services to solve problems of fit and interplay in integrated water resources management. Water Int. 40 (2015), 929–948, 10.1080/02508060.2015.1096122.
25. Hausknost, D., Grima, N., Singh, S.J., The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): cascade or stairway?. Ecol. Econ. 131 (2017), 109–118, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.024.
26. Hejnowicz, A.P., Raffaelli, D.G., Rudd, M.A., White, P.C.L., Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 9 (2014), 83–97, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.001.
27. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Phol, C., Wiesmann, U., Zemp, E., (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, 2008, Springer, Stuttgart/Berlin/New York.
28. Jaafari, A., Najafi, A., Garcia Melón, M., Decision-making for the selection of a best wood extraction method: an analytic network process approach. For. Policy Econ. 50 (2015), 200–209, 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.010.
29. Jack, B.K., Kousky, C., Sims, K.R.E., Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 (2008), 9465–9470, 10.1073/pnas.0705503104.
30. Kajanus, M., Leskinen, P., Kurttila, M., Kangas, J., Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management. For. Policy Econ. 20 (2012), 1–9, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.005.
31. Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I., Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag., 1, 2005, 95, 10.1897/IEAM_2004a-015.1.
32. Kolinjivadi, V., Gamboa, G., Adamowski, J., Kosoy, N., Capabilities as justice: analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through 'social multi-criteria evaluation’. Ecol. Econ. 118 (2015), 99–113, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.008.
33. Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1228–1236, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002.
34. Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environ. Manage. 26 (2000), 595–605, 10.1007/s002670010118.
35. Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., Elmqvist, T., Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environ. Sci. Policy 62 (2016), 45–56, 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013.
36. Lopez, D.M., Perez, G., Mazari, H.M., Maass, M., Reserva de la biosfera chamela-cuixmala: un estudio de calidad del agua, bajo un enfoque de manejo integrado de cuencas. 2009, Instituto de Ecologia, UNAM, Mexico.
37. Lutz, J., Smetschka, B., Grima, N., Farmer cooperation as a means for creating local food systems – potentials and challenges. Sustainability, 9, 2017, 925, 10.3390/su9060925.
38. Maness, T., Farrell, R., A multi-objective scenario evaluation model for sustainable forest management using criteria and indicators. Can. J. For. Res. 34 (2004), 2004–2017, 10.1139/x04-075.
39. Martin-Ortega, J., Ojea, E., Roux, C., Payments for water ecosystem services in Latin America: a literature review and conceptual model. Ecosyst. Serv., 2013, 122–132.
40. McCrum, G., Blackstock, K., Matthews, K., Rivington, M., Miller, D., Buchan, K., Adapting to climate change in land management: the role of deliberative workshops in enhancing social learning. Environ. Policy Gov. 19 (2009), 413–426, 10.1002/eet.525.
41. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, General Synthesis Report, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington D.C.
42. Mendoza, G.A., Martins, H., Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For. Ecol. Manag. 230 (2006), 1–22, 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023.
43. Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R., Combining participatory modeling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 207 (2005), 145–156, 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.024.
44. Munda, G., Social Multi-criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. 2008, Springer, Berlin.
45. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., May, P.H., Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1202–1208, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006.
46. Murtinho, F., Hayes, T., Communal participation in Payment for Environmental Services (PES): unpacking the collective decision to enroll. Environ. Manage. 59 (2017), 939–955, 10.1007/s00267-017-0838-z.
47. Naeem, S., Ingram, J.C., Varga, A., Agardy, T., Barten, P., Bennett, G., Bloomgarden, E., Bremer, L.L., Burkill, P., Cattau, M., Ching, C., Colby, M., Cook, D.C., Costanza, R., DeClerck, F., Freund, C., Gartner, T., Goldman-Benner, R., Gunderson, J., Jarrett, D., Kinzig, A.P., Kiss, A., Koontz, A., Kumar, P., Lasky, J.R., Masozera, M., Meyers, D., Milano, F., Naughton-Treves, L., Nichols, E., Olander, L., Olmsted, P., Perge, E., Perrings, C., Polasky, S., Potent, J., Prager, C., Quetier, F., Redford, K., Saterson, K., Thoumi, G., Vargas, M.T., Vickerman, S., Weisser, W., Wilkie, D., Wunder, S., Get the science right when paying for nature's services. Science 347 (2015), 1206–1207, 10.1126/science.aaa1403.
48. Nordström, E.M., Eriksson, L.O., Öhman, K., Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: experience from a case study in northern Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 12 (2010), 562–574, 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.006.
49. Packalen, T., Marques, A.F., Raisinmäki, J., Rosset, C., Mounir, F., Rodriguez, L.C.E., Nobre, S.R., Review. A brief overview of forest management decision support systems (FMDSS) listed in the FORSYS wiki. For. Syst. 22 (2013), 263–269.
50. Paletto, A., Giacovelli, G., Pastorella, F., Stakeholders’ opinions and expectations for the forest-based sector: a regional case study in Italy. Int. For. Rev. 19 (2017), 68–78, 10.1505/146554817820888654.
51. Panell, D.J., Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: theoretical framework and practical strategies. Agric. Econ. 16 (1997), 139–152.
52. Pereira, A.G., Funtowicz, S., Knowledge representation and mediation for transdisciplinary frameworks: tools to inform debates, dialogues & deliberations. Int. J. Transdisciplinarity Res., 2006, 34–50.
53. Pereira, A.G., Quintana, S.C., From technocratic to participatory decision support systems: responding to the new governance initiatives. J. Geogr. Inform. Decis. Anal. 6 (2002), 95–107.
54. Perevochtchikova, M., Oggioni, J., Global and Mexican analytical review of the state of the art on ecosystem and environmental services: a geographical approach. Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía, UNAM, 2014, 47–65.
55. Pigou, A.C., The Economics of Welfare. 1920, Macmillan, London.
56. Pohl, C., Hirsch Hadorn, G., td-net – the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences’ forum for transdisciplinary research. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2010, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 434–436.
57. Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D.N., Bugter, R., Potschin, M., Governance of Ecosystem Services: a framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 158–166, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002.
58. Rawlins, M.A., Westby, L., Community participation in payment for ecosystem services design and implementation: an example from Trinidad. Ecosyst. Serv. 6 (2013), 117–121, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.004.
59. Reed, M.S., Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141 (2008), 2417–2431, 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
60. Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (2009), 1933–1949, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
61. Reed, M.S., Allen, K., Attlee, A., Dougill, A.J., Evans, K.L., Kenter, J.O., Hoy, J., McNab, D., Stead, S.M., Twyman, C., Scott, A.S., Smyth, M.A., Stringer, L.C., Whittingham, M.J., A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 43 (2017), 92–106, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.009.
62. Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D.N., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Marttunen, M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., Santos, R., Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 238–249, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.014.
63. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. 1980, McGrawHill, New York.
64. Sarkki, S., Jokinen, M., Nijnik, M., Zahvoyska, L., Abraham, E.M., Alados, C.L., Bellamy, C., Bratanova-Dontcheva, S., Grunewald, K., Kollar, J., Krajci, J., Kyriazopoulos, A.P., La Porta, N., Monteiro, A.T., Munoz-Rojas, J., Parpan, T., Sing, L., Smith, M., Sutinen, M.-L., Tolvanen, A., Zhyla, T., Social equity in governance of ecosystem services: synthesis from European treeline areas. Clim. Res. Special 34 (2017), 1–14, 10.3354/cr01441.
65. Sattler, C., Matzdorf, B., PES in a nutshell: from definitions and origins to PES in practice—approaches, design process and innovative aspects. Ecosyst. Serv. 6 (2013), 2–11, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.009 Payments for Ecosystem Services and Their Institutional Dimensions: Analyzing the Diversity of Existing PES Approaches in Developing and Industrialized Countries.
66. Sattler, C., Trampnau, S., Schomers, S., Meyer, C., Matzdorf, B., Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: how do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?. Ecosyst. Serv., 2013, 31–45.
67. Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M., Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, M., Garcia, C., van Oosten, C., Buck, L.E., Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 (2013), 8349–8356, 10.1073/pnas.1210595110.
68. Scarlett, L., Boyd, J., Ecosystem services and resource management: institutional issues, challenges, and opportunities in the public sector. Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015), 3–10, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.013.
69. Schleyer, C., Görg, C., Hauck, J., Winkler, K.J., Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 174–181, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.014.
70. Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 6 (2013), 16–30, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002.
71. Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., de Groot, R., Opdam, P., Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett., 2014, 514–523.
72. Segura, M., Maroto, C., Belton, V., Ginestar, C., A new collaborative methodology for assessment and management of ecosystem services. Forests 6 (2015), 1696–1720, 10.3390/f6051696.
73. Sheppard, S.R.J., Meitner, M., Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For. Ecol. Manag. 207 (2005), 171–187, 10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032.
74. Siciliano, G., Social multicriteria evaluation of farming practices in the presence of soil degradation. A case study in Southern Tuscany, Italy. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 2009, 1107–1133.
75. Simpson, R.D., 2011. The “Ecosystem Service Framework”: A Critical Assessment.
76. Smetschka, B., Singh, S.J., Grima, N., Ringhofer, L., 2015. SMCE Implementation: Options for Participatory Transformation and Management of Sustainable land use (OPTamos).
77. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sorlin, S., Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, 2015, 10.1126/science.1259855 1259855–1259855.
78. Swallow, B.M., Leimona, B., Yatich, T., Velarde, S.J., The conditions for functional mechanisms of compensation and reward for environmental services. Ecol. Soc., 15, 2010.
79. TEEB, 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers. Rewarding benefits through payments and markets.
80. Vacik, H., Lexer, M.J., Past, current and future drivers for the development of decision support systems in forest management. Scand. J. For. Res. 29 (2014), 2–19, 10.1080/02827581.2013.830768.
81. Verburg, R., Selnes, T., Verweij, P., Governing ecosystem services: national and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation. Ecosyst. Serv. 18 (2016), 186–197, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.006.
82. Voinov, A., Bousquet, F., Modelling with stakeholders. Environ. Model. Softw. 25 (2010), 1268–1281, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007.
83. Wunder, S., Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ., 2008, 834–852.
84. Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts (No. Occasional Paper No. 42). CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
85. Wünscher, T., Engel, S., International payments for biodiversity services: review and evaluation of conservation targeting approaches. Biol. Conserv. 152 (2012), 222–230.