Stakeholder preferences for payments for ecosystem services (PES) versus other environmental management approaches for mangrove forests

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 233, Issue , 2019, Pages 636-648

  Thompson, Benjamin S ^a   Friess, Daniel A ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Carbon; Charcoal; Corporate sustainability; Incentives; Multi criteria evaluation; Wetland

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CHARCOAL; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONSERVATION; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; PALM OIL; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; WATER QUALITY;

CORPORATE-SUSTAINABILITY; ECO-TOURISMS; ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCES; INCENTIVE; MANAGEMENT OPTIONS; MANGROVE FOREST; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION; MULTI-CRITERION EVALUATION; PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES;

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT;

BIODIVERSITY; CARBON; CHARCOAL; CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; DECISION ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ECOTOURISM; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; WETLAND;

AGED; ARTICLE; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; ELAEIS; EMPIRICISM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTALIST; FEE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOREST; GOVERNMENT; GULF OF THAILAND; HOUSEWIFE; LIVELIHOOD; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MANGROVE; MISCELLANEOUS NAMED GROUPS; PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; SALT FLAT WORKER; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; SURVIVAL RATE; THAILAND; WELLBEING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HUMAN; WETLAND;

THAILAND;

ELAEIS;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; FORESTS; HUMANS; THAILAND; WETLANDS;

EID: 85059131813     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.032     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Albers, T., Schmitt, K., Dyke design, floodplain restoration and mangrove co-management as parts of an area coastal protection strategy for the mud coasts of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 23 (2015), 991–1004.
2. Andalecio, M.N., Including coastal resource users in fisheries management evaluation of San Miguel Bay, Philippines. Ocean Coast. Manag. 54 (2011), 760–770, 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.08.004.
3. Badola, R., Barthwal, S., Hussain, S.A., Attitudes of local communities towards conservation of mangrove forests: a case study from the east coast of India. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 96 (2012), 188–196, 10.1016/j.ecss.2011.11.016.
4. Barbier, E.B., Cox, M., An economic analysis of shrimp farm expansion and mangrove conversion in Thailand. Land Econ. 80 (2013), 389–407, 10.2307/3654728.
5. Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E., Stier, A.C., Silliman, B.R., The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81 (2011), 169–193.
6. Bennett, N.J., Allison, E.H., Whitty, T.S., Finkbeiner, E., Pittman, J., Bassett, H., Gelcich, S., Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework. Environ. Manag., 2018, 597–614, 10.1007/s00267-017-0993-2.
7. Biswas, S.R., Mallik, A.U., Choudhury, J.K., Nishat, A., A unified framework for the restoration of Southeast Asian mangroves-bridging ecology, society and economics. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 17 (2009), 365–383, 10.1007/s11273-008-9113-7.
8. Bowie, K.A., The alchemy of charity: of class and buddhism in northern Thailand. Am. Anthropol., 100(2), 1998 489-481.
9. Brander, L.M., Wagtendonk, A.J., Hussain, S.S., McVittie, A., Verburg, P.H., de Groot, R.S., van der Ploeg, S., Ecosystem service values for mangroves in Southeast Asia: a meta-analysis and value transfer application. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (2012), 62–69, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.003.
10. Bremer, L.L., Farley, K.A., Lopez-Carr, D., What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioParamo program. Land Use Pol. 36 (2014), 122–133, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002.
11. Chan, K.M.A., Anderson, E., Chapman, M., Jespersen, K., Olmsted, P., Payments for ecosystem services: rife with problems and potential—for transformation towards sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 140 (2017), 110–122, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.029.
12. Charoenrungrueang, C., Sungsanit, M., The current status of corporate social responsibility activities in Thailand: evidence from listed companies in the stock exchange of Thailand. Int. J. Trade Econ. Financ. 7 (2016), 125–131, 10.18178/ijtef.2016.7.4.511.
13. Corbera, E., Soberanis, C.G., Brown, K., Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 743–761, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.008.
14. Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R.N., Guha, P., Community based mangrove management: a review on status and sustainability. J. Environ. Manag. 107 (2012), 84–95, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.013.
15. De Vente, J., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L., Valente, S., Newig, J., How does the context and design of participatory decision-making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecol. Soc., 21, 2016, 24, 10.5751/ES-08053-210224.
16. 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.
17. Esmail, B.A., Geneletti, D., Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: a review of 20 years of applications. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9 (2018), 42–53, 10.1111/2041-210X.12899.
18. Estévez, R.A., Gelcich, S., Participative multi-criteria decision analysis in marine management and conservation: research progress and the challenge of integrating value judgments and uncertainty. Mar. Pol. 61 (2015), 1–7, 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.06.022.
19. 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.
20. Ferreira, A.C., Lacerda, L.D., Degradation and conservation of Brazilian mangroves, status and perspectives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 125 (2016), 38–46, 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.03.011.
21. Friess, D.A., Thompson, B.S., Brown, B., Amir, A.A., Cameron, C., Koldewey, H.J., Sasmito, S.D., Sidik, F., Policy challenges and approaches for the conservation of mangrove forests in Southeast Asia. Conserv. Biol. 30 (2016), 933–949, 10.1111/cobi.12784.
22. Garmendia, E., Gamboa, G., Franco, J., Garmendia, J.M., Liria, P., Olazabal, M., Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53 (2010), 385–403, 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.05.001.
23. Glaser, M., da Silva Oliveira, R., Prospects for the co-management of mangrove ecosystems on the North Brazilian coast: whose rights, whose duties and whose priorities?. Nat. Resour. Forum 28 (2004), 224–233, 10.1111/j.1477-8947.2004.00092.x.
24. Grillos, T., Economic vs non-material incentives for participation in an in-kind payments for ecosystem services program in Bolivia. Ecol. Econ. 131 (2017), 178–190, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.010.
25. Hamilton, S.E., Casey, D., Creation of a high spatio-temporal resolution global database of continuous mangrove forest cover for the 21st century. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 25 (2016), 729–738, 10.1111/geb.12449.
26. Harring, N., Jagers, S.C., Matti, S., Public support for pro-environmental policy measures: examining the impact of personal values and ideology. Sustainability, 9, 2017, 679, 10.3390/su9050679.
27. Jumnongsong, S., Gallardo, W.G., Ikejima, K., Cochard, R., Factors affecting Fishers’ perceptions of benefits, threats, and state, and participation in mangrove management in pak phanang bay, Thailand. J. Coast. Res. 31 (2015), 95–106, 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00257.1.
28. Kamthonkiat, D., Rodfai, C., Saiwanrungkul, A., Koshimura, S., Matsuoka, M., Geoinformatics in mangrove monitoring: damage and recovery after the 2004 Indian ocean tsunami in Phang Nga, Thailand. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (2011), 1851–1862, 10.5194/nhess-11-1851-2011.
29. Kinzig, A.P., Perrings, C., Chapin, F.S., Polasky, S., Smith, V.K., Tilman, D., Turner, B.L., Paying for ecosystem services—promise and peril. Science 334:6056 (2011), 603–604 http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210297.
30. 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.
31. Langemeyer, J., Palomo, I., Baraibar, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Participatory multi-criteria decision aid: operationalizing an integrated assessment of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 30 (2018), 49–60.
32. Lebel, L., Governance and coastal boundaries in the tropics. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4 (2012), 243–251, 10.1016/j.cosust.2011.12.001.
33. Lewis, R.R., Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove forests. Ecol. Eng. 24 (2005), 403–418, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.10.003.
34. Macintosh, D.J., Ashton, E.C., Havanon, S., Mangrove rehabilitation and intertidal biodiversity: a study in the ranong mangrove ecosystem, Thailand. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 55 (2002), 331–345, 10.1006/ecss.2001.0896.
35. Marr, E.J., Howley, P., Land Use Policy. Woodlots, wetlands, or wheat fields? Agri-environmental land allocation preferences of stakeholder organisations in England and Ontario. Land Use Pol. 75 (2018), 673–681.
36. Martin, P., Managing the risks of ecosystem services markets. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 404–410.
37. Mmbali, O.S., Assawasirisilp, D., Corporate social responsibility in Thailand: analyzing the application of the buddhist principles. Hasan, S., (eds.) Corporate Social Responsibility and the Three Sectors in Asia. Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies (An International Multidisciplinary Series), 2017, Springer, New York, NY.
38. Moriizumi, Y., Matsui, N., Hondo, H., Simplified life cycle sustainability assessment of mangrove management: a case of plantation on wastelands in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (2010), 1629–1638, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.017.
39. Munda, G., Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158 (2004), 662–677, 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00369-2.
40. 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.
41. Naeem, S., Ingram, J.C., Varga, A., Agardy, T., Barten, P., Bennett, G., et al. Get the science right when paying for nature's services. Science 347:6227 (2015), 1206–1207 http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1403.
42. Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A.T., Zimmermann, J., Nicholls, R.J., Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding - a global assessment. PLoS One, 10, 2015, 10.1371/journal.pone.0118571.
43. Oldekop, J.A., Holmes, G., Harris, W.E., Evans, K.L., A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30 (2016), 133–141, 10.1111/cobi.12568.
44. Onozawa, N., A Study of CSR in Thailand I: Awareness and Practice. 2013, Tsukuba Gakuin University, Japan https://www.tsukuba-g.ac.jp/library/kiyou/2013/02-onozawa.pdf.
45. Orchard, S.E., Stringer, L.C., Quinn, C.H., Ocean & Coastal Management Impacts of aquaculture on social networks in the mangrove systems of northern Vietnam. Ocean Coast. Manag. 114 (2015), 1–10, 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.019.
46. Orchard, S.E., Stringer, L.C., Quinn, C.H., Environmental entitlements: institutional influence on mangrove social-ecological systems in northern Vietnam. Resources 4 (2015), 903–938, 10.3390/resources4040903.
47. Ostrom, E., A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325 (2009), 419–423.
48. Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., Berman, R.J., Le, H.T.V., Msuya, F.E., Pezzuti, J.C.B., Orchard, S.E., Unpacking changes in mangrove social-ecological systems: lessons from Brazil, Zanzibar, and Vietnam. Resources 6 (2017), 1–14, 10.3390/resources6010014.
49. Read, A.D., West, R.J., Haste, M., Jordan, A., Optimizing voluntary compliance in marine protected areas: a comparison of recreational Fisher and enforcement officer perspectives using multi-criteria analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (2011), 2558–2567, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.022.
50. 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. Manag. 90 (2009), 1933–1949, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
51. Reyers, B., Roux, D.J., Cowling, R.M., Ginsburg, A.E., Nel, J.L., Farrell, P.O., Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conserv. Biol. 24 (2010), 957–965, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01497.x.
52. Rice, J.C., Achieving coherent policies for conservation and sustainable use of marine ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 25 (2011), 1065–1068, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01757.x.
53. Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113:2 (2016), 344–349, 10.1073/pnas.1510272113 201510272.
54. Rossi, A., Turning red rural landscapes yellow? Sufficiency Economy and royal projects in the hills of nan Province, northern Thailand. Austrian J. South-East Asian Stud. 5:2 (2012), 275–291.
55. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 1980, McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
56. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. second ed., 2012, Springer, Boston, 10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6.
57. Siakwah, P., Energy Research and Social Science Actors, networks, and globalised assemblages: rethinking oil, the environment, and conflict in Ghana. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 38 (2018), 68–76, 10.1016/j.erss.2018.01.021.
58. Sitas, N., Prozesky, H.E., Esler, K.J., Reyers, B., Exploring the gap between ecosystem service research and management in development planning. Sustainability 6 (2014), 3802–3824, 10.3390/su6063802.
59. Soma, K., How to involve stakeholders in fisheries management – a country case study in Trinidad and Tobago. Mar. Pol. 27 (2003), 47–58.
60. Stojanovic, T.A., Farmer, C.J.Q., The development of world oceans & coasts and concepts of sustainability. Mar. Pol. 42 (2013), 157–165, 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.02.005.
61. Sudtongkong, C., Webb, E.L., Outcomes of state-vs. community-based mangrove management in Southern Thailand. Ecol. Soc., 13, 2008, 27.
62. Talley, J.L., Schneider, J., Lindquist, E., A simplified approach to stakeholder engagement in natural resource management: the Five-Feature Framework. Ecol. Soc., 21(4), 2016, 38.
63. Thompson, B.S., Can financial technology innovate benefit distribution in payments for ecosystem services and REDD+?. Ecol. Econ. 139 (2017), 150–157, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.008.
64. Thompson, B.S., The political ecology of mangrove forest restoration in Thailand: institutional Arrangements and Power Dynamics. Land Use Pol. 78 (2018), 503–514, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.016.
65. Thompson, B.S., Institutional challenges for corporate participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Insights from Southeast Asia. Sustain. Sci. 13 (2018), 919–935, 10.1007/s11625-018-0569-y.
66. Thompson, B.S., in press. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) and corporate social responsibility (CSR): perspectives on sustainable production, stakeholder relations, and philanthropy in Thailand. Bus. Strateg. Environ. https://doi.org.10.1002/bse.2260.
67. Thompson, B.S., Clubbe, C.P., Primavera, J.H., Curnick, D., Koldewey, H.J., Locally assessing the economic viability of blue carbon: a case study from Panay Island, the Philippines. Ecosyst. Serv. 8 (2014), 128–140, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.004.
68. Thompson, B.S., Bladon, A.J., Fahad, Z.H., Mohsanin, S., Koldewey, H.J., Evaluation of the ecological effectiveness and social appropriateness of fishing regulations in the Bangladesh Sundarbans using a new multi-disciplinary assessment framework. Fish. Res. 183 (2016), 410–423, 10.1016/j.fishres.2016.07.010.
69. Thompson, B.S., Primavera, J.H., Friess, D.A., Governance and implementation challenges for mangrove forest Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): empirical evidence from the Philippines. Ecosyst. Serv. 23 (2017), 146–155, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.007.
70. Thompson, B.S., Gillen, J., Friess, D.A., Challenging the principles of ecotourism: insights from entrepreneurs on environmental and economic sustainability in Langkawi, Malaysia. J. Sustain. Tourism 26:2 (2018), 257–276, 10.1080/09669582.2017.1343338.
71. Wattage, P., Mardle, S., Stakeholder preferences towards conservation versus development for a wetland in Sri Lanka. J. Environ. Manag. 77 (2005), 122–132, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.006.
72. Whitmarsh, D., Palmieri, M.G., Social acceptability of marine aquaculture: the use of survey-based methods for eliciting public and stakeholder preferences. Mar. Pol. 33 (2009), 452–457, 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.10.003.
73. Winterwerp, J.C., Borst, W.G., de Vries, M.B., Pilot study on the erosion and rehabilitation of a mangrove mud coast. J. Coast. Res. 21:2 (2005), 223–230.
74. Winterwerp, J.C., Erftemeijer, P.L.A., Suryadiputra, N., van Eijk, P., Zhang, L., Defining eco-morphodynamic requirements for rehabilitating eroding mangrove-mud coasts. Wetlands 33:3 (2013), 515–526.
75. Wylie, L., Sutton-Grier, A.E., Moore, A., Keys to successful blue carbon projects: lessons learned from global case studies. Mar. Pol. 65 (2016), 76–84.
76. Young, J.C., Jordan, A., Searle, K.R., Butler, A., Chapman, D.S., Simmons, P., Watt, A.D., Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation?. Biol. Conserv. 158 (2013), 359–370, 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.018.
77. Young, J.C., Rose, D.C., Mumby, H.S., Benitez-Capistros, F., Derrick, C.J., Finch, T., Garcia, C., Home, C., Marwaha, E., Morgans, C., Parkinson, S., Shah, J., Wilson, K.A., Mukherjee, N., A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9 (2018), 10–19, 10.1111/2041-210X.12828.