Advertisement

Payments for Ecosystem Services: Private and Public Funding to Avoid Risks to Ecosystem Services

  • Bettina MatzdorfEmail author
  • Carolin Biedermann
  • Lasse Loft
Chapter

Abstract

To date, different types of PES approaches co-exist. There are various fruitful examples for innovative and successful design and implementation around the world. Governmental activities are highly important for PES. The social-ecological context must be considered during the design and implementation process. A PES design is not only a technical tool for effective and economically optimal ecosystem services provision. It also needs to be created with multiple aspects of social justice and equity in mind. A policy mix that includes PES is important for ecosystem services risk management. Depending on the given social-ecological context conditions, the use of economic incentives to influence human behaviour and the use of trade mechanisms to allocate resources can be a cost-effective and socially accepted approach, if combined with other policy instruments. Progress in ecosystem services quantification could promote the development of more output-based payment schemes. Intermediaries that are active on a regional level are often key players for PES development and implementation. Their participation should thus be encouraged.

Keywords

Incentive-based instruments Actors Motivation Institutional design of risk management Governance 

References

  1. 1.
    Buchanan JM, Stubblebine WC. Externality. Economica. 1962;29(116):371–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wunder S. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 2015;117:234–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schomers S, Matzdorf B. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst Serv. 2013;6:16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ. 2008;65(4):663–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matzdorf B, Biedermann C, Meyer C, Nicolaus K, Sattler C, Schomers S. Paying for Green? Payments for Ecosystem Services in Practice. Successful examples of PES from Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Müncheberg; 2014. http://www.civiland-zalf.org/download/PayingforGreen_PESinpractice.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2017.
  6. 6.
    Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak S. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(4):e105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farley J, Costanza R. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol Econ. 2010;69(11):2060–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J, Windey C. Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecol Econ. 2015;120:117–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loft L, Le DN, Pham TT, Yang AL, Tjajadi JS, Wong GY. Whose equity matters? National to local equity perceptions in Vietnam’s payments for forest ecosystem services scheme. Ecol Econ. 2017;135:164–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A, et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience. 2014;64:1027–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vatn A. Markets in environmental governance–from theory to practice. Ecol Econ. 2015;117:225–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matzdorf B, Sattler C, Engel S. Institutional frameworks and governance structures of PES schemes. Forest Policy Econ. 2013;37:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodriguez J. Environmental services of the forest: the case of Costa Rica. Rev For Cent Am. 2002;37:47–53.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xiong Y, Wang KL. Eco-compensation effects of the wetland recovery in Dongting Lake area. J Geogr Sci. 2010;20:389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schomers S, Sattler C, Matzdorf B. An analytical framework for assessing the potential of intermediaries to improve the performance of payments for ecosystem services. Land Use Policy. 2015;42:58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev. 2005;33:237–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sommerville MM, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG. The challenge of monitoring biodiversity in payment for environmental service interventions. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(12):2832–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer C, Schomers S, Matzdorf B, Biedermann C, Sattler C. Civil society actors at the nexus of the ecosystem services concept and agri-environmental policies. Land Use Policy. 2016;55:352–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spash CL. Terrible economics, ecosystems and banking. Environ Values. 2011;20(2):141–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettina Matzdorf
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Carolin Biedermann
    • 1
  • Lasse Loft
    • 1
  1. 1.Working Group “Governance of Ecosystem Services”Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental PlanningLeibniz University of HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations