Scaling participation in payments for ecosystem services programs

Abstract

Payments for ecosystem services programs have become common tools but most have failed to achieve wide-ranging conservation outcomes. The capacity for scale and impact increases when PES programs are designed through the lens of the potential participants, yet this has received little attention in research or practice. Our work with small-scale marine fisheries integrates the social science of PES programs and provides a framework for designing programs that focus a priori on scaling. In addition to payments, desirable non-monetary program attributes and ecological feedbacks attract a wider range of potential participants into PES programs, including those who have more negative attitudes and lower trust. Designing programs that draw individuals into participating in PES programs is likely the most strategic path to reaching scale. Research should engage in new models of participatory research to understand these dynamics and to design programs that explicitly integrate a broad range of needs, values, and modes of implementation.

Payments for ecosystem services: a review of definitions, the role of spatial scales, and critique

“…In general, given a preference for local PES schemes, it is important for the setup of programs to get the appropriate actors involved (Lockie 2013). This can lead to a trade-off between getting enough participants involved, while being as local as possible (Banerjee et al 2013, Lockie 2013, Sorice et al 2018.…”

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)

“…Future challenges could be addressed by investing in communication of clear goals to foster cooperation and partnerships working together from early design stages throughout a continuous monitoring of the scheme (Huber-Stearns et al 2015; Waylen and Martin-Ortega 2018). While the scale and impact of PES programs are dependent on stakeholder engagement (Sorice et al 2018), this issue has yet to receive sufficient attention, both in research and practice fields. Future developments should promote a more inclusive and reflexive dialogue between scholars and practitioners contributing to reconcile both theoretical and practical views using alternative notions of PES (Muradian et al 2010).…”

“How can you put a price on the environment?” Farmer perspectives on stewardship and payment for ecosystem services

“…However, the impact of PES programs often falls short of expectations due to suboptimal participation (Page and Bellotti 2015), among other factors. Payment alone is insufficient to attract participation (Sorice et al 2018). Designing effective conservation incentive programs is enhanced by understanding farmers' decision-making processes and prioritization of outcomes (Ma et al 2012;Wynne-Jones 2013;Smith and Sullivan 2014).…”