Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives

Spatial targeting of payments for ecosystem services to achieve conservation goals and promote social equity and economic impact

“…The MOLP uses the outputs from all four models, and thus we indirectly discuss the results from the carbon simulation and IMPLAN models. The parameters of the carbon simulation and IMPLAN models come from available models developed and estimated by the authors for other studies (Cho et al , ).…”

“…Despite the potential interrelationship between the rural economic and equity impacts of PES, economic and equity impacts should independently enter the spatial targeting decision‐making process, because the impact on social equity relates to the fairness of the payment distribution and the economic impact relates to how cash payments to private landowners impact the local economy without regard to fairness. For example, questions about the social equity of PES have examined how payments help improve measures of social welfare and equity such as the poverty rate and/or the Gini index (Wu & Yu ; Zilberman, Lipper, & McCarthy, ), while questions about the economic impact of PES have investigated whether PES programs generate positive regional economic impacts from cash payments to participating landowners (Cho et al ; Engel et al ; Zhang & Pagiola ; Zilberman et al ).…”

“…The literature emphasizes the need for PES design to integrate equity into efficiency-driven spatial targeting (Pascual et al 2014). Despite the need, few, if any, studies that focus on improving the cost efficiency of PES have integrated equity into the spatial targeting decisionmaking process (but see Cho, Soh, English, Yu, & Boyer, 2019). Another gap in the literature is the lack of studies that include both optimal spatial targeting and the economic impact of PES.…”

“…F I G U R E 1 Overview of the case study area 1.2 | Literature review Improving the cost efficiency of PES requires accounting for spatial variations in the benefits and opportunity costs of ecosystem services because they play a critical role in incentive payment design Mason & Plantinga 2011). The benefits are associated with spatially-varying ecosystem properties, such as carbon sequestration or biodiversity, while the opportunity costs of supplying the benefits vary spatially with the returns from forestland and competing land uses (Antle et al 2003;Armsworth et al 2012;Cho et al 2019;Cho, Lee, Roberts, Yu, & Armsworth, 2018;Fraser 2009;Gibbons et al 2011;Hanley et al 2012;Kim & Cho 2018;Kim & Langpap 2015;Zhao, Kurkalova, & Kling, 2004).…”

Exploring the Socioeconomic Co-benefits of Global Environment Facility Projects in Uganda Using a Quasi-Experimental Geospatial Interpolation (QGI) Approach

“…Assessing the impact of efforts to improve environmental conditions is a topic that has seen extensive research for decades [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. While most work has focused explicitly on environmental outcomes, a smaller-but still very significant-body of work has examined the socioeconomic co-benefits attributable to environmental interventions [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. This has recently expanded to include the use of observational control trials to identify the impacts of specific projects [1,[21][22][23][24].…”