The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?

Hausknost, Daniel; Grima, Nelson; Singh, Simron

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.024

Cited by 55 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But policy design research must also address policy objectives and the types of agency needed to support their achievement (Van Hecken et al , ; Fletcher and Büscher, ). This requires a complementary set of analytical tools that address political dimensions of instruments (Vatn, ; Hausknost et al , ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early PES research has noted that context matters for the interpretation of PES impacts (Landell‐Mills and Porras, ). The growing literature on the classification of PES also emphasizes the need to characterize context (Wunder, ; Porras et al , ; Sommerville et al , ; Swallow et al , ; Muradian et al , ; Vatn, ; Karsenty, ; Shelley, ; Pirard, ; Tacconi, ; van Noordwijk et al , ; Wunder, ; Hausknost et al , ; Huber‐Stearns et al , ). Syntheses of PES findings increasingly point to institutional and socio‐ecological contextual factors in explaining its impacts (Wunder, ; Wunder et al , ; Angelsen, ; Greiber, ; Muradian et al , ; Pascual et al , ; Vatn, ; Ferraro, ; Corbera, ; Raes et al , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments

Barton

Benavides²,

Chacón-Cascante

et al. 2017

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy mix analysis has been applied in research on energy, climate, urban and transport policy, and more recently biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. However, policy mix analysis has thus far been employed at a high conceptual level, focusing on describing interactions between instrument types. Policy mix analysis rarely describes instrument ‘structure’ or functional characteristics in a way that would answer the question ‘what constitutes an instrument’? We describe how the rules‐in‐use taxonomy of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, developed for research on common pool resource management, can be used to characterize conservation policy instrument interactions. We demonstrate the approach on the well‐known payments for ecosystem services (PES) program in Costa Rica and cross‐compliance policies, arguing that PES is a policy mix rather than a single economic instrument. Our analysis shows how design features of PES described in the economics literature map to ‘rules‐in‐use’ in the IAD framework. The framework provides a terminology for defining what constitutes institutional context, comparing economic, regulatory and information instruments, and studying their interactions. The rules‐in‐use taxonomy of IAD is a ‘structural’ diagnostic approach, which needs to be combined with other tools that analyse the role and ‘agency’ of actors, as part of integrative environmental governance research. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments

Barton

Benavides²,

Chacón-Cascante

et al. 2017

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As PES usually requires political support [42], the use of a "bottom-up" process is highly recommended. In fact, involving local communities and stakeholders (public and private) together with public authority support and collaboration from the very beginning through a transparent and structured process can improve the outcomes of a PES scheme [21] and avoid the risk of failure or negative side effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Payments for Ecosystem Services Improve the Management of Natura 2000 Sites? A Contribution to Explore Their Role in Italy

Marino

Pellegrino

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Financing protected areas is crucial for guaranteeing the flow of ecosystem services (ES) provided by natural and semi-natural ecosystems, which are the basis of human well-being. In the last two decades, together with traditional conservation tools, innovative instruments, such as PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services), have been proposed and implemented all over the world in order to improve management effectiveness in biodiversity conservation. In this paper we identified and categorized 33 PES case studies in 19 Natura 2000 sites developing the hypothesis that a PES approach may contribute to improving the effectiveness of conservation actions at different spatial and administrative levels. We found that in these areas, farmers and foresters often allow the maintenance of natural and semi-natural ecosystems through their economic activity. Through PES schemes their important role can be formally acknowledged, both in environmental and economic terms. PES schemes are also a tool for involving more stakeholders, particularly local companies, residents and tourists in conservation actions. So PES can actually improve Natura 2000 sites' management and increase the availability of financial resources in favor of conservation actions. However, careful attention must to be paid to the supporting role of public authorities, generally crucial for the success of a PES.

show abstract

“…On the one hand, the vagueness is the outcome of continuous, complex, and demanding negotiations (boundary work) about, for example, how the ES concept is defined, how implementation and application is interpreted, which foci are set, and which tools are used. With respect to policy and decision-making, these negotiations are not only a scientific exercise but-to some degree-also linked to political or societal interests [34][35][36]. Moreover, due to its nature as a boundary concept, knowledge claims concerning ES from different scientific disciplines are linked to certain fields of policy-making and may potentially conflict with other fields (e.g., conservation biology linked to nature protection conflicts vs. agricultural research which emphasises provisioning services [37,38]).…”

Section: Ecosystem Services As a Boundary Concept: Potential And Applmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; (e) integrating perspectives of different action fields when it comes to take note of trade-offs between ES and their use or their conservation; and (f) integrating different types of knowledge such as system, orientation, and transformation knowledge [61] for each step of the ES models, either the Cascade or the Stairways Model, as each step involves highly political decisions (e.g., [35,36]. In particular, orientation knowledge (e.g., which ES should be protected?)…”

Section: The Role Of Integration In Ecosystem Services Research: the mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Concept: Arguments from Social Ecology

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services (ES) are defined as the interdependencies between society and nature. Despite several years of conceptual discussions, some challenges of the ES concept are far from being resolved. In particular, the usefulness of the concept for nature protection is questioned, and a strong critique is expressed concerning its contribution towards the neoliberal commodification of nature. This paper argues that these challenges can be addressed by dealing more carefully with ES as a boundary concept between different disciplines and between science and society. ES are neither about nature nor about human wellbeing, but about the mutual dependencies between nature and human wellbeing. These mutual interdependencies, however, create tensions and contradictions that manifest themselves in the boundary negotiations between different scientific disciplines and between science and society. This paper shows that approaches from Social Ecology can address these boundary negotiations and the power relations involved more explicitly. Finally, this implies the urgent need for more inter-and transdisciplinary collaboration in ES research. We conclude (1) that the social-ecological nature of ES must be elaborated more carefully while explicitly focussing on the interdependencies between nature and society; (2) to better implement inter-and transdisciplinary methods into ES research; and (3) that such ES research can-and to some extent already does-substantially enhance international research programmes such as Future Earth.

show abstract

The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?

Cited by 55 publications

References 52 publications

Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments

Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments

Can Payments for Ecosystem Services Improve the Management of Natura 2000 Sites? A Contribution to Explore Their Role in Italy

Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Concept: Arguments from Social Ecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About