Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil

Zanella, Matheus Alves; Schleyer, Christian; Speelman, Stijn

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.004

Cited by 93 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this study was concerned with developing a more qualitative assessment of PES and the schemes presented, as has been conducted in other case-studies (e.g. Zanella et al, 2014). We also acknowledge the limitations of mixed-methods studies in that it would have been difficult to combine qualitative analysis with a much larger sample size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…tenure, opportunity costs, market or political stability, climate, etc. ), often affected by present day conditions of institutions and policies (Zanella et al, 2014). The Lebanese may inherently exhibit more caution and scepticism in making decisions that require long-time commitments due to historically persistent political instability (Makdisi, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Asset-building payments for ecosystem services: assessing landowner perceptions of reforestation incentives in Lebanon

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim of study: Incentivising landowners to supply ecosystem services remains challenging, especially when this requires longterm investments such as reforestation. We investigated how landowners perceive, and would respond to, distinct types of incentives for planting diverse native trees on private lands in Lebanon. Our aim was to understand landowners' attitudes towards hypothetical Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) contracts options; their likely participation; and the potential additionality they would provide.Area of study: Highland villages situated within eight of Lebanon's 20 Important Plant Areas. Material and methods:Mixed-methods surveys were conducted with 34 landowners to determine past, present and future landuse strategies. Study participants were presented with three differently structured reforestation contract options (or schemes). The three schemes (results-based loan, action-based grant, and results-based payments) differed in their expected risks and benefits to landowners. Qualitative debriefing questions followed each of the schemes presented.Main results: Although the results-based loan did deter uptake relative to the lower risk action-based grant, results-based payments did not significantly increase uptake or planting area, suggesting asymmetric attitudes to risk. Qualitative probing revealed economic, social (e.g. trust) and institutional factors (e.g. legal implications of planting forest trees on private land) that limited willingness to participate in the results-based contract option.Research highlights: This study demonstrates the importance of combining qualitative and quantitative methods to better understand landowner perceptions of incentives and risks, particularly in challenging socio-political contexts.Additional keywords: agro-ecosystems; biodiversity; conditionality; displacement; mixed-methods; participation; PES.Correspondence: should be addressed Arbi J. Sarkissian: arbi.sarkissian@outlook.com

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asset-building payments for ecosystem services: assessing landowner perceptions of reforestation incentives in Lebanon

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What factors influence the diversity of environmental services perceived, considering the different socioeconomic categories of the farmers? The analyses took into account the social, economic and cultural context of each interviewee through predetermined variables widely discussed in the literature (BLACKMORE;DOOLE, 2013;DOLISCA;MCDANIEL;TEETER, 2007;MEIJAARD et al, 2013;ZA-NELLA;SCHLEYER;SPEELMAN, 2014). These variables were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using statistical models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local Benefits of the Atlantic Forest: Evidences From Rural Communities in Southern Brazil

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental services provided by forests are essential to the social reproduction of populations in rural areas. Perceptions about the services provided by forests play an important role in the planning of landscapes; however, few studies have investigated this issue. This study aimed at understanding how farmers perceive the role of forests in maintaining environmental services. One hundred farmers from the Chapecó Ecological Corridor - SC were interviewed. Provisioning and regulating services were mentioned most often. Water availability ranked first (65%), followed by the maintenance of habitat for biodiversity (34%) and firewood (23%). Income and local use of forest resources were the variables that best explained farmers' perceptions of forest benefits. Nevertheless, the use of forest resources has been limited by restrictions imposed by environmental legislation, which is affecting the perception of farmers about the wide range of environmental services provided by forests.

show abstract

“…As this program is led by the local government, an interesting question emerges as to what the farmers' real willingness is [31,32] and which factors apart from payments affect that willingness to support PES programs and participation in PES programs [18,19]. Especially when some factors are of low status, such as low educational levels in the villages, would the factors affecting farmers' participation in the PLDL program be the same as those in Western PES programs' surveys?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, an increasing number of scholars have been realizing the remarkable influence of the other non-economic factors on participation in PES programs, which sometimes surpasses demographic and economic causes [13]. Information and communication [16][17][18], social norms and trust [8,19], altruism [20], and environmental considerations [21,22] are gradually emerging. In particular, four categories of non-economic factors are commonly focused on; psychological aspects, relationships between humans and society, relationships between humans and nature, and the PES program itself.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Non-economic Influencing Factors Affecting Farmer’s Participation in the Paddy Landto-Dry Land Program in Chicheng County, China

Yuan

Liu

et al. 2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:There is global enthusiasm for payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs to solve environmental problems, including in China. However, PES programs in China go against the principle of 'voluntary transaction', which weakens the influences of economic factors on farmers' participation decisions and makes it hard to reveal their influence on farmers' participation willingness. Using household survey data and a logistic regression model, this study attempts to understand the influencing factors of farmers' decision-making on involvement in PES projects for hypothetical voluntary participation and focuses on whether the farmer would reject the program if the payment stopped. A surprising but promising result is found in the case of the Paddy Land-to-Dry Land (PLDL) program in Chicheng County, China, wherein, apart from the negative impact of education and the positive effect of off-farm income, two non-economic factors play a significant role in farmers' participation. The one is basic cognition, which negatively affects farmers' participation, and the other is inner altruistic motivation, which positively contributes to the participation. In addition, the high proportion of reconversion to paddy land after the payment period threatens the long-term sustainability of the PLDL program. Faced with the low education and environmental cognition statuses in remote agricultural areas, increasing educational quality and promoting the popular awareness of PES programs in rural areas should be highlighted in sustaining the efficiency and effectiveness of PES programs in the long run.

show abstract

Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil

Cited by 93 publications

References 38 publications

Asset-building payments for ecosystem services: assessing landowner perceptions of reforestation incentives in Lebanon

Asset-building payments for ecosystem services: assessing landowner perceptions of reforestation incentives in Lebanon

Local Benefits of the Atlantic Forest: Evidences From Rural Communities in Southern Brazil

Identification of Non-economic Influencing Factors Affecting Farmer’s Participation in the Paddy Landto-Dry Land Program in Chicheng County, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About