Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- About the authors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Measuring ecosystem services
- Part III Valuing ecosystem services
- Part IV Paying for ecosystem services
- 8 Market-based instruments for ecosystem services
- 9 Payments for ecosystem services
- Part V Governing ecosystem services
- Index
- Plate section
- References
8 - Market-based instruments for ecosystem services
from Part IV - Paying for ecosystem services
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- About the authors
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Measuring ecosystem services
- Part III Valuing ecosystem services
- Part IV Paying for ecosystem services
- 8 Market-based instruments for ecosystem services
- 9 Payments for ecosystem services
- Part V Governing ecosystem services
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
Introduction
The concept of ecosystem services is useful but also rather controversial. In part, this controversy relates to what is sometimes called the “commoditization” of ecosystem services (Muradian and Rival, 2012; see also the introduction of this book). Many people feel that the benefits that nature provides us with should not be conceptualized as “services” comparable to those supplied by traditional markets (e.g. the legal services of a lawyer or the financial services of a bank).
Nevertheless, many environmental economists have observed that market mechanisms can play an important role in balancing the “supply” and “demand” of ecosystem services. For example, farmers respond to subsidy schemes that offer them a fair reward for environment-friendly practices and consumers with “green” preferences tend to buy ecolabeled products.
Unlike actors in traditional markets, the suppliers and consumers of ecosystem services often do not directly engage in transactions with each other. This has to do with four typical and closely related features of many ecosystem services (also known as “market failures”):
Their “public good” (or “collective good”) nature: Ecosystem services, such as those provided by pristine forests and clean rivers, are there for everyone to enjoy. No one can be excluded from the tangible and intangible benefits they provide and (to a certain extent) there is no rivalry in their use (that means that their enjoyment by any individual does not preclude the simultaneous enjoyment by others).
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ecosystem ServicesFrom Concept to Practice, pp. 163 - 182Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
(2013). (accessed 28 November 2013).
and (2005). The Conservation Easement Handbook (2nd edition). Washington DC: Land Trust Alliance.Google Scholar
, , , and (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12): 2588–2597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2007). The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(2): 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecological Economics, 69(11): 2060–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). EVER: Evaluation of EMAS and Eco-label for their Revision. Available at: (accessed 27 September 2013).
(2010). Enforcing member state compliance with EU environmental law: a critical evaluation of the use of financial penalties. Journal of Environmental Law, 23(1): 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2011). Public acceptance for environmental taxes: self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns. Energy Policy, 39: 2966–2973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora’s box?Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(3): 579–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2011). 2011 Update: State of Biodiversity Markets. Washington DC: Forest Trends. Available at: (accessed 3 October 2013).Google Scholar
, , , et al. (2012). Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biological Conservation, 155: 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2012). Handbook of Research on Environmental Taxation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2012). Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1(1): 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds) (2014). Paying the Polluter. Environmentally Harmful Subsidies and their Reform. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
(2012). Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environmental Science and Policy, 19–20: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1999). The social support for policy measures in passenger transport: a statistical analysis for the Netherlands. Transportation Research, 4: 181–200.Google Scholar
, , , , and (2011). Offsets, habitat banking and tradable permits for biodiversity conservation. In and (eds), Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Rsearch – UFZ, Leipzig. Available at: .Google Scholar
(2009). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy-makers. Available at: .
(2010). User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: an application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Marine Policy, 34(1): 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2013). Payments for ecosystem services and rural development: landowners’ preferences and potential participation in western Mexico. Ecosystem Services, 6: 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2013). (accessed 28 November 2013).
and (2007). Transfer of Development Rights in US Communities: Evaluating Program Design, Implementation, and Outcomes. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
and (2010). A conceptual analysis of the application of tradable permits to biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 24(2): 404–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives: an empirical approach. Ecological Economics, 32: 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.