Skip to main content
×
Home

Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services

  • ROY BROUWER (a1), ABONESH TESFAYE (a1) and PIETER PAUW (a2)
Summary
SUMMARY

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are a relatively new economic policy instrument, and the factors that drive and explain their environmental performance are poorly understood. Here a meta-analysis of causal relationships between the institutional design and environmental performance of 47 payments for watershed services (PWS) schemes worldwide showed a significant effect on environmental achievement of the terms and conditions of scheme participation, including the selection of service providers, community participation, the existence and monitoring of quantifiable objectives, and the number of intermediaries between service providers and buyers. Direct payments by downstream hydropower companies to upstream land owners for reduced sediment loads were identified as a successful PWS example. No other significant explanatory factors, such as specific type of watershed service, age or scale of implementation of the PWS scheme were detected. The results are highly dependent on the reliability of the input variables, in particular the measurement of the environmental performance variable. Despite efforts to find quantitative information on the environmental performance of existing PWS schemes, such empirical evidence is lacking in many of the schemes studied. International monitoring guidelines are needed to facilitate comparisons, identify success factors and support the future design of cost-effective PWS schemes.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Correspondence: Dr Roy Brouwer Tel: +31 20 598 5608 Fax: +31 20 598 9553 e-mail: roy.brouwer@ivm.vu.nl
References
Hide All
Anderson E.P., Pringle C.M. & Rojas M. (2006) Transforming tropical rivers: an environmental perspective on hydropower development in Costa Rica. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16: 679693.
Arifin B., Swallow B.M., Suyanto S. & Coe R.D. (2009) A conjoint analysis of farmer preferences for community forestry contracts in the Sumber Jaya Watershed, Indonesia. Ecological Economics 68: 20402050.
Arriagada R.A., Ferraro P.J., Sills E.O., Pattanayak S.K. & Cordero S. (2010) Do payments for environmental services reduce deforestation? A farm level evaluation from Costa Rica. Unpublished report. [www document]. URL http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcec/docs/Post%20Arriagada%20et%20al.pdf
Asquith N.M., Vargas M.T. & Wunder S. (2008) Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 65: 675684.
Bennett M.T. (2008) China's sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecological Economics 65: 699711.
Bruijnzeel L.A., Mulligan M. & Scatena F.N. (2011) Hydrometeorology of tropical montane cloud forests: emerging patterns. Hydrological Processes 25: 465498.
Bruijnzeel L.A., ed. (2006) Hydrological impacts of converting tropical montane cloud forest to pasture, with initial reference to northern Costa Rica. Final Technical Report for Project R7991, DFID Forestry Research Programme. VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bulte E.H., Lipper L., Stringer R. & Zilberman D. (2008) Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues and empirical perspective. Environment and Development Economics 13: 245254.
Célleri R. & Feyen J. (2009) The hydrology of tropical Andean ecosystems: importance, knowledge status, and perspectives. Mountain Research and Development 29 (4): 350355.
Crespo P., Célleri R., Buytaert W., Feyen J., Iñiguez V., Borja P. & de Bievre B. (2009) Land use change impacts on the hydrology of wet Andean páramo ecosystems. In: Status and Perspectives of Hydrology in Small Basins, ed. Herrmann A. & Schumann S., IAHS Publication 336. Hahnenklee Goslar, Germany: International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS).
Daniels A.E., Bagstad K., Esposito V., Moulaert A. & Rodriguez C.M. (2010) Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica's PES: are we asking the right questions? Ecological Economics 69: 21162126.
Duncan E. (2006) Payments for environmental services. An equitable approach for reducing poverty and conserving nature. Report, World Wide Fund For Nature. [www document]. URL http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/freshwater_resources/?73340/Payments-for-Environmental-Services-An-equitable-approach-for-reducing-poverty-and-conserving-nature
Engel S., Pagiola S. & Wunder S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65 (4): 663674.
Farley J. & Costanza R. (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecological Economics 69 (11): 20602068.
Glass G.V, McGaw B. & Smith M.L. (1981) Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Greiber T. (2009) Payments for Ecosystem Services. Legal and Institutional Frameworks. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Huang M., Upadhyaya S.K., Jindal R. & Kerr J. (2009) Paying for watershed services in Asia: a review of current initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28: 551575.
Kemkes R.J., Farley J. & Koliba C.J. (2010) Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecological Economics 69: 20692074.
Kerr J. & Jindal R. (2007) USAID PES Brief 4: Impact evaluation of PES programs. In: Lessons and Best Practices for Pro-poor Payment for Ecosystem Services. USAID PES Source Book, ed. USAID, pp. 5863. Blacksburg, VA, USA: SANREM CRSP [www document]. URL http://moderncms.ecosystemmarketplace.com/repository/moderncms_documents/PES_Sourcebook.1.pdf
Leimona B., Boer R., Arifin B., Murdiyarso D. & Noordjwijk M. (2006) Singkarak: combining environmental service markets for carbon and watershed functions? In: Community Forest Management as a Carbon Mitigation Option. Case studies, ed. Murdiyarso D. & Skutsch M., pp. 6073. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Leshan J., Xiaoyun L., Zuoting , Bangyou Y. & Haiyin H. (2005) Development contract with terms of watershed conservation: a win-win opportunity for development and environment in the Meijiang Watershed, Ningdu County, Jiangxi Province, China. Case Study Report, IIED Payment for Watershed Services-China diagnostic study, IIED, Beijng, China.
Le Tellier V., Carrasco A. & Asquith N. (2009) Attempts to determine the effects of forest cover on stream flow by direct hydrological measurements in Los Negros, Bolivia. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 18811888.
Mayrand K. & Paquin M. (2004) Payments for environmental services: a survey and assessment of current schemes. Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America, Unisfera International Center, Montreal, Canada [www document]. URL http://www.cec.org/Storage/56/4894_PES-Unisfera_en.pdf
Morse W.C., Schedlbauer J.L., Sesnie S.E., Finegan B., Harvey C.A., Hollenhorst S.J., Kavanagh K.L., Stoian D. & Wulfhorst J.D. (2009) Consequences of environmental service payments for forest retention and recruitment in a Costa Rican biological corridor. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 23.
Muñoz-Piña C., Guevara A., Torres J.M. & Braña J. (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 65:725736.
Muñoz-Villers L.E., Holwerda F., Gómez-Cárdenas M., Equihua M., Asbjornsen H., Bruijnzeel L.A., Marín-Castro B.E. & Tobón C. (2011) Water balances of old-growth and regenerating montane cloud forests in central Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Hydrology (in press).
Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N. & May P.H. (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 12021208.
Nelson J.P. & Kennedy P.E. (2009) The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and resource economics: an assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics 42: 345377.
Pagiola S. & Platais G. (2002) Payments for environmental services. Environment Strategy Notes no. 3. The World Bank Environmental Department, Washington, DC, USA [www document]. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/Resources/EnvStrategyNote32002.pdf
Pfaff A., Robalino J.A. & Sanchez-Azofeifa G.A. (2008) Payments for environmental services: empirical analysis for Costa Rica. Working Paper series SAN08-5, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA [www document]. URL http://sanford.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN08-05.pdf
Porras I., Grieg-Gran M. & Neves N. (2008) All that glitters. A review of payments for watershed services in developing countries. Natural Resource Issues No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development. London, UK.
Rebelo C. (2009) Financing for Forest Conservation: Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Tropics Yale ISTF Conference, March 2007. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28: 279284.
Rojahn A. & Engel S. (2005) Direct payment for biodiversity conservation, watershed protection and carbon sequestration: contract theory and empirical evidence. Working paper, Institute for Environmental Decision, Chair of Environmental Policy and Economics. ETH, Zurich, Switzerland.
Salzman J. (2005. The promise and perils of payments for ecosystem services. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 1 (1/2): 520.
Smith M., de Groot D., Perrot-Maîte D. & Bergkamp G. (2006) Establishing payments for watershed services. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland [www document]. URL http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2006-054.pdf
Southgate D. & Wunder S. (2009) Paying for watershed services in Latin America: a review of current initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28: 497524.
Stanley T.D. (2001) Wheat from chaff: meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 131150.
Tognetti S.S., Aylward B. & Bruinzeel L.A. (2010) Assessment needs to support the development of arrangements for payments for ecosystem services from tropical montane cloud forests. In: Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management, ed. Bruijnzeel L.A., Scatena F.N., Hamilton L.S., pp. 671685. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Turpie J.K., Marais C. & Blignaut J.N. (2008) The working for water programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 65: 788798.
Van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Button K.J., Nijkamp P. & Pepping G.C. (1997) Meta-analysis in Environmental Economics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Vatn A. (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 12451252.
Wolf F.M. (1986) Meta-analysis. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Wunder S. (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
Wunder S. & Alban M. (2008) Decentralized payments for environmental services: the case of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics 65: 685698.
Wunder S., Engel S. & Pagiola S. (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65: 843852.
Wunscher T., Engel S. & Wunder S. (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefit. Ecological Economics 65: 822833.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Environmental Conservation
  • ISSN: 0376-8929
  • EISSN: 1469-4387
  • URL: /core/journals/environmental-conservation
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 83 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 452 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.