IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v29y2018ipap137-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of relative individual ecosystem demand on stacking ecosystem credit markets

Author

Listed:
  • Motallebi, Marzieh
  • Hoag, Dana L.
  • Tasdighi, Ali
  • Arabi, Mazdak
  • Osmond, Deanna L.
  • Boone, Randall B.

Abstract

A blended actual and hypothetical vertical ecosystem services stacking scenario is developed for a water quality trading (WQT) program in North Carolina. Demand is estimated for total nitrogen reduction and simulated for total phosphorous reduction. Nitrogen and phosphorus are complementary pollutants jointly produced by a single conservation practice, riparian buffers. The supply of reduction is based on the amount of riparian buffers that would be implemented by farmers at a given offering price for WQT credits. Nitrogen reduction is the primary ecosystem service that already has a market in the form of a WQT program. Phosphorus reduction is a hypothetical, secondary ecosystem service that we introduce to evaluate ecosystem stacking. We specifically evaluate stacking in thin markets, where there are few buyers and/or sellers. Our detailed analysis shows that the relative size of demand for different services plays a profound role in the success of stacking when markets are thin; and many if not most ecosystem markets are thin. A secondary service with relatively low demand will either be too small (insufficient) to generate any new credits, or, in a non-competitive market with few sellers, produce no additionality of the secondary service (double dipping). In these two cases, sponsors of the secondary market should not make payments since they will receive no additional benefits above what would have been achieved under conservation practices implemented for the primary ecosystem service. We find that ecosystem stacking is most likely to generate more revenue to producers and to reduce pollution emissions when demand for the secondary service is comparable in magnitude to the primary service. Accurate assessment of relative demand can help policy makers determine where stacking might work, and help purchasers avoid paying for services without results, especially where markets are thin.

Suggested Citation

  • Motallebi, Marzieh & Hoag, Dana L. & Tasdighi, Ali & Arabi, Mazdak & Osmond, Deanna L. & Boone, Randall B., 2018. "The impact of relative individual ecosystem demand on stacking ecosystem credit markets," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 137-144.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pa:p:137-144
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617300724
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    2. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    3. Meijaard, Erik & Wunder, Sven & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Sheil, Douglas, 2014. "What scope for certifying forest ecosystem services?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 160-166.
    4. Horan, Richard D. & Shortle, James S. & Abler, David G., 2004. "The Coordination and Design of Point-Nonpoint Trading Programs and Agri-Environmental Policies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 61-78, April.
    5. Richard T. Woodward & Ronald A. Kaiser, 2002. "Market Structures for U.S. Water Quality Trading," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 366-383.
    6. Bonn, Aletta & Reed, Mark S. & Evans, Chris D. & Joosten, Hans & Bain, Clifton & Farmer, Jenny & Emmer, Igino & Couwenberg, John & Moxey, Andrew & Artz, Rebekka & Tanneberger, Franziska & von Unger, M, 2014. "Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 54-65.
    7. Himlal Baral & Rodney J. Keenan & Nigel E. Stork & Sabine Kasel, 2014. "Measuring and managing ecosystem goods and services in changing landscapes: a south-east Australian perspective," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(7), pages 961-983, July.
    8. Deal, Robert L. & Cochran, Bobby & LaRocco, Gina, 2012. "Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 69-76.
    9. Wendland, Kelly J. & Honzák, Miroslav & Portela, Rosimeiry & Vitale, Benjamin & Rubinoff, Samuel & Randrianarisoa, Jeannicq, 2010. "Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2093-2107, September.
    10. Woodward, Richard T., 2011. "Double-dipping in environmental markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 153-169, March.
    11. Torabi, Nooshin & Bekessy, Sarah A., 2015. "Bundling and stacking in bio-sequestration schemes: Opportunities and risks identified by Australian stakeholders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 84-92.
    12. Ingram, Jane Carter & Wilkie, David & Clements, Tom & McNab, Roan Balas & Nelson, Fred & Baur, Erick Hogan & Sachedina, Hassanali T. & Peterson, David Dean & Foley, Charles Andrew Harold, 2014. "Evidence of Payments for Ecosystem Services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 10-21.
    13. McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg & Hamstead, Zoé A., 2013. "Mapping ecosystem services in New York City: Applying a social–ecological approach in urban vacant land," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 11-26.
    14. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
    15. Jussi Lankoski & Markku Ollikainen & Elizabeth Marshall & Marcel Aillery, 2015. "Environmental Co-benefits and Stacking in Environmental Markets," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 72, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lin, Jingyu & Huang, Jinliang & Hadjikakou, Michalis & Huang, Yaling & Li, Kun & Bryan, Brett A., 2021. "Reframing water-related ecosystem services flows," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. Gren, Ing-Marie & Ang, Frederic, 2019. "Stacking of abatement credits for cost-effective achievement of climate and water targets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Torabi, Nooshin & Bekessy, Sarah A., 2015. "Bundling and stacking in bio-sequestration schemes: Opportunities and risks identified by Australian stakeholders," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 84-92.
    3. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    4. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    5. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    6. Maczka, Krzysztof & Matczak, Piotr & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Cent, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2016. "Application of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy—A systematic empirical analysis of national level policy documents in Poland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 169-176.
    7. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    8. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    9. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    10. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2013. "Policy Instruments for Water Quality Protection," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 111-138, June.
    11. Nathalie Meißner & Etti Winter, 2019. "Design principles for protected area certificates: a case study on strategic investor groups," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 303-329, February.
    12. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita, 2018. "Positive effects of payments for ecosystem services on biodiversity and socio-economic development: Examples from Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 96-105.
    13. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    14. Ingram, Jane Carter & Wilkie, David & Clements, Tom & McNab, Roan Balas & Nelson, Fred & Baur, Erick Hogan & Sachedina, Hassanali T. & Peterson, David Dean & Foley, Charles Andrew Harold, 2014. "Evidence of Payments for Ecosystem Services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 10-21.
    15. Catharina Druckenbrod & Volker Beckmann, 2018. "Production-Integrated Compensation in Environmental Offsets—A Review of a German Offset Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    16. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Allott, Timothy E.H. & Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije, 2014. "Valuing water quality improvements from peatland restoration: Evidence and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 34-43.
    17. Gregory Smith & Brett Day & Amy Binner, 2019. "Multiple-Purchaser Payments for Ecosystem Services: An Exploration Using Spatial Simulation Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 421-447, September.
    18. Kaiser, Josef & Krueger, Tobias & Haase, Dagmar, 2023. "Global patterns of collective payments for ecosystem services and their degrees of commodification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    19. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    20. Lurie, Susan & Bennett, Drew E. & Duncan, Sally & Gosnell, Hannah & Hunter, Maria Lewis & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moseley, Cassandra & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Parker, Robert & White, Eric M., 2013. "PES marketplace development at the local scale: The Eugene Water and Electric Board as a local watershed services marketplace driver," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 93-103.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pa:p:137-144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.