IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v29y2018ipbp404-410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing the risks of ecosystem services markets

Author

Listed:
  • Martin, Paul V.

Abstract

Environmental governance is undergoing innovation in the use of market instruments, including payments for environmental services. As it is in nature, in society change (such as commercial or policy innovation) brings the risk of failure or of unanticipated consequences. Good governance requires intelligent precautions against what can go wrong. In investment markets governance safeguards such as competition and market regulation manage the risk that private gains accrue to the ruthless at the cost of the innocent, or that inexperience or incompetence lead to high public and private costs. For environmental markets risk safeguards are under developed. This paper explores the risk dimension of payments for environmental services, and suggests that systematic risk governance could make it more likely that these innovations will serve the public interest.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin, Paul V., 2018. "Managing the risks of ecosystem services markets," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 404-410.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pb:p:404-410
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617303327
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.007?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. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    2. Rothwell, R. & Freeman, C. & Horsley, A. & Jervis, V. T. P. & Robertson, A. B. & Townsend, J., 1993. "SAPPHO updated -- project SAPPHO phase II," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 110-110, April.
    3. Stavins, Robert N., 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," Discussion Papers 10589, Resources for the Future.
    4. Whitten, Stuart M. & Coggan, Anthea & Reeson, Andrew & Gorddard, Russell J., 2007. "Putting theory into practice: market failure and market based instrument design," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10441, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 355-435, Elsevier.
    6. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, 1997. "The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 746-755, September.
    7. Neuteleers, Stijn & Engelen, Bart, 2015. "Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 253-260.
    8. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Introduction to the Political Economy of Environmental Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-12, Resources for the Future.
    10. René Torenvlied & Robert Thomson, 2003. "Is Implementation Distinct from Political Bargaining?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(1), pages 64-84, February.
    11. Freeman, Jody & Kolstad, Charles D., 2006. "Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation: Lessons from Twenty Years of Experience," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195189650.
    12. Stuart Whitten & Anthea Coggan & Andrew F Reeson & Russell Gorddard, 2007. "Putting Theory into Practice: Market Failure and Market Based Instruments (MBIs)," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2007-02, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    13. Cameron Hepburn, 2010. "Environmental policy, government, and the market," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 26(4), pages 734-734, Winter.
    14. Rothwell, R. & Freeman, C. & Horlsey, A. & Jervis, V. T. P. & Robertson, A. B. & Townsend, J., 1974. "SAPPHO updated - project SAPPHO phase II," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 258-291, November.
    15. Duchesneau, Donald A. & Gartner, William B., 1990. "A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging industry," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 5(5), pages 297-312, September.
    16. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    17. Wimmer, Andreas & de Soysa, Indra & Wagner, Christian, 2003. "Political Science Tools For Assessing Feasibility And Sustainability Of Reforms," Discussion Papers 18768, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    18. Crase, Lin & O'Keefe, Sue & Dollery, Brian, 2009. "Water Buy-Back in Australia: Political, Technical and Allocative Challenges," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47640, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Liebowitz, S J & Margolis, Stephen E, 1995. "Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 205-226, April.
    20. Lee J. Alston & Krister Andersson & Steven M. Smith, 2013. "Payment for Environmental Services: Hypotheses and Evidence," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 139-159, June.
    21. Axel Michaelowa, 1998. "Climate policy and interest Groups—A Public choice analysis," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 33(6), pages 251-259, November.
    22. Stavins Robert N., 1995. "Transaction Costs and Tradeable Permits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 133-148, September.
    23. Boisvert, Valérie, 2015. "Conservation banking mechanisms and the economization of nature: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 134-142.
    24. Barbara Aretino & Paula Holland & Anna Matysek & Deborah Peterson, 2001. "Cost Sharing for Biodiversity Conservation: A Conceptual Framework," Others 0105001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    25. Hutter, Bridget M., 2006. "The role of non-state actors in regulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36118, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    26. Aretino, Barbara & Holland, Paula & Matysek, Anna & Peterson, Deborah C., 2001. "Cost Sharing for Biodiversity Conservation: A Conceptual Framework," Staff Research Papers 31915, Productivity Commission.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Problem of the Commons: Still Unsettled after 100 Years," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 81-108, February.
    2. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Economics," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-54, Resources for the Future.
    3. Authelet, Manon & Subervie, Julie & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Asquith, Nigel & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2021. "Economic, pro-social and pro-environmental factors influencing participation in an incentive-based conservation program in Bolivia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Aija Leiponen, 2005. "Core complementarities of the corporation: organization of an innovating firm," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 351-365.
    5. Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "The Evolution Of Environmental Economics: A View From The Inside," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 62(02), pages 251-274, June.
    6. Wolfgang Buchholz & Jonas Frank & Hans-Dieter Karl & Johannes Pfeiffer & Karen Pittel & Ursula Triebswetter & Jochen Habermann & Wolfgang Mauch & Thomas Staudacher, 2012. "Die Zukunft der Energiemärkte: Ökonomische Analyse und Bewertung von Potenzialen und Handlungsmöglichkeiten," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 57.
    7. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O’Neill, Eoin, 2018. "Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 263-272.
    8. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2006. "In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R& D and External Knowledge Acquisition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 68-82, January.
    9. Flowers, Stephen, 2008. "Harnessing the hackers: The emergence and exploitation of Outlaw Innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 177-193, March.
    10. Jason P. Davis & Yulia Muzyrya & Pai-Ling Yin, 2014. "Experimentation Strategies and Entrepreneurial Innovation: Inherited Market Differences in the iPhone Ecosystem," Discussion Papers 13-029, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    11. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    12. Zahra, Shaker A., 1996. "Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 289-321, July.
    13. Gavan Dwyer & Robert Douglas & Deb Peterson & Jo Chong & Kate Maddern, 2006. "Irrigation externalities: pricing and charges," Staff Working Papers 0603, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    14. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    15. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    16. Daniel Cardona & Jenny De Freitas & Antoni Rubí-Barceló, 2021. "Environmental policy contests: command and control versus taxes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(3), pages 654-684, June.
    17. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    18. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    19. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Can an Effective Global Climate Treaty be Based on Sound Science, Rational Economics, and Pragmatic Politics?," Working Paper Series rwp04-020, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.

    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:pb:p:404-410. 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.