IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v31y2018ipap21-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using institutional grammar to improve understanding of the form and function of payment for ecosystem services programs

Author

Listed:
  • Lien, Aaron M.
  • Schlager, Edella
  • Lona, Ashly

Abstract

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes are governed by complex institutional arrangements. Specific rules are needed to control who can participate in buying and selling of services, under what circumstances participation is allowed, how transactions are regulated, and many other actions. Decisions made by the developers of PES schemes about what rules to include and what form these rules take are likely to have an impact on the eventual success or failure of the scheme. This paper applies the Institutional Analysis and Develop Framework’s rules typology and Institutional Grammar Tool to develop a new method of classifying and summarizing institutional arrangements of PES schemes. We use 21 water quality trading schemes and develop the institutional rules classification and summary system. The classification system enables comparative assessment of institutional diversity across PES schemes. We demonstrate the utility of the classification system for this purpose by showing that there is significant institutional diversity among water quality trading schemes, despite their common environmental objectives and market-based approaches to addressing environmental challenges. We conclude with suggestions for applying the classification system to comparative research to understand the effectiveness of PES schemes generally and how differences in institutional arrangements may contribute to success or failure.

Suggested Citation

  • Lien, Aaron M. & Schlager, Edella & Lona, Ashly, 2018. "Using institutional grammar to improve understanding of the form and function of payment for ecosystem services programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 21-31.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:31:y:2018:i:pa:p:21-31
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617303947
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.011?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. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    2. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah & Lurie, Susan & Duncan, Sally, 2014. "Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-64.
    3. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    4. Crawford, Sue E. S. & Ostrom, Elinor, 1995. "A Grammar of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 582-600, September.
    5. Derissen, Sandra & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "What are PES? A review of definitions and an extension," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 12-15.
    6. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    7. Hrabanski, Marie & Bidaud, Cécile & Le Coq, Jean-François & Méral, Philippe, 2013. "Environmental NGOs, policy entrepreneurs of market-based instruments for ecosystem services? A comparison of Costa Rica, Madagascar and France," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 124-132.
    8. Mislimshoeva, Bunafsha & Samimi, Cyrus & Kirchhoff, Joachim-F. & Koellner, Thomas, 2013. "Analysis of costs and people's willingness to enroll in forest rehabilitation in Gorno Badakhshan, Tajikistan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 75-83.
    9. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah, 2015. "Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social–ecological systems framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 172-181.
    10. Huber-Stearns, Heidi R. & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Cheng, Antony S. & Toombs, Theodore P., 2015. "Institutional analysis of payments for watershed services in the western United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 83-93.
    11. Greenhalgh, Suzie & Selman, Mindy, 2012. "Comparing Water Quality Trading Programs: What Lessons Are There To Learn?," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-22.
    12. Kroeger, Timm, 2013. "The quest for the “optimal” payment for environmental services program: Ambition meets reality, with useful lessons," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 65-74.
    13. Sattler, Claudia & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice—Approaches, design process and innovative aspects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 2-11.
    14. Fauzi, Akhmad & Anna, Zuzy, 2013. "The complexity of the institution of payment for environmental services: A case study of two Indonesian PES schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 54-63.
    15. Muñoz Escobar, Marcela & Hollaender, Robert & Pineda Weffer, Camilo, 2013. "Institutional durability of payments for watershed ecosystem services: Lessons from two case studies from Colombia and Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 46-53.
    16. Yin, Runsheng & Zhao, Minjuan, 2012. "Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes—China's experience as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 56-65.
    17. Legrand, Thomas & Froger, Géraldine & Le Coq, Jean-François, 2013. "Institutional performance of Payments for Environmental Services: An analysis of the Costa Rican Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 115-123.
    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. Minna Havukainen & Mirja Mikkilä & Helena Kahiluoto, 2022. "Climate Policy Reform in Nepal through the Lenses of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.

    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. Brownson, Katherine & Fowler, Laurie, 2020. "Evaluating how we evaluate success: Monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management in Payments for Watershed Services programs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Sattler, Claudia & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice—Approaches, design process and innovative aspects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 2-11.
    4. Diswandi, Diswandi, 2017. "A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 138-145.
    5. 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.
    6. Brownson, Katherine & Guinessey, Elizabeth & Carranza, Marcia & Esquivel, Manrique & Hesselbach, Hilda & Madrid Ramirez, Lucia & Villa, Luis, 2019. "Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Davies, Helen J. & Doick, Kieron J. & Hudson, Malcolm D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Schreckenberg, Kate & Valatin, Gregory, 2018. "Business attitudes towards funding ecosystem services provided by urban forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 159-169.
    8. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Wunder, Sven, 2019. "Why do payments for watershed services emerge? A cross-country analysis of adoption contexts," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 111-119.
    9. Géraldine Froger & Valérie Boisvert & Philippe Méral & Jean-François Le Coq & Armelle Caron & Olivier Aznar, 2015. "Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services between Discourse and Reality: An Economic and Narrative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-17, August.
    10. Bingham, Logan Robert, 2021. "Vittel as a model case in PES discourse: Review and critical perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    11. Benjamin S. Thompson, 2021. "Corporate Payments for Ecosystem Services in Theory and Practice: Links to Economics, Business, and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    12. 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).
    13. Coralie Calvet & Claude Napoleone & Jean-Michel Salles & Syndhia Mathé & Hélène Rey-Valette & Leslie Carnoye & Rita Lopes & Valérie Boisvert & Philippe Méral & Jean-François Le Coq & Armelle Caron & O, 2015. "Ecosystem Services and Institutional Dynamics," Post-Print hal-03023959, HAL.
    14. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah, 2015. "Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social–ecological systems framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 172-181.
    15. Rodríguez-Robayo, Karla Juliana & Merino-Perez, Leticia, 2017. "Contextualizing context in the analysis of payment for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 259-267.
    16. Huber-Stearns, Heidi R. & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Cheng, Antony S. & Toombs, Theodore P., 2015. "Institutional analysis of payments for watershed services in the western United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 83-93.
    17. Le Coq, Jean-François & Froger, Geraldine & Pesche, Denis & Legrand, Thomas & Saenz, Fernando, 2015. "Understanding the governance of the Payment for Environmental Services Programme in Costa Rica: A policy process perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 253-265.
    18. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    19. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    20. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:31:y:2018:i:pa:p:21-31. 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.