IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v35y2019icp164-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different ecosystem services, same (dis)satisfaction with compensation: A critical comparison between farmers’ perception in Scotland and Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Canova, Moara Almeida
  • Lapola, David M.
  • Pinho, Patrícia
  • Dick, Jan
  • Patricio, Gleiciani B.
  • Priess, Joerg A.

Abstract

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes have increasingly expanded to consider ecosystem services (ESS). In Brazil, the Forest Code permits PES but does not specify the scheme operationalization. The way ESS should be quantified and valued has not yet been implemented country-wide, nor has the funding source for PES. Through interviews with farmers in Rio Claro-SP, Brazil, and in Cairngorms National Park in the highlands and lowlands of Scotland, UK, we compared farmers’ perspectives concerning ESS and PES, focusing on the PES implementation in sugarcane landscape in São Paulo state. While Scottish farmers perceived more cultural services, Brazilian farmers focused on regulating services, which we attribute to socio-political and landscape differences. Despite these differences, farmers in both areas preferred opportunity cost approach for ESS valuation because this method captures efforts to maintain ESS. Thereby, the opportunity cost should be considered for valuation in PES schemes, but conversely, budgetary constraints make it impossible to satisfy farmers with PES in regions of high productivity in the southeast of Brazil. Lessons learned concerning the PES subsidies in Scotland indicates the importance of co-designing schemes with stakeholders, minimizing trade-offs between the environment. Therefore, the participants as ESS providers, beneficiaries and intermediaries in the public policies arena was recognized for co-optimize the trade-offs between costs and effectiveness in PES.

Suggested Citation

  • Canova, Moara Almeida & Lapola, David M. & Pinho, Patrícia & Dick, Jan & Patricio, Gleiciani B. & Priess, Joerg A., 2019. "Different ecosystem services, same (dis)satisfaction with compensation: A critical comparison between farmers’ perception in Scotland and Brazil," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 164-172.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:35:y:2019:i:c:p:164-172
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041618301748
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.005?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. Robert Peterson & Dwight Merunka, 2014. "Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility," Post-Print hal-01822317, HAL.
    2. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara & Ringhofer, Lisa, 2016. "Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 24-32.
    3. Barbier, Edward B., 2004. "Agricultural Expansion, Resource Booms and Growth in Latin America: Implications for Long-run Economic Development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-157, January.
    4. David M. Lapola & Luiz A. Martinelli & Carlos A. Peres & Jean P. H. B. Ometto & Manuel E. Ferreira & Carlos A. Nobre & Ana Paula D. Aguiar & Mercedes M. C. Bustamante & Manoel F. Cardoso & Marcos H. C, 2014. "Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land-use system," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 27-35, January.
    5. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    6. Peterson, Robert A. & Merunka, Dwight R., 2014. "Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 1035-1041.
    7. Silva, Rafaela A. & Lapola, David M. & Patricio, Gleiciani B. & Teixeira, Moara C. & Pinho, Patricia & Priess, Joerg A., 2016. "Operationalizing payments for ecosystem services in Brazil's sugarcane belt: How do stakeholder opinions match with successful cases in Latin America?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 128-138.
    8. Roldan Muradian & Murat Arsel & Lorenzo Pellegrini & Fikret Adaman & Bernardo Aguilar & Bina Agarwal & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine de Blas & Joshua Farley & Géraldine Froger & Eduardo Garcia-Frapoll, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions," Post-Print hal-03067404, HAL.
    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. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Constantina Alina Hossu & Simona Raluca Grădinaru & Andreea Nita & Mihai-Sorin Stupariu & Alina Huzui-Stoiculescu & Athanasios-Alexandru Gavrilidis, 2020. "A Review of Changes in Mountain Land Use and Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Dick, Jan & Andrews, Chris & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Teff-Seker, Yael & Zulian, Grazia, 2022. "A mixed-methods approach to analyse recreational values and implications for management of protected areas: A case study of Cairngorms National Park, UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).

    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. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    2. 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.
    3. Moros, Lina & Vélez, María Alejandra & Corbera, Esteve, 2019. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia's Amazon Piedmont," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 468-488.
    4. Cristina Robledo-Ardila & Juan Pablo Román-Calderón, 2022. "Potential: in search for meaning, theory and avenues for future research a systematic review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 149-186, February.
    5. Mohammad Nurul Alam & Osarodion Ogiemwonyi & Ibrahim. E. Hago & Noor Azlinna Azizan & Fariza Hashim & Md Sazzad Hossain, 2023. "Understanding Consumer Environmental Ethics and the Willingness to Use Green Products," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440221, January.
    6. Mireia Ercilla-Montserrat & David Sanjuan-Delmás & Esther Sanyé-Mengual & Laura Calvet-Mir & Karla Banderas & Joan Rieradevall & Xavier Gabarrell, 2019. "Analysis of the consumer’s perception of urban food products from a soilless system in rooftop greenhouses: a case study from the Mediterranean area of Barcelona (Spain)," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(3), pages 375-393, September.
    7. José M. Ramírez-Hurtado & Alfredo G. Hernández-Díaz & Ana D. López-Sánchez & Víctor E. Pérez-León, 2021. "Measuring Online Teaching Service Quality in Higher Education in the COVID-19 Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-14, March.
    8. Dwayne D. Gremler & Yves Vaerenbergh & Elisabeth C. Brüggen & Kevin P. Gwinner, 2020. "Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 565-583, May.
    9. Aysun Ata Aktürk & Hasibe Özlen Demircan, 2018. "Development of Preschool Children Sibling Rivalry Scale (PSRS)," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 11(1), pages 117-136, February.
    10. Joana César Machado & Beatriz Fonseca & Carla Martins, 2021. "Brand logo and brand gender: examining the effects of natural logo designs and color on brand gender perceptions and affect," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(2), pages 152-170, March.
    11. Lucinda Austin & Barbara Miller Gaither, 2019. "Redefining fit: examining CSR company-issue fit in stigmatized industries," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(1), pages 9-20, January.
    12. Grigorios, Lamprinakos & Magrizos, Solon & Kostopoulos, Ioannis & Drossos, Dimitrios & Santos, David, 2022. "Overt and covert customer data collection in online personalized advertising: The role of user emotions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 308-320.
    13. Rašković, Matevž & Ding, Zhonghui & Škare, Vatroslav & Ozretić Došen, Đurđana & Žabkar, Vesna, 2016. "Comparing consumer innovativeness and ethnocentrism of young-adult consumers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3682-3686.
    14. Teng, Weichen & Su, Yaohua & Liao, Tien-Tien & Wei, Cang-Liang, 2020. "An exploration of celebrity business ventures and their appeal to fans and non-fans," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    15. Seok Chan Jeong & Beom-Jin Choi, 2022. "Moderating Effects of Consumers’ Personal Innovativeness on the Adoption and Purchase Intention of Wearable Devices," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, November.
    16. Fan, Shengyue & He, Miao & Zhang, Tianyu & Huo, Yajing & Fan, Di, 2022. "Credibility measurement as a tool for conserving nature: Chinese herders’ livelihood capitals and payment for grassland ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    17. Nadeem, Waqar & Al-Imamy, Saifeddin, 2020. "Do ethics drive value co-creation on digital sharing economy platforms?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    18. Nadeem, Waqar & Juntunen, Mari & Shirazi, Farid & Hajli, Nick, 2020. "Consumers’ value co-creation in sharing economy: The role of social support, consumers’ ethical perceptions and relationship quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    19. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    20. 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).

    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:35:y:2019:i:c:p:164-172. 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.