IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v53y2022ics2212041621001315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approaches to cost-effectiveness of payments for tree planting and forest management for water quality services

Author

Listed:
  • Valatin, G.
  • Ovando, P.
  • Abildtrup, J.
  • Accastello, C.
  • Andreucci, M.B.
  • Chikalanov, A.
  • El Mokaddem, A.
  • Garcia, S.
  • Gonzalez-Sanchis, M.
  • Gordillo, F.
  • Kayacan, B.
  • Little, D.
  • Lyubenova, M.
  • Nisbet, T.
  • Paletto, A.
  • Petucco, C.
  • Termansen, M.
  • Vasylyshyn, K.
  • Vedel, S.E.
  • Yousefpour, R.

Abstract

The evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of Payments for ecosystem services (PES) in fostering positive environmental outcomes has been central to the scientific debate on their implementation. PES cost-effectiveness can be affected by a myriad of environmental, institutional and socio-economic factors operating at different spatial and temporal scales. Moreover, it can be affected by synergies and trade-offs in the provision of ecosystem services (ES). Planting trees is increasingly considered an effective measure to provide water-related ES. It can enhance watershed services such as nutrient retention, erosion control, stream flow regulation, protection against extreme events (e.g., floods and landslides), and lead to a permanent change in land use, replacing agricultural activities that give rise to diffuse pollution. Very few studies currently exist on the cost-effectiveness of tree planting for water quality benefits PES schemes in Europe. Including both review and research elements, this paper highlights challenges in undertaking such assessments. It develops a conceptual framework to help underpin future studies, with its application to three case studies in Denmark explored. Particular attention is given to the estimation of environmental effectiveness in the provision of water quality services and the importance of co-benefits. In the case where we exclude co-benefits from the analysis, the financial cost-effectiveness is always above zero, with central estimates (without discounting environmental improvements) of €10/Kg N, and €0.36 to €0.50/mg pesticide. Once co-benefits are accounted for, however, the social cost-effectiveness is negative (except for under the low estimates) as the value of the co-benefits exceeds the costs, with central estimates of -€28/Kg N, and -€0.34 to -€0.23/mg pesticide. The paper discusses the implications and lessons for PES cost-effectiveness analysis, and identifies research gaps. Increased knowledge of forest water benefits and the cost-effectiveness of woodlands for water schemes would help underpin future incentives to enhance the provision of these ES.

Suggested Citation

  • Valatin, G. & Ovando, P. & Abildtrup, J. & Accastello, C. & Andreucci, M.B. & Chikalanov, A. & El Mokaddem, A. & Garcia, S. & Gonzalez-Sanchis, M. & Gordillo, F. & Kayacan, B. & Little, D. & Lyubenova, 2022. "Approaches to cost-effectiveness of payments for tree planting and forest management for water quality services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:53:y:2022:i:c:s2212041621001315
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621001315
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101373?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Reeson, Andrew F. & Rodriguez, Luis C. & Whitten, Stuart M. & Williams, Kristen & Nolles, Karel & Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2011. "Adapting auctions for the provision of ecosystem services at the landscape scale," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1621-1627, July.
    3. Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
    4. Solange Filoso & Maíra Ometto Bezerra & Katherine C B Weiss & Margaret A Palmer, 2017. "Impacts of forest restoration on water yield: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-26, August.
    5. Mokondoko, Pierre & Manson, Robert H. & Pérez-Maqueo, Octavio, 2016. "Assessing the service of water quality regulation by quantifying the effects of land use on water quality and public health in central Veracruz, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 161-173.
    6. Lima, Letícia Santos de & Krueger, Tobias & García-Marquez, Jaime, 2017. "Uncertainties in demonstrating environmental benefits of payments for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 139-149.
    7. 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.
    8. Taylor, Simon, 2012. "The ranking of negative-cost emissions reduction measures," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 430-438.
    9. Julio Berbel & Alfonso Expósito, 2018. "Economic challenges for the EU Water Framework Directive reform and implementation," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 20-34, January.
    10. Xiaohong Deng & Zhongmin Xu, 2015. "Green Auctions and Reduction of Information Rents in Payments for Environmental Services: An Experimental Investigation in Sunan County, Northwestern China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15, March.
    11. Signe Anthon & Serge Garcia & Anne Stenger, 2010. "Incentive Contracts for Natura 2000 Implementation in Forest Areas," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 281-302, July.
    12. Jax, Kurt & Barton, David N. & Chan, Kai M.A. & de Groot, Rudolf & Doyle, Ulrike & Eser, Uta & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Griewald, Yuliana & Haber, Wolfgang & Haines-Young, Roy & Heink, 2013. "Ecosystem services and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 260-268.
    13. Cyrus Samii & Matthew Lisiecki & Parashar Kulkarni & Laura Paler & Larry Chavis & Birte Snilstveit & Martina Vojtkova & Emma Gallagher, 2014. "Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) on Deforestation and Poverty in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-95.
    14. Wang, Yangyang & Atallah, Shady & Shao, Guofan, 2017. "Spatially explicit return on investment to private forest conservation for water purification in Indiana, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 45-57.
    15. G. Hodgson, 2007. "What Are Institutions?," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 8.
    16. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Perni, Angel & Jackson-Blake, Leah & Balana, Bedru B. & Mckee, Annie & Dunn, Sarah & Helliwell, Rachel & Psaltopoulos, Demetris & Skuras, Dimitris & Cooksley, Susan & Slee, Bill, 2015. "A transdisciplinary approach to the economic analysis of the European Water Framework Directive," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 34-45.
    17. Fröschl, Lena & Pierrard, Roger & Schönbäck, Wilfried, 2008. "Cost-efficient choice of measures in agriculture to reduce the nitrogen load flowing from the Danube River into the Black Sea: An analysis for Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 96-105, December.
    18. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & McCosker, Kevin & Northey, Adam, 2018. "Assessing cost-effectiveness when environmental benefits are bundled: agricultural water management in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), July.
    19. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    20. John Rolfe & Jill Windle & Kevin McCosker & Adam Northey, 2018. "Assessing cost‐effectiveness when environmental benefits are bundled: agricultural water management in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), pages 373-393, July.
    21. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Zuber, 2012. "Climate policies deserve a negative discount rate," Working Papers halshs-00728193, HAL.
    22. Paul J. Ferraro, 2003. "Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 27-43.
    23. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    24. Balana, Bedru Babulo & Vinten, Andy & Slee, Bill, 2011. "A review on cost-effectiveness analysis of agri-environmental measures related to the EU WFD: Key issues, methods, and applications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1031, April.
    25. 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.
    26. Julio Berbel & Julia Martin-Ortega & Pascual Mesa, 2011. "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Water-Saving Measures for the Water Framework Directive: the Case of the Guadalquivir River Basin in Southern Spain," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(2), pages 623-640, January.
    27. Jan Börner & Dario Schulz & Sven Wunder & Alexander Pfaff, 2020. "The Effectiveness of Forest Conservation Policies and Programs," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 45-64, October.
    28. Cristian Accastello & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun, 2019. "A Framework for the Integration of Nature-Based Solutions into Environmental Risk Management Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-12, January.
    29. Liquete, Camino & Udias, Angel & Conte, Giulio & Grizzetti, Bruna & Masi, Fabio, 2016. "Integrated valuation of a nature-based solution for water pollution control. Highlighting hidden benefits," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 392-401.
    30. Maria Theresia Konrad & Hans Estrup Andersen & Steen Gyldenkœrne & Mette Termansen, 2017. "Synergies and Trade-offs in Spatially Targeted Water Quality and Climate Change Mitigation Policies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 309-327.
    31. Benjamin, Emmanuel O. & Sauer, Johannes, 2018. "The cost effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services—Smallholders and agroforestry in Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 293-302.
    32. Brukas, Vilis & Jellesmark Thorsen, Bo & Helles, Finn & Tarp, Peter, 2001. "Discount rate and harvest policy: implications for Baltic forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 143-156, June.
    33. Hily, Emeline & Garcia, Serge & Stenger, Anne & Tu, Gengyang, 2015. "Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a biodiversity conservation policy: A bio-econometric analysis of Natura 2000 contracts in forest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 197-208.
    34. S. Wunder & R. Brouwer & S. Engel & D. Ezzine-de-Blas & R. Muradian & U. Pascual & R. Pinto, 2018. "From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 145-150, March.
    35. Wünscher, Tobias & Engel, Stefanie & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 822-833, May.
    36. Engel, Stefanie, 2016. "The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 9(1-2), pages 131-177, July.
    37. Ovando, Paola & Brouwer, Roy, 2019. "A review of economic approaches modeling the complex interactions between forest management and watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 164-176.
    38. Thu-Ha Dang Phan & Roy Brouwer & Long Phi Hoang & Marc David Davidson, 2018. "Do payments for forest ecosystem services generate double dividends? An integrated impact assessment of Vietnam’s PES program," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, August.
    39. Grizzetti, B. & Lanzanova, D. & Liquete, C. & Reynaud, A. & Cardoso, A.C., 2016. "Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 194-203.
    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. Kang, Shiteng & Kroeger, Timm & Shemie, Daniel & Echavarria, Marta & Montalvo, Tamara & Bremer, Leah L. & Bennett, Genevieve & Barreto, Samuel Roiphe & Bracale, Henrique & Calero, Claudia & Cardenas, , 2023. "Investing in nature-based solutions: Cost profiles of collective-action watershed investment programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. Gaglio, Mattias & Muresan, Alexandra Nicoleta & Sebastiani, Alessandro & Cavicchi, Davide & Fano, Elisa Anna & Castaldelli, Giuseppe, 2023. "A “reserve” of regulating services: The importance of a remnant protected forest for human well-being in the Po delta (Italy)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(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. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    2. Saint-Cyr, Legrand D.F. & Védrine, Lionel & Legras, Sophie & Le Gallo, Julie & Bellassen, Valentin, 2023. "Drivers of PES effectiveness: Some evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Montoya-Zumaeta, Javier G. & Wunder, Sven & Tacconi, Luca, 2021. "Incentive-based conservation in Peru: Assessing the state of six ongoing PES and REDD+ initiatives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Cisneros, Elías & Börner, Jan & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2022. "Impacts of conservation incentives in protected areas: The case of Bolsa Floresta, Brazil," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    7. Ferré, Marie & Engel, Stefanie & Gsottbauer, Elisabeth, 2022. "Incentivizing coordination in the adoption of sustainable land use when costs are heterogeneous: An economic experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    8. Bauchet, Jonathan & Asquith, Nigel & Ma, Zhao & Radel, Claudia & Godoy, Ricardo & Zanotti, Laura & Steele, Diana & Gramig, Benjamin M. & Chong, Andrea Estrella, 2020. "The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    11. Jones, Kelly W. & Mayer, Alex & Von Thaden, Juan & Berry, Z. Carter & López-Ramírez, Sergio & Salcone, Jacob & Manson, Robert H. & Asbjornsen, Heidi, 2020. "Measuring the net benefits of payments for hydrological services programs in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    12. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    13. Izquierdo-Tort, Santiago & Ortiz-Rosas, Fiorella & Vázquez-Cisneros, Paola Angélica, 2019. "‘Partial’ participation in Payments for Environmental Services (PES): Land enrolment and forest loss in the Mexican Lacandona Rainforest," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Dobšinská, Zuzana & Báliková, Klára & Jarský, Vilém & Hríb, Michal & Štifil, Roman & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2024. "Evaluation analysis of the compensation payments schemes for ecosystem services: The case of Czech and Slovak Republic," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    17. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    18. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    19. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    20. Haas, Johannes Christian & Loft, Lasse & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2019. "How fair can incentive-based conservation get? The interdependence of distributional and contextual equity in Vietnam's payments for Forest Environmental Services Program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 205-214.

    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:53:y:2022:i:c:s2212041621001315. 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.