IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v47y2014icp1-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forests and ecosystem services: Outlines for new policy options

Author

Listed:
  • Amacher, Gregory S.
  • Ollikainen, Markku
  • Uusivuori, Jussi

Abstract

We think beyond the Pigouvian policy approach for correcting forest ecosystem externalities. Not all ecosystem services in forestry are public goods and deserving of government intervention. Interaction in the market by sellers and buyers concerning payments for ecosystem services is possible. Also government representing the interests of the public may enter the market and negotiate with the providers of ecosystem services. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a voluntary transaction for a well-defined environmental service that is acquired by a service buyer from a service provider. PES has a potentially important role in forestry contexts. While the provider of any particular ecosystem service is always the forest landowner, the buyer may be an actual user of the ES, a government, an NGO, or international agency acting on behalf of consistencies that value or use the ES. An example of the former is a water company using watershed services sustained by a forest. Payments through REDD and REDD+ serve as an example of the latter.

Suggested Citation

  • Amacher, Gregory S. & Ollikainen, Markku & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2014. "Forests and ecosystem services: Outlines for new policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-3.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:47:y:2014:i:c:p:1-3
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411400121X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.002?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. 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.
    2. Juutinen, Artti & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku, 2013. "Landowners’ conservation motives and the size of information rents in environmental bidding systems," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 128-148.
    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. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "Reasons for Adoption and Advocacy of the Ecosystem Services Concept in UK Forestry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 47-54.
    2. Walton, Z.L. & Poudyal, N.C. & Hepinstall-Cymerman, J. & Johnson Gaither, C. & Boley, B.B., 2016. "Exploring the role of forest resources in reducing community vulnerability to the heat effects of climate change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 94-102.
    3. Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Huttunen, Suvi, 2018. "Linking practices of multifunctional forestry to policy objectives: Case studies in Finland and the UK," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 35-44.
    4. Vilém Jarský & Petra Palátová & Marcel Riedl & Daniel Zahradník & Radek Rinn & Miroslava Hochmalová, 2022. "Forest Attendance in the Times of COVID-19—A Case Study on the Example of the Czech Republic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Hoen, H-F., 2014. "The forest-based sector and research – some thoughts on relevance and future prospects," 2014, Number 45, May 22-24, 2014, Uppsala, Sweden, Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, vol. 2014(45), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Sattler, Claudia, 2022. "Using Process Net-Map to analyze governance innovations in the forestry sector," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    7. Kindler, Elisabeth, 2016. "A comparison of the concepts: Ecosystem services and forest functions to improve interdisciplinary exchange," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 52-59.
    8. Kuusela, Olli-Pekka & Lintunen, Jussi, 2020. "Modeling market-level effects of disturbance risks in age structured forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    9. Loisel, Patrice & Elyakime, Bernard, 2018. "How to manage a small-scale multi-use forest?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 13-17.
    10. Dongbin Hu & Mei Lin & Yang Chen, 2022. "Can Horizontal Ecological Compensation Improve the Water Environment in Cross-Provincial Watersheds?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-18, August.
    11. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Nghiem, Nhung, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation by farm income levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 185-194.
    12. Diego Sebastián Tello & Jorge Dante Prada & Estela Raquel Cristeche, 2021. "A multi-criteria assessment for native forest policy analysis: the case of Caldén forest in the province of Córdoba, Argentina," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5538-5556, April.
    13. Diendéré, Achille Augustin & Kaboré, Dominique, 2023. "Preferences for a payment for ecosystem services program to control forest fires in Burkina Faso: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(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. Juutinen, Artti & Ollikainen, Markku & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Reunanen, Pasi & Tikkanen, Olli-Pekka & Kouki, Jari, 2014. "Optimal contract length for biodiversity conservation under conservation budget constraint," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 14-24.
    2. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    3. Matthies, Brent D. & Kalliokoski, Tuomo & Ekholm, Tommi & Hoen, Hans Fredrik & Valsta, Lauri T., 2015. "Risk, reward, and payments for ecosystem services: A portfolio approach to ecosystem services and forestland investment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 1-12.
    4. 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.
    5. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Surun, Clément & Drechsler, Martin, 2018. "Effectiveness of Tradable Permits for the Conservation of Metacommunities With Two Competing Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 189-196.
    7. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Bardsley, Douglas K. & Bardsley, Annette M., 2014. "Organising for socio-ecological resilience: The roles of the mountain farmer cooperative Genossenschaft Gran Alpin in Graubünden, Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 11-21.
    9. 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.
    10. Xiaorui Wang & Shen Hu, 2024. "How do organizations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 42(3), May.
    11. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    12. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    13. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    14. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    15. Tan Li & Qingguo Zhang & Ying Zhang, 2018. "Modelling a Compensation Standard for a Regional Forest Ecosystem: A Case Study in Yanqing District, Beijing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Scemama, Pierre & Levrel, Harold, 2019. "Influence of the Organization of Actors in the Ecological Outcomes of Investment in Restoration of Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 71-79.
    18. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    19. 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.
    20. Sylvie Démurger & Haiyuan Wan, 2012. "Payments for ecological restoration and internal migration in China: the sloping land conversion program in Ningxia," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, December.

    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:forpol:v:47:y:2014:i:c:p:1-3. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.