IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v139y2024ics0264837724000097.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obstacles to local payments for ecosystem services schemes for water management at the catchment scale: A case study from Eastern Scotland

Author

Listed:
  • Kuhfuss, L.
  • Burns, V.
  • Shortall, O.
  • Vinten, A.

Abstract

Water catchment management negotiates a complex landscape of local and expert knowledge, cultural and historical norms, property rights, and the pressures of environmental change. Various schemes have developed in recent years that aim to provide an integrated, consultative approach to environmental management, among which payment for ecosystem services (PES) has emerged as a successful example. Yet, there are certain characteristics of catchment landscapes that problematise the implementation of PES schemes for water management. This paper explores these characteristics in a case study of the Lunan water catchment area in Angus, Scotland. We report on a scientific research project to develop and implement a tilting weir system in the catchment that aims to address wetland nutrient and sediment pollution, winter flooding in the upper catchment, and summer water shortages in the lower catchment. Socio-scientific methods investigate the potential use of a PES approach to support the local management of the tilting weir system for the provision of multiple benefits at the catchment scale. Research shows evidence of conflicting levels of support between farmers and residents for both the intervention itself and the PES approach, diverse perceptions of rights and responsibilities in relation to water, and the challenges of identifying an adequate PES intermediary in the current institutional framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuhfuss, L. & Burns, V. & Shortall, O. & Vinten, A., 2024. "Obstacles to local payments for ecosystem services schemes for water management at the catchment scale: A case study from Eastern Scotland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:139:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724000097
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724000097
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107057?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. Holden, Stein & Barrett, Christopher B. & Hagos, Fitsum, 2006. "Food-for-work for poverty reduction and the promotion of sustainable land use: can it work?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 15-38, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Christophe Depres & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2008. "Contracting for Environmental Property Rights: The Case of Vittel," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 75(299), pages 412-434, August.
    4. Brent Swallow & Ruth Meinzen-Dick, 2009. "Payment for Environmental Services: Interactions with Property Rights and Collective Action," Springer Books, in: Volker Beckmann & Martina Padmanabhan (ed.), Institutions and Sustainability, chapter 12, pages 243-265, Springer.
    5. Turpie, J.K. & Marais, C. & Blignaut, J.N., 2008. "The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 788-798, May.
    6. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    7. Ravikumar, Ashwin & Chairez Uriarte, Esperanza & Lizano, Daniela & Muñoz Ledo Farré, Andrea & Montero, Mariel, 2023. "How payments for ecosystem services can undermine Indigenous institutions: The case of Peru's Ampiyacu-Apayacu watershed," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    8. Lankford, Bruce & van Koppen, Barbara & Franks, Tom & Mahoo, Henry, 2004. "Entrenched views or insufficient science?: Contested causes and solutions of water allocation; insights from the Great Ruaha River Basin, Tanzania," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 135-153, September.
    9. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    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. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    2. 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.
    3. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Brownson, Katherine & Anderson, Elizabeth P. & Ferreira, Susana & Wenger, Seth & Fowler, Laurie & German, Laura, 2020. "Governance of Payments for Ecosystem Ecosystem services influences social and environmental outcomes in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    8. Leander Raes & Nikolay Aguirre & Marijke D’Haese & Guido Huylenbroeck, 2014. "Analysis of the cost-effectiveness for ecosystem service provision and rural income generation: a comparison of three different programs in Southern Ecuador," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 471-498, June.
    9. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    10. Zhang, Qi & Bilsborrow, Richard E. & Song, Conghe & Tao, Shiqi & Huang, Qingfeng, 2019. "Rural household income distribution and inequality in China: Effects of payments for ecosystem services policies and other factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 114-127.
    11. 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.
    12. Bottazzi, Patrick & Wiik, Emma & Crespo, David & Jones, Julia P.G., 2018. "Payment for Environmental “Self-Service”: Exploring the Links Between Farmers' Motivation and Additionality in a Conservation Incentive Programme in the Bolivian Andes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 11-23.
    13. Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina & Meyer, Claas & König, Hannes & Zhen, Lin, 2018. "How socioeconomic and institutional conditions at the household level shape the environmental effectiveness of governmental PES: China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program," SocArXiv jzvqh, Center for Open Science.
    14. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    15. Ryoko Ishizaki & Shinju Matsuda, 2021. "Message for Solidarity: A Japanese Perspective on the Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services Developed over Centuries of History," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    16. Bingham, Logan Robert, 2021. "Vittel as a model case in PES discourse: Review and critical perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Zhenglei Xie & Bing-Bing Zhou & Hanzeyu Xu & Le Zhang & Jing Wang, 2020. "An Agent-Based Sustainability Perspective on Payment for Ecosystem Services: Analytical Framework and Empirical Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    19. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    20. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.

    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:lauspo:v:139:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724000097. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.