IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v7y2018i3p40-d155472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes Be an Alternative Solution to Achieve Sustainable Environmental Development? A Critical Comparison of Implementation between Europe and China

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea G. Capodaglio

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy)

  • Arianna Callegari

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy)

Abstract

The term “Ecosystem Services” was coined to indicate “all the multiple benefits humans obtain from ‘natural capital’ (i.e., the world’s stock of natural assets—geology, soil, air, water—including living things and beings)” that make human life possible, such as natural water purification, flood control by wetlands, and others. The concept expanded to include, nowadays, socio-economic and conservation objectives, and has been further popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) in the early 2000s, as well as by the “Paris Agreement” reached at the 2015 UN Conference on Climate change (COP21). Payments for Ecosystems (or Environmental) Services (PESs) are financial incentives given directly to landholders to compensate them for implementing good land management, including conservation activities. Such compensation encourages them to “voluntarily” provide (or continue providing) such services, instead of monetizing their “natural capital” otherwise. This approach has been figuratively described as “ making trees worth more standing than cut down ” Examples of important PES schemes, implemented in China and in Europe, are described and analyzed in this paper, focusing on the methods applied, to assess their evolution over time, and attempt to identify which solutions could be most effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea G. Capodaglio & Arianna Callegari, 2018. "Can Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes Be an Alternative Solution to Achieve Sustainable Environmental Development? A Critical Comparison of Implementation between Europe and China," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:7:y:2018:i:3:p:40-:d:155472
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/3/40/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/3/40/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
    2. Andrea G. Capodaglio & Arianna Callegari & Maria Virginia Lopez, 2016. "European Framework for the Diffusion of Biogas Uses: Emerging Technologies, Acceptance, Incentive Strategies, and Institutional-Regulatory Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    4. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    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. Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho & Fitri Nurfatriani & Yonky Indrajaya & Tri Wira Yuwati & Sulistya Ekawati & Mimi Salminah & Hendra Gunawan & Subarudi Subarudi & Markus Kudeng Sallata & Merryana Kid, 2022. "Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services from Indonesia’s Remaining Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-39, September.
    2. Inês Girão & Eduardo Gomes & Paulo Pereira & Jorge Rocha, 2023. "Trends in High Nature Value Farmland and Ecosystem Services Valuation: A Bibliometric Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-28, October.

    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. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    3. 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.
    4. Arts, Bas, 2014. "Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: Government, governance, governmentality⁎⁎This article belongs to the Special Issue: Assessing Forest Governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 17-22.
    5. Rocío del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez & Jorge H. Maldonado & Camilo Andrés Gutiérrez & Melissa Rubio, 2013. "Valoración de Áreas Marinas Protegidas desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de recursos: conciliando enfoques cuantitativos individuales con enfoques cualitativos colectivos," Documentos CEDE 11936, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    6. 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.
    7. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    8. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    9. Chen, B. & Chen, G.Q., 2007. "Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy--a case study of the Chinese society 1981-2001," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 355-376, March.
    10. Yoann Verger, 2015. "Sraffa and ecological economics: review of the literature," Working Papers hal-01182894, HAL.
    11. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    12. Andrea G. Capodaglio & Gustaf Olsson, 2019. "Energy Issues in Sustainable Urban Wastewater Management: Use, Demand Reduction and Recovery in the Urban Water Cycle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    14. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    15. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    16. Olivier Petit & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2015. "When economists and ecologists meet on Ecological Economics: two science paths around two interdisciplinary concepts," Post-Print halshs-01249774, HAL.
    17. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    19. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    20. Roffeis, Martin & Fitches, Elaine C. & Wakefield, Maureen E. & Almeida, Joana & Alves Valada, Tatiana R. & Devic, Emilie & Koné, N’Golopé & Kenis, Marc & Nacambo, Saidou & Koko, Gabriel K.D. & Mathijs, 2020. "Ex-ante life cycle impact assessment of insect based feed production in West Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(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:gam:jresou:v:7:y:2018:i:3:p:40-:d:155472. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.