Payments for watershed ecosystem services: mechanism, progress and challenges

被引:32
作者
Feng, Danyang [1 ,2 ]
Wu, Wenliang [1 ,2 ]
Liang, Long [1 ,2 ]
Li, Li [1 ,2 ]
Zhao, Guishen [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] China Agr Univ, Coll Resources & Environm Sci, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] China Agr Univ, Int Ctr Res Ecol & Sustainable Dev, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
Payment for watershed; ecosystem services; case study; compensation standard; multi-stakeholder negotiation mechanism; win-win pattern;
D O I
10.1080/20964129.2018.1434318
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Introduction: Payment for watershed ecosystem services (PWES), a policy instrument for compensating for the externality of watershed ecosystem/environmental services, has gained in policy importance in China over the past two decades. Many scholars and researchers have contributed to the conceptualization of this policy framework by developing operational mechanisms as well as compensation standards for PWES. Outcomes: This article reviews 27 PWES schemes piloted in China and in 10 other countries, with a particular emphasis on successful cases of land-use conversion programs, such as the Paddy Land to Dry Land Program and Sloping Land Conversion Program that have been implemented in China. Discussion: By comparing different cases, the authors attempt to answer the following questions: what were the ecological and institutional contexts in which these schemes were established and how did they work? What were the actual efficiencies and impacts of these piloted schemes? Which scheme worked better in certain ecological, socio-economic, and institutional contexts? Conclusion: Based on case studies, the authors draw the following conclusions about Chinese PWES: (1) to establish an acceptable standard for a PWES program, it is necessary to estimate the economic and social costs regarding the livelihoods of households; (2) multi-stakeholder negotiation mechanism for PWES, including intermediaries, such as the local government, NGO/NPOs, village committees, and user associations, should be used; (3) ES, non-market services, should acquire positive externalities to accomplish an optimal win-win pattern concerning both environmental goals and the livelihoods of local resource users.
引用
收藏
页码:13 / 28
页数:16
相关论文
共 88 条
[31]  
Kerr J, 2002, SELLING FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, P63
[32]   Managing watershed externalities in India: Theory and practice [J].
Kerr J. ;
Milne G. ;
Chhotray V. ;
Baumann P. ;
James A.J. .
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2007, 9 (3) :263-281
[33]   Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America [J].
Kosoy, Nicolas ;
Martinez-Tuna, Miguel ;
Muradian, Roldan ;
Martinez-Alier, Joan .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2007, 61 (2-3) :446-455
[34]  
Krchnak KarinM., 2007, Watershed Valuation as a Tool for Biodiversity Conservation
[35]  
Landell-Mills N., 2002, SILVER BULLET FOOLS
[36]  
Li X. Y., 2007, SHENGTAI BUCHANG JIZ
[37]  
Lin Hebin, 2012, Lakes & Reservoirs Research and Management, V17, P191, DOI 10.1111/lre.12004
[38]  
Lin Hebin, 2012, Lakes & Reservoirs Research and Management, V17, P207, DOI 10.1111/lre.12003
[39]  
[刘春腊 Liu Chunla], 2013, [地理科学进展, Progress in Geography], V32, P1780
[40]  
Lu Y, 2011, J XINYANG NORM U, V24, P228