More than money for conservation

Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes

Romy Greiner, Owen Stanley

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    Recent public policy approaches aimed at halting or reversing environmental decline have embraced market-based instruments (MBIs) including payments for environmental services (PES). A particular advantage of MBIs is cost efficiency as they exploit heterogeneity of opportunity costs of supply among competing providers of environmental services. PES schemes offer financial incentives to land owners and managers to engage in specified environmental maintenance and restoration activities. Such activities support natural capital and ecosystem services, which, in turn, generate human wellbeing. As this paper demonstrates PES schemes can also generate social co-benefits, which add to the total wellbeing gain achieved. This paper differentiates and illustrates - with particular reference to PES schemes involving Aboriginal people in northern Australia - three types of social co-benefits: 'type A' benefits accrue to the service provider as a direct result of the remuneration received, 'type B' benefits accrue to the service provider in the process of undertaking the service and are unrelated to remuneration, and 'type C' benefits represent the broader flow-on effects associated with types A and B benefits. The paper concludes that government PES investment into social co-benefit can provide a socially efficient and environmentally effective investment strategy in the absence of opportunity cost differential and the presence of extreme social disadvantage of service providers.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)4-10
    Number of pages7
    JournalLand Use Policy
    Volume31
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2013

    Fingerprint

    ecosystem services
    money
    conservation
    wages and remuneration
    opportunity costs
    service provider
    remuneration
    government payments
    social services
    natural capital
    markets
    economic incentives
    indigenous peoples
    public policy
    services
    cost
    policy approach
    market
    indigenous population
    managers

    Cite this

    Greiner, Romy ; Stanley, Owen. / More than money for conservation : Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. In: Land Use Policy. 2013 ; Vol. 31. pp. 4-10.
    @article{b5e7faa375b945afa6029c9349420a2c,
    title = "More than money for conservation: Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes",
    abstract = "Recent public policy approaches aimed at halting or reversing environmental decline have embraced market-based instruments (MBIs) including payments for environmental services (PES). A particular advantage of MBIs is cost efficiency as they exploit heterogeneity of opportunity costs of supply among competing providers of environmental services. PES schemes offer financial incentives to land owners and managers to engage in specified environmental maintenance and restoration activities. Such activities support natural capital and ecosystem services, which, in turn, generate human wellbeing. As this paper demonstrates PES schemes can also generate social co-benefits, which add to the total wellbeing gain achieved. This paper differentiates and illustrates - with particular reference to PES schemes involving Aboriginal people in northern Australia - three types of social co-benefits: 'type A' benefits accrue to the service provider as a direct result of the remuneration received, 'type B' benefits accrue to the service provider in the process of undertaking the service and are unrelated to remuneration, and 'type C' benefits represent the broader flow-on effects associated with types A and B benefits. The paper concludes that government PES investment into social co-benefit can provide a socially efficient and environmentally effective investment strategy in the absence of opportunity cost differential and the presence of extreme social disadvantage of service providers.",
    keywords = "conservation management, cost-benefit analysis, ecosystem service, environmental policy, environmental restoration, government, incentive, indigenous population, investment, landownership, service provision, Australia",
    author = "Romy Greiner and Owen Stanley",
    year = "2013",
    month = "3",
    doi = "10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.012",
    language = "English",
    volume = "31",
    pages = "4--10",
    journal = "Land Use Policy",
    issn = "0264-8377",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    More than money for conservation : Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. / Greiner, Romy; Stanley, Owen.

    In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 31, 03.2013, p. 4-10.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - More than money for conservation

    T2 - Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes

    AU - Greiner, Romy

    AU - Stanley, Owen

    PY - 2013/3

    Y1 - 2013/3

    N2 - Recent public policy approaches aimed at halting or reversing environmental decline have embraced market-based instruments (MBIs) including payments for environmental services (PES). A particular advantage of MBIs is cost efficiency as they exploit heterogeneity of opportunity costs of supply among competing providers of environmental services. PES schemes offer financial incentives to land owners and managers to engage in specified environmental maintenance and restoration activities. Such activities support natural capital and ecosystem services, which, in turn, generate human wellbeing. As this paper demonstrates PES schemes can also generate social co-benefits, which add to the total wellbeing gain achieved. This paper differentiates and illustrates - with particular reference to PES schemes involving Aboriginal people in northern Australia - three types of social co-benefits: 'type A' benefits accrue to the service provider as a direct result of the remuneration received, 'type B' benefits accrue to the service provider in the process of undertaking the service and are unrelated to remuneration, and 'type C' benefits represent the broader flow-on effects associated with types A and B benefits. The paper concludes that government PES investment into social co-benefit can provide a socially efficient and environmentally effective investment strategy in the absence of opportunity cost differential and the presence of extreme social disadvantage of service providers.

    AB - Recent public policy approaches aimed at halting or reversing environmental decline have embraced market-based instruments (MBIs) including payments for environmental services (PES). A particular advantage of MBIs is cost efficiency as they exploit heterogeneity of opportunity costs of supply among competing providers of environmental services. PES schemes offer financial incentives to land owners and managers to engage in specified environmental maintenance and restoration activities. Such activities support natural capital and ecosystem services, which, in turn, generate human wellbeing. As this paper demonstrates PES schemes can also generate social co-benefits, which add to the total wellbeing gain achieved. This paper differentiates and illustrates - with particular reference to PES schemes involving Aboriginal people in northern Australia - three types of social co-benefits: 'type A' benefits accrue to the service provider as a direct result of the remuneration received, 'type B' benefits accrue to the service provider in the process of undertaking the service and are unrelated to remuneration, and 'type C' benefits represent the broader flow-on effects associated with types A and B benefits. The paper concludes that government PES investment into social co-benefit can provide a socially efficient and environmentally effective investment strategy in the absence of opportunity cost differential and the presence of extreme social disadvantage of service providers.

    KW - conservation management

    KW - cost-benefit analysis

    KW - ecosystem service

    KW - environmental policy

    KW - environmental restoration

    KW - government

    KW - incentive

    KW - indigenous population

    KW - investment

    KW - landownership

    KW - service provision

    KW - Australia

    U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.012

    DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.012

    M3 - Article

    VL - 31

    SP - 4

    EP - 10

    JO - Land Use Policy

    JF - Land Use Policy

    SN - 0264-8377

    ER -