Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

In defence of simplified PES designs

Nature Sustainability volume 3, pages 426–427 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Matters Arising to this article was published on 01 June 2020

The Original Article was published on 12 March 2018

arising from S. Wunder et al. Nature Sustainability https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x (2018)

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Wunder, S. et al. From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat. Sustain. 1, 145–150 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pascual, U. et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64, 1027–1036 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher, J. A., Cavanagh, C. J., Sikor, T. & Mwayafu, D. M. Linking notions of justice and project effectiveness in carbon offset forestry projects: Insights from a comparative study in Uganda. Land Use Policy 73, 259–268 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kolinjivadi, V., Gamboa, G., Adamowski, J. & Kosoy, N. Capabilities as justice: analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’. Ecol. Econ. 118, 99–113 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Börner, J. et al. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev. 96, 359–374 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Keane, A., Jones, J. P., Edwards‐Jones, G. & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Anim. Conserv. 11, 75–82 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruiz-De-Oña-Plaza, C., Soto-Pinto, L., Paladino, S., Morales, F. & Esquivel, E. in Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems (eds Kumar, B. M. & Nair, P. R.) 247–262 (Springer, 2011).

  8. Peskett, L., Schreckenberg, K. & Brown, J. Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the forest sector: learning lessons for REDD+ from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 216–229 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lundberg, L., Persson, U. M., Alpizar, F. & Lindgren, K. Context matters: exploring the cost-effectiveness of fixed payments and procurement auctions for PES. Ecol. Econ. 146, 347–358 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hou, Y., Burkhard, B. & Müller, F. Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 127, S117–S131 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berry, N. J. & Ryan, C. M. Overcoming the risk of inaction from emissions uncertainty in smallholder agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 011003 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Milder, J., Scherr, S. & Bracer, C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol. Soc. 15, 4 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wells, G., Fisher, J. A., Porras, I., Staddon, S. & Ryan, C. Rethinking monitoring in smallholder carbon payments for ecosystem service schemes: devolve monitoring, understand accuracy and identify co-benefits. Ecol. Econ. 139, 115–127 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Huber-Stearns, H. R. et al. Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 22, 18 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Wunder, S., Ruiz-Pérez, M. & del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, R. Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS ONE 11, e0149847 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    G. Wells

  2. School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    C. Ryan & J. Fisher

  3. Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    E. Corbera

Authors
  1. G. Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Corbera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The article was conceived and written by all authors. G.W. coordinated the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Wells.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wells, G., Ryan, C., Fisher, J. et al. In defence of simplified PES designs. Nat Sustain 3, 426–427 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0544-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0544-3

Further reading

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing