Charles Darwin University

CDU eSpace
Institutional Repository

CDU Staff and Student only

More than money for conservation: exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes

Greiner, Romy and Stanley, Owen (2013). More than money for conservation: exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy,31:4-10.

Document type: Journal Article

IRMA ID 82057923xPUB372
Title More than money for conservation: exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes
Author Greiner, Romy
Stanley, Owen
Journal Name Land Use Policy
Publication Date 2013
Volume Number 31
ISSN 0264-8377   (check CDU catalogue open catalogue search in new window)
Scopus ID 2-s2.0-84871919963
Start Page 4
End Page 10
Total Pages 7
Place of Publication Oxford
Publisher Pergamon Elsevier Science
HERDC Category C1 - Journal Article (DIISR)
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.
DOI   (check subscription with CDU E-Gateway service for CDU Staff and Students  check subscription with CDU E-Gateway in new window)
Version Filter Type
Access Statistics: 120 Abstract Views, 3 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 07 Aug 2014, 16:58:39 CST