Effectiveness and equity of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Real-effort experiments with Vietnamese land users

Abstract

Abstract:Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are widespread in conservation policy. In PES, environmental effectiveness and social equity are often perceived as conflicting goals. Empirical studies on the relationship between popular design features, such as payment differentiation and payment conditionality, and effectiveness and equity are scarce. Further, they struggle with measuring and separating ecological and equity outcomes. In this study, we combine two incentivized lab-in-the-field experiments with 259 land users from eight villages in North-Western Vietnam to assess both individual conservation effort and community-level equity perceptions under four different PES designs. Effort is measured in a real-effort task with real-world environmental benefits; equity perceptions about payment designs in the real-effort task are measured in a coordination game. We demonstrate that payment design affects both effort and equity perceptions. Payments which are differentiated and are solely conditional on individuals' contributions of effort are perceived as most equitable. They are also more effective in motivating conservation effort than other designs, although the differences are small and not significant for all comparisons. By working out the positive correlation of effectiveness and equity across the four payment schemes, we show that these objectives are not necessarily conflicting goals in incentive-based conservation policy. Further, we can show that women exert greater conservation efforts. We discuss how greater equity and effectiveness could be achieved with reforms towards more input-based distribution criteria in Vietnam's PES legislation and the limitations and opportunities of the experimental paradigm for research on PES.

In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia

“…That is to say, people who have not directly benefitted from the compensations (but have been exposed to the reciprocity framing) also strongly agree with the meritocratic inequality statement and simultaneously favor government action on inequality. This echoes another recent study which concluded that payments programs based on meritocratic principles need not be in conflict with equity (Loft et al 2019).…”

Fair payments for effective environmental conservation

“…Our findings are important for global conservation and sustainability goals, demonstrating the importance of payment design and nonenvironmental motivations in incentive-based conservation schemes and suggesting ways to increase effectiveness and efficiency. Policymakers should work to understand and use local equity norms, such as locally-preferred distribution criteria (52), in the design and implementation of conservation payments (13), particularly when developing targeting criteria, rules, and monitoring procedures to determine payments (69). Policy design should incorporate principles of accountability that reflect the conservation choices that land users make given their opportunities, not differences in exogenous characteristics such as previous land endowments, ethnicity, financial and administrative literacy, or power (26).…”

Blending Bottom-Up and Top-Down Urban Village Redevelopment Modes: Comparing Multidimensional Welfare Changes of Resettled Households in Wuhan, China

“…Social equity refers to fair access to resources and opportunities, and full participation in the social and cultural life of a community. It serves as a central dimension for promoting livability and viability, which is one of the main goals of sustainable development [43,44]. Top-down redevelopment emphasizes social equity, so the government adopts some special policies to improve the welfare of the local villagers, especially the most vulnerable groups [45].…”