Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States

Bennett, Drew E.; Gosnell, Hannah; Lurie, Susan; Duncan, Sally.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.02.001

Cited by 67 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because there was significant overlap across the theoretical perspectives, these orientations are not as "siloed" as they appear and their points of divergence are likely because of differences in contexts examined and authors' emphasis on efficiency, effectiveness, or equity issues. This suggests that there is an opportunity to better connect these diverse conversations through an integration of language and a synthetic theoretical framework, such as the social-ecological systems (SES) framework developed by Ostrom and colleagues (Ostrom 2007, Bennett and Gosnell 2014, McGinnis and Ostrom 2014. There were, however, key differences between the PES-focused literature and the theoretical literature on enabling conditions.…”

Section: Linking Payments For Ecosystem Services (Pes) Enabling Condimentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Payments for ecosystem services is one approach to integrate ecosystem services into environmental policies by providing financial or other incentives to land managers (also known as ecosystem service providers) to promote the provision of beneficial ecosystem services or the land uses considered to provide these services (Ferraro and Kiss 2003, Wunder 2005, Muradian et al 2010). This approach often involves identifying the people who directly benefit from the ES provided, ES beneficiaries, (Boyd andBanzhaf 2007, Nahlik et al 2012), as well as engaging entities that connect ES providers and beneficiaries through transactions, e.g., public, private, or civil society organizations often called intermediaries (Pham et al 2010, Huber-Stearns et al 2013, Bennett et al 2014. In practice, PES manifests in different policy and economic forms, depending on the social, economic, political, ecological, geographic, and other contexts in which it operates (Engel et al 2008, GomezBaggethun et al 2010, Muradian et al 2010, Goldman-Benner et al 2012).…”

Section: A Focus On Payments For Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services

Huber-Stearns¹,

Bennett²,

Posner³

et al. 2017

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The concept of "enabling conditions" centers on conditions that facilitate approaches to addressing social and ecological challenges. Although multiple fields have independently addressed the concept of enabling conditions, the literature lacks a shared understanding or integration of concepts. We propose a more synthesized understanding of enabling conditions beyond disciplinary boundaries by focusing on the enabling conditions that influence the implementation of a range of environmental policies termed payments for ecosystem services (PES). Through an analysis of key literature from different disciplinary perspectives, we examined how researchers and practitioners refer to and identify enabling conditions within the context of PES. Through our synthesis, we identified 24 distinct enabling conditions organized within 4 broad themes: biophysical, economic, governance, and social-cultural conditions. We found that the literature coalesces around certain enabling conditions, such as strong ecosystem science and existing institutions, regardless of disciplinary background or journal audience. We also observed key differences in how authors perceive the direction of influence for property type, program objectives, and number of actors. Additionally, we noted an emphasis on the importance of the contextual nature of many enabling conditions that may cause certain conditions to have a disproportionate impact on successful implementation in some circumstances. Unraveling the relative importance of specific enabling conditions in diverse contexts remains a research frontier. Ultimately, no single disciplinary perspective is likely to provide all necessary insights for PES creation, and given the intertwined nature of enabling conditions, practitioners need to consider insights from multiple dimensions. Our work suggests opportunities to better connect diverse conversations through integration of concepts, a common vocabulary, and a synthetic framework.

show abstract

Section: Linking Payments For Ecosystem Services (Pes) Enabling Condimentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: A Focus On Payments For Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services

Huber-Stearns¹,

Bennett²,

Posner³

et al. 2017

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These systems are potentially an important new policy tool for resolving government and market failure to account for ecosystem service losses due to failed agency land management policy, such as overgrazing and fire suppression [24] and short-term budgeting decisions. Very few case studies [14,22,23,25,26] of institutional design for PWS systems in the United States are available in the literature, and so there is a need to document and understand these systems, specifically in regards to institutional evolution, design characteristics, and their potential effects on local and national forest management.…”

Section: Payments For Watershed/ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most national and international PWS programs, federal agencies or private entities are interested in directing payments or investments to upstream landowners for conducting watershed enhancement activities [22,23]. However, new governance systems are emerging where federal land management agencies are the recipients of payments for the provision of these services.…”

Section: Payments For Watershed/ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Outcomes from these PWS systems target watershed service benefits from water quality and/or quantity enhancement through risk reduction and avoided costs from high-severity wildfires. PWS systems that are designed to reduce wildfire risk, like those found in Denver, Santa Fe, and Flagstaff, fall under the category of "fire risk mitigation partnerships", which create a formal partnership between a drinking water utility and the USFS to address risks to water supplies and utility infrastructure associated with high-severity wildfire [23]. The early successes of these programs suggest the potential for appropriately designed PWS projects to address agency and market failure by accounting for positive benefits derived from watershed restoration and fuels reduction treatments [27].…”

Section: Payments For Watershed/ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecosystem Service Valuation through Wildfire Risk Mitigation: Design, Governance, and Outcomes of the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP)

Miller

Nielsen

Huang

2017

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The full value of benefits rendered from healthy watersheds is difficult to estimate, and ecosystem service (ES) valuation sometimes necessarily occurs in the form of costs incurred or avoided. Along these lines, social-ecological systems including Payment for Watershed Services (PWS) are increasing in frequency and can help land management entities to bridge budget shortfalls for funding needed watershed restoration forestry treatments. The Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP) is a bond-financed wildfire risk mitigation partnership and PWS program in Northern Arizona, the only forest management project that utilizes a municipal bond as the financial mechanism in conjunction with a partnership governance structure to invest in federal land management. The purpose of this research was to describe this new governance structure to understand the potential benefits to communities and federal land management agencies for protecting watershed services. Data were derived from document review and key informant interviews (n = 9). FWPP institutional design and governance structures were tailored to maximize community strengths and encompassed several advantages over traditional federal land management models; these advantages include increased collaboration and institutional support, financial security, and public approval. The FWPP represents an innovative PWS system that can help showcase unique community and federal forest management partnerships that benefit watershed health in western US communities.

show abstract

Comparing drinking water treatment costs to source water protection costs using time series analysis

Heberling

Nietch

Thurston

et al. 2015

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a framework to compare water treatment costs to source water protection costs, an important knowledge gap for drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). This trade‐off helps to determine what incentives a DWTP has to invest in natural infrastructure or pollution reduction in the watershed rather than pay for treatment on site. To illustrate, we use daily observations from 2007 to 2011 for the Bob McEwen Water Treatment Plant, Clermont County, Ohio, to understand the relationship between treatment costs and water quality and operational variables (e.g., turbidity, total organic carbon [TOC], pool elevation, and production volume). Part of our contribution to understanding drinking water treatment costs is examining both long‐run and short‐run relationships using error correction models (ECMs). Treatment costs per 1000 gallons (per 3.79 m3) were based on chemical, pumping, and granular activated carbon costs. Results from the ECM suggest that a 1% decrease in turbidity decreases treatment costs by 0.02% immediately and an additional 0.1% over future days. Using mean values for the plant, a 1% decrease in turbidity leads to $1123/year decrease in treatment costs. To compare these costs with source water protection costs, we use a polynomial distributed lag model to link total phosphorus loads, a source water quality parameter affected by land use changes, to turbidity at the plant. We find the costs for source water protection to reduce loads much greater than the reduction in treatment costs during these years. Although we find no incentive to protect source water in our case study, this framework can help DWTPs quantify the trade‐offs.

show abstract

Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States

Cited by 67 publications

References 21 publications

Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services

Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services

Ecosystem Service Valuation through Wildfire Risk Mitigation: Design, Governance, and Outcomes of the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP)

Comparing drinking water treatment costs to source water protection costs using time series analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About