Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Different ecosystem services, same (dis)satisfaction with compensation: A critical comparison between farmers' perception in Scotland and Brazil
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 62019 (English)In: Ecosystem Services, ISSN 2212-0416, E-ISSN 2212-0416, Vol. 35, p. 164-172Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes have increasingly expanded to consider ecosystem services (ESS). In Brazil, the Forest Code permits PES but does not specify the scheme operationalization. The way ESS should be quantified and valued has not yet been implemented country-wide, nor has the funding source for PES. Through interviews with farmers in Rio Claro-SP, Brazil, and in Cairngorms National Park in the highlands and lowlands of Scotland, UK, we compared farmers' perspectives concerning ESS and PES, focusing on the PES implementation in sugarcane landscape in Sao Paulo state. While Scottish farmers perceived more cultural services, Brazilian farmers focused on regulating services, which we attribute to socio-political and landscape differences. Despite these differences, farmers in both areas preferred opportunity cost approach for ESS valuation because this method captures efforts to maintain ESS. Thereby, the opportunity cost should be considered for valuation in PES schemes, but conversely, budgetary constraints make it impossible to satisfy farmers with PES in regions of high productivity in the southeast of Brazil. Lessons learned concerning the PES subsidies in Scotland indicates the importance of co-designing schemes with stakeholders, minimizing trade-offs between the environment. Therefore, the participants as ESS providers, beneficiaries and intermediaries in the public policies arena was recognized for co-optimize the trade-offs between costs and effectiveness in PES.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 35, p. 164-172
Keywords [en]
Payment for ecosystem services, Public policies, Sugarcane production, Participatory methods, Cairngorms National Park
National Category
Biological Sciences Earth and Related Environmental Sciences Social and Economic Geography
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-166762DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.005ISI: 000457119300018OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-166762DiVA, id: diva2:1296030
Available from: 2019-03-13 Created: 2019-03-13 Last updated: 2019-03-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Canova, Moara AlmeidaPinho, Patrícia
By organisation
Stockholm Resilience Centre
In the same journal
Ecosystem Services
Biological SciencesEarth and Related Environmental SciencesSocial and Economic Geography

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 12 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf