Assessing the Acceptability of the Payment for Ecosystem Services in Wetlands from the Points of View of Stakeholders A Case Study of Anzali Wetland

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Environmental Management-Environmental Law, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Sciences and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Microbial Biotechnology, Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

3 Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Marine Science and Technology, Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

An ecosystem approach to wetland management is a strategy for integrated management of water, land, and livelihood resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in a balanced manner. For implementing this approach, commercial mechanisms, and incentives, especially the "Payment for Ecosystem Services Mechanism" (PES) that can ensure the internalization of environmental externalities, are increasingly proposed as a promising mechanism. This study aims to investigate the acceptance rate of this mechanism among the communities affecting Anzali wetlands as a case study. The required legal rules were also identified and surveyed among the statistical population. This study is a "descriptive-correlation" study, and the sample members were selected by purposive sampling. These sample members were selected from among three groups of Anzali wetland communities. There were 21, 750, and 972 people in the community of governors, positive and negative beneficiaries, respectively, and 21, 254, and 275 of them responded to the questionnaire. The statistical analysis of the results showed that, with a probability of 95% confidence, the payment for ecosystem services mechanism through appropriate legal frameworks could be useful and effective for implementing the ecosystem approach. Also, with a probability of 95% confidence, the acceptability of "proposed legal rules" was not the same among the target communities, and based on the results, the average index of "proposed legal rules" in negative beneficiaries is higher than positive beneficiaries, and in positive beneficiaries is more than governors.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Baggethun, E., Groot, R., Lomas, L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 1209-1218.
Bo, J., & Xibao, X. (2019). China needs to incorporate ecosystem services into wetland conservation policies. Ecosystem Services, 100941.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 297–334.
Daneshi, A., Azadi, H., Panahi, M., Islami, I., Vafakhah, M., & Mirzaeipour, Z. (2023). The monetary facilities payment for ecosystem services as an approach to restore the Degraded Urmia Lake in Iran.‌ Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 56224–56245.
Daneshi, A., Panahi, M., & Vafakhah, M. (2014). Economic Instruments for Management of Natural Resources and Environmental; Case Study: Ecosystem Services Payment. Water and Sustainable Development, 7. (in Persian).
Economic Commission for Europe. (2007). Recommendations on Payments for Ecosystem Services in Integrated Water Resources Management. New York and Geneva: United Nations Publication.
Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics, 2060-2068.
Gaglio, M., Lanzoni, M., Goggi, F., Fano, E. A., & Castaldelli, G. (2023). Integrating payment for ecosystem services in protected areas governance: The case of the Po Delta Park. Ecosystem Services, 101516.
Gao, X., Zeng, S., Shen, J., Yang, X., Kang, L., Chi, C., & Song, R. (2023). Predicting payment for ecosystem services regarding land use: A simulation study in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 98, 106972.
Greiber, T. (2009). Payments for ecosystem services: legal and institutional frameworks. Gland: IUCN Environmental Law Centre.
Hu, C., Wright, A. L., & He, S. (2022). Public Perception and Willingness to Pay for Urban Wetland Ecosystem Services: Evidence from China. Springer Nature, Wetlands 42, Article number: 19.
Jayachandran, S., Laat, J. d., Lambin, E. F., Stanton, C. Y., Audy, R., & Thomas, N. E. (2017). Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science, 267-273.
Lucia, V. (2018). A critical interrogation of the relation between the ecosystem approach and ecosystem services. RECIEL, 104-114.
Nimubona, A. D., & Pereau, J. C. (2022). Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1507-1538.
Prip, C. (2018). The Convention on Biological Diversity as a legal framework for safeguarding ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 199-204.
Senzakia, M., Yamaurac, Y., Shojid, Y., Kubob, T., & Nakamura, F. (2017). Citizens promote the conservation of flagship species more than ecosystem services in wetland restoration. Biological Conservation, 1-5.
Shepherd, G. (2004). The Ecosystem Approach Five Steps to Implementation. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.: IUCN.
Smith, S., Rowcroft, P., Rogers, H., Quick, T., Eves, C., White, C., . . . Reed, M. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services: A best practice guide. London: Department for Environment and Food Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.open-access.bcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/3319
Sone, J., SoneGabriela, J. S., Pedro, C., Nelson, A., Tiago, O., Glauber, S., . . . S.Oliveira, T. (2019). Water provisioning improvement through payment for ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment, 1197-1206.
To, P., & Dressler, W. (2019). Rethinking ‘Success’: The politics of payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 582-593.
U.S House Of Representatives. (2004). United States Code, NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT. Retrieved June 2021, 6, from https://uscode.house.gov
Waage, S., Bracer, C., & Inbar, M. (2008). Payments for Ecosystem Services Getting Started: A Primer. Washington, DC: Forest Trends and The Katoomba Group.
Journal of Environmental Studies
Volume 49, Issue 2
August 2023
Pages 185-202

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics