Alston Lee J, Andersson Krister, Smith Steven M
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309 ; Department of Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309 ; National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309 ; Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309 ; Centro de Investigación Sociedad y Políticas Públicas, Universidad de los Lagos, Santiago 8370321, Chile.
Annu Rev Resour Economics. 2013 Jun 1;5(1):139-159. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-091912-151830.
The use of payment for environmental services (PES) is not a new type of contract, but PES programs have become more in vogue because of the potential for sequestering carbon by paying to prevent deforestation and degradation of forestlands. We provide a framework utilizing transaction costs to hypothesize which services are more likely to be provided effectively. We then interpret the literature on PES programs to see the extent to which transaction costs vary as predicted across the type of service and to assess the performance of PES programs. As predicted, we find that transaction costs are the least for club goods like water and greatest for pure public goods like carbon reduction. Actual performance is difficult to measure and varies across the examples. More work and experimentation are needed to gain a better outlook on what elements support effective delivery of environmental services.
环境服务付费(PES)的使用并非一种新型合同,但由于通过支付费用来防止林地的森林砍伐和退化具有碳封存潜力,PES 计划已变得更加流行。我们提供了一个利用交易成本的框架,以推测哪些服务更有可能得到有效提供。然后,我们解读关于 PES 计划的文献,以了解交易成本在不同服务类型之间的变化程度,并评估 PES 计划的绩效。正如预期的那样,我们发现像水这样的俱乐部物品的交易成本最低,而像碳减排这样的纯公共物品的交易成本最高。实际绩效难以衡量,且因案例而异。需要开展更多工作和进行更多试验,以便更好地了解哪些因素有助于有效提供环境服务。