Prager C M, Varga A, Olmsted P, Ingram J C, Cattau M, Freund C, Wynn-Grant R, Naeem S
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, 10th floor Schermerhorn Extension, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027, U.S.A.
Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability, Columbia University, 10th floor Schermerhorn Extension, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027, U.S.A.
Conserv Biol. 2016 Aug;30(4):836-45. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12648. Epub 2016 Feb 22.
Programs and projects employing payments for ecosystem service (PES) interventions achieve their objectives by linking buyers and sellers of ecosystem services. Although PES projects are popular conservation and development interventions, little is known about their adherence to basic ecological principles. We conducted a quantitative assessment of the degree to which a global set of PES projects adhered to four ecological principles that are basic scientific considerations for any project focused on ecosystem management: collection of baseline data, identification of threats to an ecosystem service, monitoring, and attention to ecosystem dynamics or the formation of an adaptive management plan. We evaluated 118 PES projects in three markets-biodiversity, carbon, and water-compiled using websites of major conservation organizations; ecology, economic, and climate-change databases; and three scholarly databases (ISI Web of Knowledge, Web of Science, and Google Scholar). To assess adherence to ecological principles, we constructed two scientific indices (one additive [ASI] and one multiplicative [MSI]) based on our four ecological criteria and analyzed index scores by relevant project characteristics (e.g., sector, buyer, seller). Carbon-sector projects had higher ASI values (P < 0.05) than water-sector projects and marginally higher ASI scores (P < 0.1) than biodiversity-sector projects, demonstrating their greater adherence to ecological principles. Projects financed by public-private partnerships had significantly higher ASI values than projects financed by governments (P < 0.05) and marginally higher ASI values than those funded by private entities (P < 0.1). We did not detect differences in adherence to ecological principles based on the inclusion of cobenefits, the spatial extent of a project, or the size of a project's budget. These findings suggest, at this critical phase in the rapid growth of PES projects, that fundamental ecological principles should be considered more carefully in PES project design and implementation in an effort to ensure PES project viability and sustainability.
采用生态系统服务付费(PES)干预措施的项目和计划,通过将生态系统服务的买卖双方联系起来来实现其目标。尽管PES项目是广受欢迎的保护与发展干预措施,但对于它们是否遵循基本生态原则却知之甚少。我们对全球一系列PES项目遵循四项生态原则的程度进行了定量评估,这四项原则是任何专注于生态系统管理的项目的基本科学考量:基线数据的收集、对生态系统服务威胁的识别、监测以及对生态系统动态变化的关注或适应性管理计划的制定。我们评估了来自生物多样性、碳和水这三个市场的118个PES项目,这些项目是利用主要保护组织的网站、生态、经济和气候变化数据库以及三个学术数据库(ISI Web of Knowledge、Web of Science和谷歌学术)汇编而成的。为了评估对生态原则的遵循情况,我们基于四项生态标准构建了两个科学指标(一个加法指标[ASI]和一个乘法指标[MSI]),并按相关项目特征(如部门、买家、卖家)分析了指标得分。碳部门项目的ASI值高于水部门项目(P < 0.05),且ASI得分略高于生物多样性部门项目(P < 0.1),这表明它们对生态原则的遵循程度更高。由公私伙伴关系资助的项目的ASI值显著高于由政府资助的项目(P < 0.05),且ASI值略高于由私人实体资助的项目(P < 0.1)。我们没有发现基于是否包含协同效益、项目的空间范围或项目预算规模在遵循生态原则方面存在差异。这些发现表明,在PES项目快速发展的这一关键阶段,在PES项目的设计和实施过程中应更仔细地考虑基本生态原则,以确保PES项目的可行性和可持续性。