Abstract
Quantitative evaluation of the relationship between payment criteria and the amount of additional ecosystem services can improve the cost-effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services (PES) projects. This paper simulated additional water conservation (AWC) using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, examined appropriate payment criteria, and matched different payment modes with local herders’ preferences in Northwest China. The results showed that if all the low-coverage grass areas were to be closed through PES projects, the actual payment criteria, 37 yuan/ha, would need to be increased eight times, which would be 302 yuan/ha. Along with that, annual AWC could reach 1.69 × 106 m3. If PES projects were implemented in all the low- and medium-coverage grass areas, payment criteria would need to be increased to 365 yuan/ha, and the annual AWC would reach 2.59 × 106 m3. There were scale economy effects in this range, because a 21% increase in the payment criteria would result in a 66% increase in the total AWC. The appropriate mode for herders above 40 years old is “cash + in-kind compensation” and “cash + capacity” for those below 40, due to the preferences varying in age.
Highlights
As an emerging environmental policy, payment for ecosystem services (PES) has been widely used across the world [1,2,3]
The formula is as follows: e = esw + ewy where e stands for additional water conservation per area of the PES basin, esw stands for additional soil water content after PES simulation in the basin with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, and ewy stands for additional water yield after PES simulation in the basin with the SWAT model
For effective PES schemes, it is necessary to select one or more ecosystem service based on the environmental problems faced in different regions, screen the regional PES projects and participants according to the supply capacity of ecosystem services, and determine the payment criteria
Summary
As an emerging environmental policy, payment for ecosystem services (PES) has been widely used across the world [1,2,3]. In contrast to traditional environmental protection policies that focus on punishment, PES projects emphasize the need to internalize the positive externality of ecosystem services and encourage land owners and land users to protect the ecosystem through incentives [4,5,6,7]. Current PES criteria are mainly determined through payment willingness, opportunity cost, ecological benefits, protection value, and practical cost [11,12]. These methods commonly consider only macro factors and rarely take into account the relationship between the payment criteria and land use opportunity cost for the compensated individual, failing to measure the relationship between the payment criteria and the newly-added ecosystem services [13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
