Stakeholder preferences for payments for ecosystem services (PES) versus other environmental management approaches for mangrove forests

Abstract

Choosing from a range of environmental management options can be more effective when considering stakeholder preferences. This is particularly true in the coastal tropics, where numerous actors and institutions intersect to shape environmental governance. Here, we investigate stakeholder preferences for an array of options regarding the sustainable development and conservation of mangrove forests. These include: payments for ecosystem services (PES), ecotourism, selling non-timber forest products, bio-charcoal production, and forest restoration financed via corporate social responsibility (CSR). Empirical studies from two socio-ecological settings in Thailand reveal the preferences of government agencies, corporations, municipal and village heads, and several community associations (fishers, senior citizens, housewives, environmentalists, salt-flat workers, oil palm plantation owners). Interviews and participatory multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) elicited preferences based on the likelihood of achieving favourable environmental, economic, and social outcomes. Findings reveal (1) PES was favoured – although motivations were not driven solely by the prospect of financial gain, but by the land tenure security, collaborations, and long-term ecological benefits that were perceived to occur as a result; (2) PES for local services (water quality) were preferred over global services (climate change mitigation); (3) criteria related to wellbeing, livelihoods, and environmental stewardship are influenced by broad cultural and political ideologies, rather than site-specific characteristics; and (4) clear tensions both between private and public actors, and between national and local actors. Our study highlights the importance of involving all informed stakeholders in the decision-making process in order to understand the complex reasons driving environmental management preferences, and to gain greater acceptance of biodiversity conservation and natural resource management actions. We also call for greater transparency in MCDA studies by presenting more of the qualitative data used to subjectively construct the quantitative criteria.