Uncertainties in demonstrating environmental benefits of payments for ecosystem services
Uncertainties in demonstrating environmental benefits of payments for ecosystem services
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.005
复制
发表时间：
2017-10-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Garcia-Marquez, Jaime
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
de Lima, Letica Santos;Krueger, Tobias;Garcia-Marquez, Jaime
生态系统服务付费（PES）近年来已成为保护组织的旗舰。然而，生态系统服务付费计划受到的批评与文献中的赞扬一样多。研究人员指出，许多生态系统服务付费计划，特别是与水有关的计划，是基于不可靠的假设，在土地使用和生态系统服务之间缺乏强有力的因果联系。结果的证据几乎没有得到证实。生态系统服务补偿方案的不确定性不仅来自实际困难，而且来自人类-环境系统的复杂性，以及目前对人类-环境系统认识的局限性。许多科学家和从业人员提出，需要进行更多的研究，以改善生态系统服务费用支付的科学基础。在这里，我们认为，这项研究应该通过对PES所涉及的不确定性的更深入了解、在PES谈判、设计和监控的整个过程中对这些不确定性的明确处理以及相关参与者之间的明确不确定性沟通来补充。忽视不确定性可能导致对生态系统服务付费结果的无根据的期望和不佳的评估。如果承认和考虑不确定性将威胁生态系统服务付费制度的成功，那么不确定性可被视为一个机会，可以就实现预期养护目标的其他方式展开对话。(C)2017作者由爱思唯尔公司出版
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) have become the flagship of conservation organizations in recent years. However, PES schemes are as much criticized as they are acclaimed in the literature. Researchers have pointed that many PES schemes, particularly water-related ones, are based on unreliable assumptions and lack strong causal links between land use and ecosystem services. Evidence of outcomes is hardly demonstrated. This uncertainty in PES schemes arises not only from practical difficulties, but from the complexity of the human-environment systems (HES), and the limits of current knowledge about HES. Many scientists and practitioners have proposed that more research is needed to improve the scientific basis of PES. Here we argue that this research should be complemented with a deeper understanding of the uncertainties involved in PES, an explicit treatment of these in the whole process of PES negotiation, design and monitoring, and dear uncertainty communication among the actors involved. Neglecting uncertainties could lead to unfounded expectations and poor assessments of PES outcomes. If recognizing and accounting for uncertainties are to threaten the success of PES, then uncertainty can be seen as an opportunity to open up the dialogue to alternative ways of achieving the desired conservation goals. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.