Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector—the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review
Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector—the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review
复制标题
土地利用部门减缓气候变化的激励措施——环境服务付费对低收入和中等收入国家环境和社会成果的影响：混合方法系统评价
作者：
Birte Snilsveit;Jennifer L. Stevenson;Laurenz Langer;N. Tannous;Zafeer Ravat;Promise Nduku;J. Polanin;I. Shemilt;J. Eyers;P. Ferraro
摘要土地利用部门的不可持续做法通过释放温室气体导致气候变化。环境服务付费（PES）为减少土地使用的负面环境影响提供了经济激励，是中低收入国家减缓气候变化的一种流行方法。一些生态系统服务付费方案还旨在改善社会经济成果和减少贫困。这一系统性审查审查了方案对环境和社会经济成果的影响。我们确定了44个定量影响评价和60个定性研究的生态系统服务费用支付方案纳入审查，以评估生态系统服务费用支付的影响，并确定背景，设计和实施功能，可能会影响生态系统服务费用支付的有效性。这些研究涉及拉丁美洲和加勒比、东亚和太平洋、南亚和撒哈拉以南非洲12个国家的18个方案。审查发现，生态系统服务付费可能会增加家庭收入，减少毁林和改善森林覆盖，但这些结论是基于少数方案提供的低质量和极低质量证据，应谨慎对待。定性证据表明，有几个因素影响生态系统服务付费方案在不同情况下是否可能有效，并表明，纳入强有力的治理结构和有效地针对地点和参与者可能会提高干预的有效性。资助者、执行机构和研究人员应合作制定一个协调一致的方案，在不同背景下实施严格的、混合方法的影响评估。在获得这些证据之前，生态系统服务付费方案仍然是减缓气候变化的高风险战略。
Abstract Unsustainable practices in the land use sector contribute to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases. Payment for environmental services (PESs) provide economic incentives to reduce the negative environmental impacts of land use and are a popular approach to mitigate climate change in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Some PES programmes also aim to improve socioeconomic outcomes and reduce poverty. This systematic review examines the effect of programmes on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes. We identified 44 quantitative impact evaluations and 60 qualitative studies of PES programmes for inclusion in the review, to assess both the effects of PES and identify context, design and implementation features that may influence PES effectiveness. The studies covered 18 programmes from 12 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia and Sub‐Saharan Africa. The review finds that PES may increase household income, reduce deforestation and improve forest cover, but the findings are, however, based on low and very low quality evidence from a small number of programmes and should be treated with caution. Qualitative evidence indicates that several factors influence whether PES programmes are likely to be effective in different contexts and suggests that the inclusion of strong governance structures and the effective targeting of both locations and participants may improve intervention effectiveness. Funders, implementing agencies and researchers should collaborate to develop a coordinated programme of rigorous, mixed‐methods impact evaluation implemented across contexts. Until such evidence is available, PES programmes remain a high‐risk strategy for climate change mitigation.