A systematic review of markets for forest ecosystem services at an international level
Abstract
Markets for ecosystem services (MES) can play a key role in the protection of natural capital and the remuneration of sustainable management practices. This study aims to present the state of the art on forestry MES at the international level through a systematic review. The main objectives are (i) to analyse the distribution of actual or potential markets for forest ecosystem services (FES) that exist internationally today, (ii) to identify the spatial scale at which market-based instruments (MBIs) are applied and the respective measures of economic value used to assess FES, and (iii) to identify the actors and their involvement in the implementation of forestry MES. The study collected 304 peer-reviewed publications using the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol was used to guide the systematic process and select the 52 articles analysed in the review. The results show that Europe is the most representative continent in terms of geographical areas involved (n = 8) by forestry MES, followed by America (n = 6), Asia (n = 5), and Africa (n = 1). The main scale of application of MBIs for forestry MES is local, i.e., at the level of forest stand, municipality, or province (n = 31), followed by subnational (n = 10), national (n = 9), and international (n = 2). The main pattern of social composition in forestry MES is buyers, sellers, and intermediaries (n = 25), followed by buyers and sellers only (n = 12), buyers, sellers, intermediaries, and knowledge providers (n = 5), and buyers, sellers, and knowledge providers (n = 3). In terms of the measure of economic value, most studies use willingness to accept (n = 30), as opposed to willingness to pay (n = 17), and only 5 studies used both. Future research on forestry MES should be directed towards a better understanding of the process leading to their creation, implementation, effectiveness, governance, and level of satisfaction in economic terms of the actors involved.
1. Introduction
1.1. Natural capital accounting
In recent years, natural capital—defined as a stock of nonrenewable and renewable resources including the production of ecosystem services and life-support functions (De Groot 1992)—has received strong recognition in its role as a mitigating agent of climate and environmental crisis, such that it is considered in decision-making processes at different spatial scales (Dasgupta 2021; Farrell et al. 2021). However, natural capital is frequently underestimated in decision-making processes and subject to continuous threats and pressures (European Environment Agency 2019; Souliotis and Voulvoulis 2021). Natural capital accounting allows tracking the contribution of nature, understood as ecosystems, to human well-being and development, and the positive interactions between society, economy, and environment (Bagstad et al. 2021; Bruzzese et al. 2022; Li et al. 2022). The results obtained from accounting can then be used individually or in an integrated way in complex decision-making processes (Bateman and Mace 2020; Vysna et al. 2021): in economic impact and cost–benefit analyses of planning choices and policy programmes, and to inform governments, institutions, and society about the use of natural resources.
1.2. Policy framework
Among the various ecosystems that make up natural capital, forests play a key role, as they account for 31% of the Earth’s land surface (FAO and UNEP 2020) and host around 80% of its biodiversity (IPBES 2019). Today, there are several agreements, strategies, and policies adopted at various spatial scales that take forests into account. At the international level, there are Sustainable Development Goals promoted by the UN 2030 Agenda (United Nations 2015), specifically Goal 15: “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss” and the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017–2030 with six global forestry goals and 26 associated targets also to be achieved by 2030 (United Nations 2017). At the continental level, the new European Union (EU) Forestry Strategy 2030 has as primary objective to improve the quantity and quality of multifunctional forests, by reversing negative trends and increasing their resilience against the high uncertainty brought about by climate change. The EU Forestry Strategy 2030 has several points in common with both the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the EU Bioeconomy Strategy. All these documents can be considered an integral part of the wider European Green Deal (European Commission 2021). In the United States, there is the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY 2015–2020 (USDA Forest Service 2015) and the USDA Strategic Plan: FY 2018–2002 with goal 6: “Ensure Productive and Sustainable Use of Our National Forest System Lands” focusing on forests (USDA 2018). At country level, according to the FAO’s FRA report (FAO 2020), almost all countries have a forestry policy, accounting for 99% of the total forest area. The same report then highlights the presence of more than 230 forestry programme projects in 82 countries with a project budget of USD 246 million (2020).
1.3. Policy instruments
Governments can use different environmental policy instruments to meet previously mentioned commitments, agreements, and targets. According to Liao (2018), there are three main categories of instruments available to policy makers.
•
Command-and-control instruments (CACs) in which the government sets, for example, a standard on the maximum emission limit of companies, and then is responsible for monitoring the performance and compliance with the requirements demanded by the standard (Liu et al. 2020). These are policy instruments such as directives, standards, regulations, laws, bans, and permits, which, although inflexible and coercive, are often used by governments, especially in conditions of market failure (Solà et al. 2020).
•
Market-based instruments (MBIs) where an attempt is made to encourage or discourage certain behaviours through incentives (Murphy et al. 2021). They are flexible, cost-effective, and more effective instruments, compared to CACs, for environmental progress. MBIs are useful in preventing biodiversity loss and promoting the provision of ecosystem services (Pirard 2012). Several authors have also tried to propose a classification of MBIs, such as Pirard and Lapeyre (2014). In this work, they were subdivided according to the type of transaction, including price-based instruments that internalize the environmental cost within an existing market, such as taxes and subsidies, or promote the creation of new markets that remunerate the provision of ecosystem services, such as auctions and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) (Gao et al. 2020; Yu et al. 2021; Benra et al. 2022); quantity-based instruments that regulate the quantity and quality of an environmental resource, good, or service by creating a market, such as cap-and-trade systems, carbon offset schemes, and emissions trading schemes (Ellerman 2002; Alhassan et al. 2019; Frey et al. 2021); and market friction instruments that remove or reduce barriers in existing markets to improve their functioning; examples include ecolabels (Soria et al. 2021; Takahashi et al. 2021).
•
Information-based instrumentsthrough which attempts are made to influence people’s behaviour by leveraging their knowledge, beliefs, and values through communication and knowledge transfer (Howlett 2019; Walker et al. 2020). These are the least coercive policy instruments, which are not mandatory and do not require additional incentives or sanctions, such as advertising campaigns, information dissemination, and stakeholder engagement processes (Moore et al. 2020; Dalby et al. 2021).
This review analysed MBIs, as they are the tools that most stimulate attentive and virtuous behaviour towards the environment, creating trust between the actors involved and promoting forms of cooperation (Paletto et al. 2020). Starting from this consideration, we developed the following hypothesis:
•
The presence of Markets for Ecosystem Services (MES) can play a role in rewarding climate and environmentally friendly practices implemented by landowners and managers.
1.4. Reviews
Several literature reviews have looked at MBIs, analysing particular instruments such as incentives (Nikolakis and Innes 2017; Mitani and Lindhjem 2021) or PES (Ojea et al. 2016; Sarvašová et al. 2019; Vuletić et al. 2020), focusing on a precise spatial scale: continental (Baumber et al. 2019; Maier et al. 2021), multinational (Loft 2011), or local (Seehusen 2009). In some cases, studies have used economic methods to assess ecosystem services rather than MBIs (Quillérou and Thomas 2012; Garcia et al. 2018). The only work found in the scientific literature that makes an analysis of different MBIs internationally is from the early 2000s (Landell-Mills and Porras 2002). Therefore, our intention is to fill this gap in the scientific literature by updating the current situation and investigating the following questions:
•
RQ1) What is the distribution of forest ecosystem service (FES) markets at an international level?
•
RQ2) What is the spatial scale of application of MBIs for forestry MES?
•
RQ3) Who are the actors involved in the implementation of forestry MES and what are their relationships?
•
RQ4) Which measures of economic value are used to assess forestry MES?
These four research questions were considered in the present study because they include the most important aspects related to the implementation and replicability of PES schemes in other contexts. The first two research questions investigate countries with a more consolidated experience on the FES markets and on the peculiarities in their implementation (e.g., socio-economic context, scale of application, category of ecosystem services). The other two research questions focus on two key aspects of the PES scheme implementation cycle (Vuletić et al. 2021; Valatin et al. 2022): identification of the key actors to be involved in the design and implementation of a PES scheme and the economic value to assign as a starting point to an ecosystem service without a market.
Operationally, a systematic review process was set up following the guidelines proposed by the “PRISMA” (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting protocol, with the specific aim of answering research questions.
1.5. Sections
The rest of the article is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the process that led to conducting the systematic review, the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework, and the PRISMA protocol. Sections 3 and 4 show and comment on the results obtained from the systematic review, while the last section concludes with the limitations of this study and its possible developments.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Search strategy
This review was designed following the guidelines proposed by the PRISMA protocol (Page et al. 2021). The search was conducted between May and October 2021, using Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) databases. The search strategy was developed from three main categories: “forest ecosystem services”, “market instruments”, and “forest”. Then, related keywords and synonyms were identified and manipulated with Boolean operators (AND and OR) and wildcards, obtaining the search string shown in Table 1. The search of the first two categories was restricted to the fields “title, abstract, and keywords”, while the last one was extended to “all fields” to give more emphasis to the research field, that is forestry.
Table 1.
2.2. Eligibility criteria
The PICO framework was used to formulate the research hypothesis in a structured way and to determine the eligibility criteria (Speckman and Friedly 2019; Schiavenato and Chu 2021; Alayan et al. 2022; Salazar-Sepúlveda et al. 2022). Such criteria are Population (P): forest ecosystem services; Intervention (I): the presence of market instruments; Comparison (C): the presence of other policy instruments; Outcome (O): the ability to reward climate and environmentally friendly practices implemented by landowners and managers. Studies that did not meet the PICO criteria were excluded, while those in which some criteria were doubtful or difficult to assess were analysed in full text before making an inclusion/exclusion decision. Subsequently, other inclusion criteria were added such as (i) only primary research articles, (ii) written in English, and (iii) published since 2003, referring to the previous international review done on MES and published in 2002.
2.3. Data extraction
Suitable articles were reviewed manually and independently by two researchers. Files were exported in .csv (CSV) format for initial analysis, containing the following information: authors, title, year of publication, source, and document type for those analysed by Scopus, and authors, title, and source for articles analysed by WOS. Data extraction was done using an Excel® spreadsheet and collecting the following information from the full-text articles: ID, database in which the article is present, title, author(s), year of publication, ecosystem service category (provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services) using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification system (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) activities, MBIs, spatial scale, geographical area, current market status (already implemented or only potential), presence or absence of an estimated Willingness to Pay (WTP), Willingness to Accept (WTA) compensation in the analysed paper, type of stakeholder involved, decision-making process adopted, and additional notes (Table 2, Appendix A).
Table 2.
To simplify the data extraction process, some variables were classified according to classification criteria already available in the literature.
Regarding the spatial scale, reference was made to the classification proposed by Krishan and Singh (2019). At the “local” level, studies with reference to forest stands, municipalities, districts, and provinces are included. At the “subnational” level, studies on the geographical basis of counties, regions, and federated states are included. At the “national” level, countries are included, while at the “international” level, studies that include more than one country are included.
About the category of stakeholders, the classification proposed by Nisbert et al. (2020) and Paletto et al. (2021) was used. “Sellers” are those who manage natural capital and are responsible for its conservation, protection, and improvement through good management practices. “Buyers” are those who purchase the service provided by natural capital and provide seed capital to start implementing the PES scheme. “Intermediaries” are those who manage the market, regulate it at different scales or facilitate its development, and protection. Finally, “knowledge providers” are those involved in providing technical and scientific advice, promoting the market, and evaluating and monitoring its effectiveness.
MBIs have been grouped into five main options based on the intrinsic properties of the instrument. Contracts include the following options: Payments for Environmental Services (Wunder 2005)—also known as PES—watershed management contracts, reforestation contracts, and biodiversity management contracts. Financial instruments include the following options: shares, bonds, CALL and PUT options (i.e., the rights to buy in the first case and to sell in the second to the holder who holds them, a given stock), crowdfunding. Incentives include subsidies, government payments, green payments, private payments, and property tax incentives. Tradable certificates include offset/carbon credits, certified emission reductions, and transferable development rights. There are no options in the Auctions.
3. Results
3.1. Search results
The flow chart, illustrated in Fig. 1, shows the operational steps taken in the review process for selecting studies. A total of 304 records were found in the period analysed. Scopus returned 171 studies and WOS returned 133. Of these studies, 116 were removed because they were duplicates, 51 because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, 3 because their full texts were not available, and 1 because WOS provided a double result of the same record. Of the 138 potentially eligible articles, after reading the titles and abstracts, only 79 met the PICO eligibility criteria and, of this, only 52 were selected for qualitative analysis after reading the full text.
Fig. 1.
3.2. Geographical distribution of the forestry MES, ecosystem service categories, and types of MBIs
Table 3 shows the geographical distribution of forestry MES studies by type of MBI used and ecosystem services category. In terms of distribution of studies, Europe is the most represented continent, since 8 geographical areas are involved, followed by America with 6, Asia with 5, and Africa with 1. No studies were found in Oceania. In terms of number of publications, Asia, with 22 studies, is the most represented continent, followed by America with 15, Europe with 13, and Africa with 2 studies both in Madagascar. In absolute terms, the countries with the highest number of studies are Vietnam (n = 17), followed by United States of America (n = 7), and Italy (n = 5). There are also two countries exclusively focused on one category of ecosystem services, respectively “cultural” for Croatia (n = 1) and “regulating” for Poland (n = 1).
Table 3.
Regarding the FES assessed, almost all studies (n = 49) deal with regulating services and just over half deal with cultural services (n = 29) and provisioning services (n = 27), while only one study deals with supporting services. Many of these studies assess more than one category of services at a time; indeed, of the 52 studies analysed, only 11 focus exclusively on regulatory services and 1 on cultural services. However, there are no studies that have analysed supporting services and provisioning services individually. In addition, it is interesting to highlight that 16 papers focused on three different FES (provisioning, regulating, and cultural), 11 on two (provisioning and cultural), and 11 on only one (regulating).
Regarding MBIs (Fig. 2), America is the most versatile continent, as it uses all the types of instruments presented. Europe and Asia follow with 3 and 2 types of instruments, respectively. Finally, Africa only has contracts.
Fig. 2.
3.3. Types of MBIs applied per spatial scale and LULUCF activities
Contract, in the form of PES or PES-like, is the most applied typology (n = 40), followed by incentives (e.g., subsidies and green payments) and tradable certificates (n = 4 each); auctions (n = 3) and financial instruments are less frequent (n = 2). Almost all studies (n = 44) analysed MBIs applied to FES when there was active forest management, only 4 studies focused exclusively on reforestation, and 2 considered both conditions. No study analysed cases of afforestation.
Fig. 3.
Table 4.
About the spatial scale, MBIs adopted in active forest management are the most numerous. The data show that, out of the 44 articles considered, more than half are reported at the local scale (n = 25), namely at the level of forest stand, municipality, city, or province; 9 studies are focused at subnational level; 8 at national level; and only 2 at the international level. Regarding studies on reforestation/afforestation practices or combined with active forest management, 4 studies were applied at the local scale and only 1 at the subnational and national scale. The results show that some MBIs tend to be more commonly researched at a certain scale and other MBIs at a different one. For example, contracts and auctions are more widely used on smaller spatial scales, while financial instruments, public incentives, and tradable certificates, such as carbon credits, have larger markets on a national and international scale.
3.4. Categories of stakeholders and decision-making process
Table 5 shows the categories of actors involved in the decision-making process and the approach adopted. The most used approach is the top-down one (n = 30), followed by the bottom-up approach (n = 14). However, it was not possible to identify the approach adopted for 8 studies. Regarding the different categories of stakeholders, in the bottom-up approach, many studies involved only sellers and buyers (n = 8 out of 14), whereas in the top-down approach, the most representative pattern was the presence of sellers, buyers, and intermediaries (n = 22 out of 30). These results highlight how often the intermediary is the State or other public bodies, which may play the role of mere sellers or buyers, but often are also market regulators, or private bodies acting as brokers as in the case of the carbon market or as lenders in the case of funds.
Table 5.
With regard to the decision-making process, the most used forms of forestry MES implementation are the top-down approach with buyers, sellers, and intermediaries (n = 22), the bottom-up approach with only sellers and buyers (n = 8), and the top-down approach with all four categories of stakeholders (n = 5).
3.5. Measures of the economic value and market status
The different measures used in the studies for economic value and market status are shown in Table 6. The data show that most studies use WTA (n = 30) as a measure of economic value, compared to WTP (n = 17). Only 5 studies use both, while 10 studies do not report any economic value.
Table 6.
Regarding market status, 27 studies refer to potential markets, 24 studies to actual markets, and only 1 study refers to both types. In real markets, WTA is the main measure of economic value (n = 20), while in potential markets WTP (n = 15) is the most widely used. These results suggest that WTP is used for initiating a potential market, while WTA is mainly applied in real markets. WTA is best suited to real markets because many PES programmes involve the implementation of nature conservation measures that have the potential to reduce the income of landowners and farmers. Therefore, landowners’ participation in PES programmes is conditioned by the opportunity cost (direct and indirect) for them. For this reason, WTA payment for a change of agricultural or forestry practices is more appropriate and easier to understand by landowners and farmers. Conversely, in the potential markets the supply of an ecosystem service has not yet been defined and for this reason WTP is more suitable for understanding how much buyers are willing to pay sellers for a desired and requested service.
4. Discussion
Forests and their ecosystem services can play an important role in addressing ongoing climate change and biodiversity loss, as argued by several authors (Cachinero-Vivar et al. 2021; Kim et al. 2021; Rontard and Hernandez 2022). The adoption of environmental policy instruments (e.g., MBIs) can help manage these natural resources and at the same time reward those who own or manage them for adopting sustainable management practices.
First of all, it is important to highlight how the present study has contributed to an advance compared to the previous study by Paletto et al. (2020). Those authors investigated a more general issue than the present study (PES scheme in general rather than MES in particular) and adopted a different methodology (Bibliometric network analysis rather than Systematic review). In other words, this study can be considered an in-depth analysis on the key issue of MES to fill the most important knowledge gap in the international literature. Four key findings emerge from our analysis that answer the research questions, specifically:
1.
Regarding the RQ1, Europe is the continent with the largest number of countries with one or more forestry MES, but in terms of publications, Asia ranks first. What stands out as a common factor, however, is that most of the countries with an MES, excluding Europe, are characterized by emerging economies. As reported by Razzaque (2017) and Paudyal et al. (2018), such instruments may have been implemented to address rural poverty, help indigenous communities, improve livelihoods and the local economy. The fact that Vietnam has the most studies may therefore depend on its emerging economic potential (Doan et al. 2021), as well as on its strong subsidy policy that led to the adoption of a forest PES program at national level. This programme started on only two pilot cases in 2008 but was then extended nationwide in 2011, as emphasized by several authors (Duong and De Groot 2020; Pham et al. 2021). Acharya et al. (2019) reported that regulating services ranked first, followed by provisioning and cultural services in the global trend in FES evaluation. Our results agree on the importance of regulatory services but see the other two reversed. This may be attributed to the growing interest shown in cultural services in recent years and driven even more by the current health pandemic, as argued by Bamwesigye et al. (2021) and Weinbrenner et al. (2021) or to the raise in green care issues, as reported by Mammadova et al. (2021) and Vivona et al. (2021). The importance attached to regulating services is attributed as reported by Mengist et al. (2020) to their ability to maintain the world we live in, regulate ecosystem processes, and reduce disasters and diseases. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that provisioning services are often not labelled as such in the literature, but as products (e.g., timber and nonwood forest products) and that the adoption of MBIs is unnecessary because there is already a traditional market in which these products are priced and marketed (Agúndez et al. 2022; Andrade et al. 2022; Saritaş and Türker 2022).
2.
Regarding the RQ2, the local scale is the most adopted spatial scale by MBIs, followed by subnational, national, and international scales. This result is justified by the characteristics of the applied MBIs, as many studies have analysed PES, and these are mainly applied at the local level. However, this result could also suggest that governance of ecosystem services at the local level can lead to better cost-effectiveness, positive environmental outcomes, greater consensus in decisions, and better support from local communities, as also reported by Bork and Hirokawa (2021). The most widely used MBI is the contract, followed by incentives, tradable certificates, auctions, and financial instruments. This result shows a reversal of the trend. A decade ago, as reported by Rademaekers et al. (2011), it was financial instruments, specifically taxes that were mainly used globally as MBIs for the environment. However, most applications of MBIs were related to waste and emissions and not for the protection of the natural resource. They were attached to the approach of the “polluter pays” and not the “provider gets”. Nowadays, however, there has been a change of trend. The only form of contract that emerged from the studies analysed was PES. This can probably be attributed to the strong interest shown in the last decade by the market for this type of MBIs, as stated by several authors (Salzman et al. 2018; Parajuli et al. 2020) and also to the fact that the term PES might have been inconsistently used across the different studies due to multiple PES definitions and to the fact that sometimes it has been used ambiguously. Moreover, this typology is very adaptable, as it can be applied at different spatial scales, involves different types of stakeholders, is cost-effective and produces socio-ecological benefits for local communities, as also reported by Osborne and Shapiro-Garza (2018).
3.
Regarding the RQ3, buyers, sellers, and intermediaries are the main stakeholders involved in forest MES adopting a top-down approach. The finding points to a key role of intermediaries, as also reported in the case studies presented in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Smith et al. 2013) report on guidelines for designing and implementing a PES scheme. This finding can be supported by the high frequency of case studies in Vietnam, where state policy, using a top-down approach, involves public institutions as market regulators for FES. Further research is needed to understand whether the role of intermediaries, as in the case of the Vietnamese government, can also be a factor leading to the success and continuity of PES schemes beyond their implementation. However, Paletto et al. (2021) argue that the public authority should have a dual role, as a market regulator and as a buyer or seller of ecosystem services. Gallo et al. (2018) and Van Putten et al. (2022) confirm how the public authority is important in ensuring the protection of natural capital, but that this depends especially on the level of trust in it. Good levels of trust lead to better conflict resolution between different groups of stakeholders and acceptance of environmental policies, whereas low levels reduce the collaboration.
4.
Regarding the RQ4, slightly more than half of the analysed markets are potential, while the other half are real markets. There is also a close relationship between the measure of economic value adopted and the market status. Indeed, in potential markets the main measure is WTP, while in real markets it is WTA. The rationale for most markets being potential lies in the fact that marketing of ecosystem services still remains at the stage of a hypothetical/academic exercise rather than having developed to real world practices and for which efforts are being made to identify acceptable prices for ecosystem services with the WTP of potential participants, as argued by Nielsen-Pincus et al. (2017). On the other hand, since ecosystem services are public or common goods, for which it is impossible to assign property rights, it is unlikely to achieve adequate supply in such markets, as reported by Gao et al. (2020).
5. Conclusion
The intention of this review was to determine the state of the art of potential and actual markets for FES at an international level. Over the years, academia has increased its interest in this topic, as evidenced by the growing number of studies published during the period under review. The literature has found emerging evidence that forest MES can play a rewarding role for landowners and land managers who adopt climate and environmentally sound practices. Our results helped identify the current distribution of actual and potential forestry MES, the MBIs adopted and their level of spatial application, the stakeholders involved in implementing these markets, and the measures of economic value used to assess MES.
5.1. Limitations and implication for research
There are five potential limitations to this review. Firstly, the screening of the articles was done by two authors with the same basic training and belonging to the same institution. However, the third author, with the impartial role of resolving any doubts and conflicts, had different research interests and came from another institution. The second limitation is that the selection of articles was limited to only two databases and without considering the grey literature. The third limitation concerns the selection of articles only in English, which may have affected the distribution of forest MES. This may have affected South America, where the main languages are Spanish and Portuguese, and West Africa, where the first language is French. The fourth limitation is due to the poor identification of MBIs for provisioning services, which probably being largely “traditional” services in forestry, are often called by different names, such as timber harvesting and mushroom picking, and were therefore not identified with the search string. There is therefore a need for future developments of this research to expand the lexicon of terms used in the search string. The last limitation relates to the difficulty of some studies in attributing a precise spatial scale, due to the promiscuity of the spatial entities.
The gaps on the social component of forestry MES implementation indicate the need for further research, as it was difficult to obtain information on the types of stakeholders involved and the approach taken to involvement, especially in European cases. Further research must then be carried out on the African continent to understand whether the knowledge gap in this review is only attributable to the limitation of the selected language or whether there is a real lack of such tools on the ground.
In conclusion, future research should be directed towards a better understanding of the process leading to the creation, implementation, effectiveness, and governance of an MES, and the level of satisfaction in economic terms of the actors involved, but we think that our study has contributed to increasing the knowledge in this interesting and promising field.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to deeply thank the reviewers for the important insights and constructive criticism received during the peer-reviewing process.
References
Acharya R.P., Maraseni T., Cockfield G. 2019. Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation – an analysis of publications. Ecosyst. Serv. 39.
Agúndez D., Tadesse W., Dejene T., Martín-Pinto P., Soliño M. 2022. Wild mushroom potential in Ethiopia: an analysis based on supplier and consumer preferences. For. Syst. 31(2): e006.
Alayan R., Rotich B., Lakner Z. 2022. A comprehensive framework for forest restoration after forest fires in theory and practice: a systematic review. Forests, 13(9): 1354.
Alhassan M., Motallebi M., Song B. 2019. South Carolina forestland owners’ willingness to accept compensations for carbon sequestration. For. Ecosyst. 6(1): 16.
Andrade F.W.C., Pinto T.I., Moreira L.d.S., da Ponte M.J.M., Lobato T.d.C., de Sousa J.T.R., Moutinho V.H.P. 2022. The legal roundwood market in the Amazon and its impact on deforestation in the region between 2009–2015. Forests, 13: 558.
Bagstad K.J., Ingram J.C., Shapiro C.D., La Notte A., Maes J., Vallecillo S., et al. 2021. Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 52.
Bamwesigye D., Fialová J., Kupec P., Łukaszkiewicz J., Fortuna-Antoszkiewicz B. 2021. Forest recreational services in the face of COVID-19 pandemic stress. Land, 10(12).
Bateman I.J., Mace G.M. 2020. The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable decision making. Nat. Sustain. 3(10): 776–783.
Baumber A., Metternicht G., Cross R., Ruoso L.-E., Cowie A.L., Waters C. 2019. Promoting co-benefits of carbon farming in Oceania: applying and adapting approaches and metrics from existing market-based schemes. Ecosyst. Serv. 39.
Benra F., Nahuelhual L., Felipe-Lucia M., Jaramillo A., Bonn A., Jullian C. 2022. Balancing ecological and social goals in PES design – single objective strategies are not sufficient. Ecosyst. Serv. 53.
Bork K., Hirokawa K. 2021. Trends in local ecosystem governance. Front. Clim. 3. Available from https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fclim.2021.719150 [accessed 17 January 2022].
Bruzzese S., Ahmed W., Blanc S., Brun F., 2022, Ecosystem services: a social and semantic network analysis of public opinion on Twitter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19(22): 15012.
Cachinero-Vivar A.M., Palacios-Rodríguez G., Navarro-Cerrillo R.M., Lara-Gómez M.A. 2021. Thinning effect of C sequestration along an elevation gradient of mediterranean Pinusspp. plantations. Forests, 12(11).
Dalby O., Sinha I., Unsworth R.K.F., McKenzie L.J., Jones B.L., Cullen-Unsworth L.C. 2021. Citizen science driven big data collection requires improved and inclusive societal engagement. Front. Mar. Sci. 8: 432.
Dasgupta P. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review: full report. In Updated. HM Treasury, London. 18 February 2021.
De Groot R.S. 1992. Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff BV.
Doan T.N., Ta T.T., Pham D.C., Nguyen L.S., Tran H.N. 2021. Audit opinion and earnings management: empirical evidence from Vietnam. Invest. Manag. Financ. Innov. 18(4): 131–140.
Duong N.T.B., De Groot W.T. 2020. The impact of payment for forest environmental services (PFES) on community-level forest management in Vietnam. For. Policy Econ. 113: 102135.
Ellerman A.D. 2002. Designing a tradable permit system to control SO2 emissions in China: principles and practice. Energy J. 23(2): 1–26. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41322952 [accessed 15 January 2022].
European Commission. 2021. Forests - new EU strategy. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12674-Forests-new-EU-strategy_en [accessed 15 January 2022].
European Environment Agency. 2019. The European Environment—State and Outlook 2020: knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe. EEA, Copenhagen.
FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: main report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO and UNEP. 2020. The State of the World’s Forests 2020: forests, biodiversity and people. FAO and UNEP, Rome, Italy.
Farrell C.A., Aronson J., Daily G.C., Hein L., Obst C., Woodworth P., Stout J.C. 2021. Natural capital approaches: shifting the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration from aspiration to reality. Restor. Ecol.
Frey G.E., Kallayanamitra C., Wilkens P., James N.A. 2021. Payments for forest-based ecosystem services in the United States: magnitudes and trends. Ecosyst. Serv. 52: 101377.
Gallo M., Pezdevšek Malovrh Š., Laktić T., De Meo I., Paletto A. 2018. Collaboration and conflicts between stakeholders in drafting the Natura 2000 Management Programme (2015–2020) in Slovenia. J. Nat. Conserv. 42: 36–44.
Gao X., Xu W., Hou Y., Ouyang Z. 2020. Market-based instruments for ecosystem services: framework and case study in Lishui City, China. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 6(1): 1835445. Taylor & Francis.
Garcia S., Abildtrup J., Stenger A. 2018. How does economic research contribute to the management of forest ecosystem services? Ann. For. Sci. 75(2).
Howlett M. 2019. The policy design primer: choosing the right tools for the job. Routledge, London.
IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo, Bonn, Germany.
Kim M., Kraxner F., Forsell N., Song C., Lee W.-K. 2021. Enhancing the provisioning of ecosystem services in South Korea under climate change: The benefits and pitfalls of current forest management strategies. Reg. Environ. Change, 21(1).
Krishan G., Singh N. 2019. Researching geography: the Indian context. 2nd ed, Routledge India, London.
Landell-Mills N., Porras I.T. 2002. Silver bullet or fools’ gold: a global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Available from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/66809 [accessed 16 January 2022].
Li P., Zhang R., Wei H., Xu L. 2022. Assessment of physical quantity and value of natural capital in China since the 21st century based on a modified ecological footprint model. Sci. Total Environ. 806.
Liao Z. 2018. Environmental policy instruments, environmental innovation and the reputation of enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 171: 1111–1117.
Liu X., Liu X., Luo X., Wang M., Wang B. 2020. Analysis of the influencing mechanism of command-and-control instruments on adopting energy consumption monitoring technology in public buildings. Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 15(2): 210–223.
Loft L. 2011. Market mechanisms for financing the reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries (REDD) - learning from payments for ecosystem services schemes. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 7(3): 204–216.
Maier C., Hebermehl W., Grossmann C.M., Loft L., Mann C., Hernández-Morcillo M. 2021. Innovations for securing forest ecosystem service provision in Europe – a systematic literature review. Ecosyst. Serv. 52.
Mammadova A., O’Driscoll C., Burlando C., Doimo I., Pettenella D. 2021. EU blueprint on green care: nature for health, well-being and social inclusion. Erasmus+ Green4C project.Available from https://www.greenforcare.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Green4C-Blueprint.pdf [accessed 30 November 2022].
Mengist W., Soromessa T., Feyisa G.L. 2020. A global view of regulatory ecosystem services: existed knowledge, trends, and research gaps. Ecol. Process. 9(1): 40.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, Washington DC.
Mitani Y., Lindhjem H. 2021. Meta-analysis of landowner participation in voluntary incentive programs for provision of forest ecosystem services. Conserv. Biol.
Moore K.M., Allison E.H., Dreyer S.J., Ekstrom J.A., Jardine S.L., Klinger T., et al. 2020. Harmful algal blooms: identifying effective adaptive actions used in fishery-dependent communities in response to a protracted event. Front. Mar. Sci. 6: 803.
Murphy E.L., Bernard M., Gerber L.R., Dooley K.J. 2021. Evaluating the role of market-based instruments in protecting marine ecosystem services in wild-caught fisheries. Ecosyst. Serv. 51.
Nielsen-Pincus M., Sussman P., Bennett D.E., Gosnell H., Parker R. 2017. The influence of place on the willingness to pay for ecosystem services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 30(12): 1423–1441.
Nikolakis W., Innes J.L. 2017. Evaluating incentive-based programs to support forest ecosystem services. Environ. Conserv. 44(1): 1–4.
Nisbert T.R., Andreucci M.-B., De Vreese R., Högbom L., Sonja Kay S., Kelly-Quinn M., et al. 2020. Forests for Water services: a step-by-step guide for payment schemes. Manual 2020. COST Action CA15206, Brussels. pp. 23.
Ojea E., Loureiro M.L., Alló M., Barrio M. 2016. Ecosystem services and REDD: estimating the benefits of non-carbon services in worldwide forests. World Dev. 78: 246–261.
Osborne T., Shapiro-Garza E. 2018. Embedding carbon markets: complicating commodification of ecosystem services in Mexico’s forests. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 108(1): 88–105.
Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372. British Medical Journal Publishing Group.
Paletto A., De Meo I., Morelli S. 2020. Payment systems for ecosystem services (PES): review of national and international literature. [Original version]: Sistemi di Pagamento per i Servizi Ecosistemici (PES): analisi della letteratura nazionale e internazionale. Ital. For. E Mont. 75: 281–314.
Paletto A., Báliková K., De Meo I. 2021. Opinions towards the water-related payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes: the stakeholders’ point of view. Water Environ. J. 35(3): 1051–1062.
Parajuli R., Chizmar S., Megalos M., Bardon R. 2020. Educating landowners on forest-based alternative income streams in North Carolina: program evaluation and lessons learned. J. For. 118(6): 551–554.
Paudyal K., Baral H., Bhandari S.P., Keenan R.J. 2018. Design considerations in supporting payments for ecosystem services from community-managed forests in Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 30: 61–72.
Pham V.T., Roongtawanreongsri S., Ho T.Q., Tran P.H.N. 2021. Can payments for forest environmental services help improve income and attitudes toward forest conservation? Household-level evaluation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. For. Policy Econ. 132: 102578.
Pirard R. 2012. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environ. Sci. Policy, 19–20: 59–68.
Pirard R., Lapeyre R. 2014. Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: a guide to the literature jungle. Ecosyst. Serv. 9: 106–114.
Quillérou E., Thomas R.J. 2012. Costs of land degradation and benefits of land restoration: a review of valuation methods and suggested frameworks for inclusion into policy-making. CAB Rev. 7: 1–12.
Rademaekers K., Van der Laan J., Smith M., van Breugel C., Pollitt H. 2011. The role of market-based instruments in achieving a resource efficient economy. Int. Inst. Sustain. Dev. 34–37.
Razzaque J. 2017. Payments for ecosystem services in sustainable mangrove forest management in Bangladesh. Transnatl. Environ. Law, 6(2): 309–333.
Rontard B., Hernandez H.R. 2022. Emission trading system and forest: learning from the experience of New Zealand. Springer, Cham. pp. 169–189.
Salazar-Sepúlveda G., Vega-Muñoz A., Contreras-Barraza N., Zada M., Adsuar J.C. 2022. Indigenous forestry tourism dimensions: a systematic review. Forests, 13(2): 298.
Salzman J., Bennett G., Carroll N., Goldstein A., Jenkins M. 2018. The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nat. Sustain. 1(3): 136–144.
Saritaş E., Türker M.F. 2022. The effect of cooperatives producing non-wood forest products on rural development: the example of Kozak subdistrict agricultural development cooperative in Turkey. J. Sustain. For. 1–17.
Sarvašová Z., Báliková K., Dobšinská Z., Štěrbová M., Šálka J. 2019. Payments for forest ecosystem services across Europe - main approaches and examples from Slovakia. Ekol. Bratisl. 38(2): 154–165.
Schiavenato M., Chu F. 2021. PICO: what it is and what it is not. Nurse Educ. Pract. 56: 103194.
Seehusen S.E. 2009. Can payments for ecosystem services contribute to sustainable development in the Brazilian Amazon? Folia For. Pol. Ser. A 51(1): 91–119.
Smith S., Rowcroft P., Everard M., Couldrick L., Reed M., Rogers H., et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: a best practice guide. Defra, London.
Solà M., del M., de Ayala A., Galarraga I., Escapa M. 2020. Promoting energy efficiency at household level: a literature review. Energy Effic. 14(1): 6.
Soria M., Bonada N., Ballester A., Verkaik I., Jordà-Capdevila D., Solà C., et al. 2021. Adapting participatory processes in temporary rivers management. Environ. Sci. Policy, 120: 145–156.
Souliotis I., Voulvoulis N. 2021. Natural capital accounting informing water management policies in Europe. Sustainability, 13(20): 1–24. MDPI.
Speckman R.A., Friedly J.L. 2019. Asking structured, answerable clinical questions using the Population, Intervention/Comparator, Outcome (PICO) Framework. PM R, 11(5): 548–553.
Takahashi Y., Park K.J., Natori Y., Dublin D., Dasgupta R., Miwa K. 2021. Enhancing synergies in nature’s contributions to people in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes: lessons learnt from ten site-based projects in biodiversity hotspots. Sustain. Sci.
United Nations. 2015. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available from https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981 [accessed 15 January 2022].
United Nations. 2017. United Nations Forum on Forests » UN Strategic Plan for Forests. Available from https://www.un.org/esa/forests/documents/un-strategic-plan-for-forests-2030/index.html [accessed 15 January 2022].
USDA. 2018. USDA Strategic Plan FY 2018–2022.
USDA Forest Service. 2015. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY 2015–2020. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Valatin G., Ovando P., Abildtrup J., Accastello C., Andreucci M.B., Chikalanov A., et al. 2022. Approaches to cost-effectiveness of payments for tree planting and forest management for water quality services. Ecosyst. Serv. 53: 101373.
van Putten I., Ison S., Cvitanovic C., Hobday A.J., Thomas L. 2022. Who has influence?: The role of trust and communication in the conservation of flatback turtles in Western Australia. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 49.
Vivona S., Romeo N., Sdao P., Veltri A. 2021. The search for well-being in natural environments: a case study in the Covid-19 era (Original version: La ricerca del benessere attraverso la permanenza in ambienti naturali: uno studio di caso in epoca Covid-19). For. J. Silvic. For. Ecol. 18(1): 41. SISEF - Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology.
Vuletić D., Ostoić S.K., Keča L., Avdibegović M., Potočki K., Posavec S., et al. 2020. Water-related payment schemes for forest ecosystem services in selected Southeast European (SEE) countries. Forests, 11(6): 1–27.
Vuletić D., Ostoić S., Báliková K., Avdibegović M., Potočki K., Pezdevšek Malovrh Š., et al. 2021. Stakeholders’ opinions towards water-related forests ecosystem services in selected southeast european countries (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia). Sustainability, 13: 12001.
Vysna V., Maes J., Petersen J., La Notte A., Vallecillo S., Aizpurua N., et al. 2021. Accounting for ecosystems and their services in the European Union (INCA). Final report from phase II of the INCA project aiming to develop a pilot for an integrated system of ecosystem accounts for the EU. Stat. Rep. (Luxemb.) 62.
Walker R.M., Yeung D.Y.-L., Lee M.J., Lee I.P. 2020. Assessing information-based policy tools: an eye-tracking laboratory experiment on public information posters. J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 22(6): 558–578.
Routledge.
Weinbrenner H., Breithut J., Hebermehl W., Kaufmann A., Klinger T., Palm T., Wirth K. 2021. “The Forest Has Become Our New Living Room” – the critical importance of urban forests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. For. Glob. Change, 4.
Wunder S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occas. Pap.(42): 32. CIFOR,Bogor, Indonesia,
Yu Y., Wu Y., Wang P., Zhang Y., Yang L.E., Cheng X., Yan J. 2021. Grassland subsidies increase the number of livestock on the tibetan plateau: why does the “payment for ecosystem services” policy have the opposite outcome? Sustainability, 13(11): 6208. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Canadian Journal of Forest Research
Volume 53 • Number 7 • July 2023
Pages: 463 - 477
History
Received: 12 September 2022
Accepted: 16 February 2023
Version of record online: 28 March 2023
Copyright
© 2023 The Author(s). Permission for reuse (free in most cases) can be obtained from copyright.com.
Data Availability Statement
Stefano Bruzzese, Simone Blanc, Alessandro Paletto, and Filippo Brun (2023). Markets for Ecosystem Services data set (systematic review) (data set). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7545692.
Key Words
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: SteB, SB
Data curation: SteB, SB, AP, FB
Formal analysis: SteB, SB
Investigation: SteB
Methodology: SteB, SB
Resources: FB
Software: SteB
Supervision: AP, FB
Validation: AP, FB
Visualization: SteB
Writing – original draft: SteB, SB, AP, FB
Writing – review & editing: SteB, SB, AP, FB
Competing Interests
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Funding Information
The authors declare no specific funding for this work.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Stefano Bruzzese, Simone Blanc, Alessandro Paletto, and Filippo Brun. 2023. A systematic review of markets for forest ecosystem services at an international level. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.
53(7): 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2022-0230
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
1. A Framework Proposal for the Ex Post Evaluation of a Solution-Driven PES Scheme: The Case of Medvednica Nature Park
View Options
View options
Login options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.