EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF PAYMENTS FOR FOREST ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BY PROPENSITY SCORES ANALYSIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5937/ekoPolj2001087NKeywords:
Propensity scores, payments for forest ecosystem services, Average Treatment Effect on Treated, Average Treatment Effect, Difference-to-differences approachAbstract
The Vietnamese Government have been implementing the Payment for Forest Ecosystem Service (PFES) since
2008 with the aim of both improving natural forest status and enhancing income for mountainous community. Yet, effectiveness of the PFES scheme is now debated because of the shortage of experimental studies. So, the overall purpose of this study is to measure the effectiveness of the PFES program by propensity scores analysis. To do so, the study randomly surveyed 469 households located in four districts across Quang Nam province and then estimated the Average Treatment Effect on Treated (ATET). It is found that: (1) the households within PFES had got a insignificantly higher income than those without PES in the short-run; (2) yet, PFES was effective in long-run due to the improvement on income for participants; (3) PFES had an important role in increasing income inequality. Although this study demonstrated reasonable results, some limitations still exist due to the objective reasons, thus more studies with alternative methods should be conducted to confirm the results of this study for better policies.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1.Alix-Garcia, J., McIntosh, C., Sims, K. R., & Welch, J. R. (2013). The ecological footprint of poverty alleviation: evidence from Mexicos Oportunidades program. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 417-435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00349
2. Arriagada, R. A., Sills, E. O., Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2015). Do payments pay off? Evidence from participation in Costa Ricas PES program. PloS one, 10(7), e0131544. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131544
3. Asian Development Bank. (2014). Scaling up payments for forest environmental services in Viet Nam: Lessons and insights from Quang Nam (Vol. 1). Philippines: Metro Manila.
4. Austin, K. G., Schwantes, A., Gu, Y., & Kasibhatla, P. S. (2019). What causes deforestation in Indonesia? Environmental Research Letters, 14(2), 024007. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf6db
5. Beauchamp, E., Clements, T., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2018). Assessing mediumterm impacts of conservation interventions on local livelihoods in Northern Cambodia. World Development, 101, 202-218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.008
6. Birte Snilstveit, Jennifer Stevenson, Laurenz Langer, Natalie Tannous, Zafeer Ravat, Promise Nduku, . . . Ferraro, P. J. (2019). Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector–the effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on environmental and socio-economic outcomes in low-and middle-income countries (M. Gaarder Ed.). 3ie Systematic Review 44. London: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
7. Bremer, L. L., Wada, C. A., Medoff, S., Page, J., Falinski, K., & Burnett, K. (2019). Assessing the contribution of multi-benefit native forest protection to local water supplies: A case study from East Maui, Hawaii. Science of The Total Environment. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.220
8. Clements, T., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2015). Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia. Conservation biology, 29(1), 78-87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12423
9. Clements, T., Suon, S., Wilkie, D. S., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2014). Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods in Cambodia. World Development, 64, S125-S134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.008
10. Costedoat, S. (2017). Assessing the effectiveness of payments for environmental services in improving community-based forest conservation in Chiapas, Mexico. (Doctor of philosophy), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10803/457435
11. Do, T. H., Vu, T. P., & Catacutan, D. (2018). Payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam: An analysis of buyers perspectives and willingness. Ecosystem Services, 32, 134-143. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.07.005
12. Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Corbera, E., & Lapeyre, R. (2019). Payments for environmental services and motivation crowding: Towards a conceptual framework. Ecological economics, 156, 434-443. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.026
13. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis. the United States of America: Sage.
14. Hanauer, M. M., & Canavire-Bacarreza, G. (2015). Implications of heterogeneous impacts of protected areas on deforestation and poverty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1681), 20140272. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0272
15. Ito, J., Feuer, H. N., Kitano, S., & Asahi, H. (2019). Assessing the effectiveness of Japans community-based direct payment scheme for hilly and mountainous areas. Ecological economics, 160, 62-75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.036
16. Jespersen, K., & Gallemore, C. (2018). The institutional work of payments for ecosystem services: why the mundane should matter. Ecological economics, 146, 507-519. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.013
17. Kanchanaroek, Y., & Aslam, U. (2018). Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand. Land use policy, 78, 227-235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.026
18. Leite, W. L., Aydin, B., & Gurel, S. (2019). A Comparison of Propensity Score Weighting Methods for Evaluating the Effects of Programs With Multiple Versions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(1), 75-88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1409179
19. Li, J., Feldman, M. W., Li, S., & Daily, G. C. (2011). Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7721-7726.
20. 20. Li, Q., & Zander, P. (2019). Resilience building of rural livelihoods in PES programmes: A case study in Chinas Loess Hills. Ambio, 1-24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01236-4
21. López-Pintor, A., Salas, E., & Rescia, A. (2018). Assessment of Agri-Environmental Externalities in Spanish Socio-Ecological Landscapes of Olive Groves. Sustainability, 10(8), 2640. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082640
22. Manjula, M., Venkatachalam, L., Mukhopadhyay, P., & Kumar, L. (2019). Ecosystem services approach for revitalizing agriculture in India. CURRENT SCIENCE, 116(5), 723. Retrieved from https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/116/05/0723.pdf.
23. Muttaqin, M. Z., Alviya, I., Lugina, M., & Hamdani, F. A. U. (2019). Developing community-based forest ecosystem service management to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Forest Policy and Economics, 101938. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.024
24. Pauline, N. K. (2016). Payments for forest environmental services in sub-Saharan Africa - A practical guide (B. Foday, M. Rao, H. Barbara, & N. Bernardete Eds. Vol. 1): FAO, New York City.
25. Pham, T. T., Bennett, K., Vu, T. P., Brunner, J., Le Ngoc, D., & Nguyen, D. T. (2013). Payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam: from policy to practice. CIFOR Occasional Paper(93). Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/.../OP-93.pdf.
26. Quang Nam Provincial Forest Protection Department. (2019). The payments for forest ecoystem services during 2018-2019. Retrieved from Quang Nam:
27. Ramsey, D. S., Forsyth, D. M., Wright, E., McKay, M., & Westbrooke, I. (2019). Using propensity scores for causal inference in ecology: Options, considerations, and a case study. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(3), 320-331. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13111
28. Ruggiero, P. G., Metzger, J. P., Tambosi, L. R., & Nichols, E. (2019). Payment for ecosystem services programs in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Effective but not enough. Land use policy, 82, 283-291. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.054
29. Samii, C., Lisiecki, M., Kulkarni, P., Paler, L., & Chavis, L. (2014). Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(11), 95. doi:10.4073/csr.2014.11
30. Sharma, B. P., Cho, S.-H., & Yu, T. E. (2019). Designing cost-efficient payments for forest-based carbon sequestration: An auction-based modeling approach. Forest Policy and Economics, 104, 182-194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.018
31. Słoczyński, T., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2018). A GENERAL DOUBLE ROBUSTNESS RESULT FOR ESTIMATING AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECTS. Econometric Theory, 34(1), 112-133. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/general-double-robustness-result-for-estimating-average-treatment-effects/A8DFE43187372281B718719380FCB968. doi:10.1017/S0266466617000056
32. Steger, C., Hirsch, S., Evers, C., Branoff, B., Petrova, M., Nielsen-Pincus, M., . . . Van Riper, C. J. (2018). Ecosystem services as boundary objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. Ecological economics, 143, 153-160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.016
33. Treacy, P., Jagger, P., Song, C., Zhang, Q., & Bilsborrow, R. E. (2018). Impacts of Chinas Grain for Green Program on Migration and Household Income. Environmental management, 62(3), 489-499. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1047-0
34. Vietnam Administration of Forestry. (2019). The report on operation results of the forestry sector in 2018-2019. Retrieved from http://tongcuclamnghiep.gov.vn/LamNghiep/Index/diem-bao-ngay-29102018-3867
35. Wang, Y., Bilsborrow, R. E., Zhang, Q., Li, J., & Song, C. (2019). Effects of payment for ecosystem services and agricultural subsidy programs on rural household land use decisions in China: Synergy or trade-off? Land use policy, 81, 785-801. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.057
36. Watson, J. E. M., Evans, T., Venter, O., Williams, B., Tulloch, A., Stewart, C., . . . Lindenmayer, D. (2018). The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(4), 599-610. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x. doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x
37. Yitzhaki, S. (1994). Economic distance and overlapping of distributions. Journal of Econometrics, 61(1), 147-159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)90081-7
38. Zhou, M., Wang, F., & Wang, K. (2019). Destination Service Encounter Modeling and Relationships with Tourist Satisfaction. Sustainability, 11(4), 960.
2. Arriagada, R. A., Sills, E. O., Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2015). Do payments pay off? Evidence from participation in Costa Ricas PES program. PloS one, 10(7), e0131544. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131544
3. Asian Development Bank. (2014). Scaling up payments for forest environmental services in Viet Nam: Lessons and insights from Quang Nam (Vol. 1). Philippines: Metro Manila.
4. Austin, K. G., Schwantes, A., Gu, Y., & Kasibhatla, P. S. (2019). What causes deforestation in Indonesia? Environmental Research Letters, 14(2), 024007. doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf6db
5. Beauchamp, E., Clements, T., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2018). Assessing mediumterm impacts of conservation interventions on local livelihoods in Northern Cambodia. World Development, 101, 202-218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.008
6. Birte Snilstveit, Jennifer Stevenson, Laurenz Langer, Natalie Tannous, Zafeer Ravat, Promise Nduku, . . . Ferraro, P. J. (2019). Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector–the effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on environmental and socio-economic outcomes in low-and middle-income countries (M. Gaarder Ed.). 3ie Systematic Review 44. London: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
7. Bremer, L. L., Wada, C. A., Medoff, S., Page, J., Falinski, K., & Burnett, K. (2019). Assessing the contribution of multi-benefit native forest protection to local water supplies: A case study from East Maui, Hawaii. Science of The Total Environment. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.220
8. Clements, T., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2015). Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia. Conservation biology, 29(1), 78-87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12423
9. Clements, T., Suon, S., Wilkie, D. S., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2014). Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods in Cambodia. World Development, 64, S125-S134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.008
10. Costedoat, S. (2017). Assessing the effectiveness of payments for environmental services in improving community-based forest conservation in Chiapas, Mexico. (Doctor of philosophy), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10803/457435
11. Do, T. H., Vu, T. P., & Catacutan, D. (2018). Payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam: An analysis of buyers perspectives and willingness. Ecosystem Services, 32, 134-143. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.07.005
12. Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Corbera, E., & Lapeyre, R. (2019). Payments for environmental services and motivation crowding: Towards a conceptual framework. Ecological economics, 156, 434-443. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.026
13. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis. the United States of America: Sage.
14. Hanauer, M. M., & Canavire-Bacarreza, G. (2015). Implications of heterogeneous impacts of protected areas on deforestation and poverty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1681), 20140272. doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0272
15. Ito, J., Feuer, H. N., Kitano, S., & Asahi, H. (2019). Assessing the effectiveness of Japans community-based direct payment scheme for hilly and mountainous areas. Ecological economics, 160, 62-75. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.036
16. Jespersen, K., & Gallemore, C. (2018). The institutional work of payments for ecosystem services: why the mundane should matter. Ecological economics, 146, 507-519. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.013
17. Kanchanaroek, Y., & Aslam, U. (2018). Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand. Land use policy, 78, 227-235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.026
18. Leite, W. L., Aydin, B., & Gurel, S. (2019). A Comparison of Propensity Score Weighting Methods for Evaluating the Effects of Programs With Multiple Versions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(1), 75-88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1409179
19. Li, J., Feldman, M. W., Li, S., & Daily, G. C. (2011). Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7721-7726.
20. 20. Li, Q., & Zander, P. (2019). Resilience building of rural livelihoods in PES programmes: A case study in Chinas Loess Hills. Ambio, 1-24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01236-4
21. López-Pintor, A., Salas, E., & Rescia, A. (2018). Assessment of Agri-Environmental Externalities in Spanish Socio-Ecological Landscapes of Olive Groves. Sustainability, 10(8), 2640. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082640
22. Manjula, M., Venkatachalam, L., Mukhopadhyay, P., & Kumar, L. (2019). Ecosystem services approach for revitalizing agriculture in India. CURRENT SCIENCE, 116(5), 723. Retrieved from https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/116/05/0723.pdf.
23. Muttaqin, M. Z., Alviya, I., Lugina, M., & Hamdani, F. A. U. (2019). Developing community-based forest ecosystem service management to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Forest Policy and Economics, 101938. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.024
24. Pauline, N. K. (2016). Payments for forest environmental services in sub-Saharan Africa - A practical guide (B. Foday, M. Rao, H. Barbara, & N. Bernardete Eds. Vol. 1): FAO, New York City.
25. Pham, T. T., Bennett, K., Vu, T. P., Brunner, J., Le Ngoc, D., & Nguyen, D. T. (2013). Payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam: from policy to practice. CIFOR Occasional Paper(93). Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/.../OP-93.pdf.
26. Quang Nam Provincial Forest Protection Department. (2019). The payments for forest ecoystem services during 2018-2019. Retrieved from Quang Nam:
27. Ramsey, D. S., Forsyth, D. M., Wright, E., McKay, M., & Westbrooke, I. (2019). Using propensity scores for causal inference in ecology: Options, considerations, and a case study. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(3), 320-331. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13111
28. Ruggiero, P. G., Metzger, J. P., Tambosi, L. R., & Nichols, E. (2019). Payment for ecosystem services programs in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Effective but not enough. Land use policy, 82, 283-291. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.054
29. Samii, C., Lisiecki, M., Kulkarni, P., Paler, L., & Chavis, L. (2014). Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(11), 95. doi:10.4073/csr.2014.11
30. Sharma, B. P., Cho, S.-H., & Yu, T. E. (2019). Designing cost-efficient payments for forest-based carbon sequestration: An auction-based modeling approach. Forest Policy and Economics, 104, 182-194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.018
31. Słoczyński, T., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2018). A GENERAL DOUBLE ROBUSTNESS RESULT FOR ESTIMATING AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECTS. Econometric Theory, 34(1), 112-133. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/general-double-robustness-result-for-estimating-average-treatment-effects/A8DFE43187372281B718719380FCB968. doi:10.1017/S0266466617000056
32. Steger, C., Hirsch, S., Evers, C., Branoff, B., Petrova, M., Nielsen-Pincus, M., . . . Van Riper, C. J. (2018). Ecosystem services as boundary objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. Ecological economics, 143, 153-160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.016
33. Treacy, P., Jagger, P., Song, C., Zhang, Q., & Bilsborrow, R. E. (2018). Impacts of Chinas Grain for Green Program on Migration and Household Income. Environmental management, 62(3), 489-499. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1047-0
34. Vietnam Administration of Forestry. (2019). The report on operation results of the forestry sector in 2018-2019. Retrieved from http://tongcuclamnghiep.gov.vn/LamNghiep/Index/diem-bao-ngay-29102018-3867
35. Wang, Y., Bilsborrow, R. E., Zhang, Q., Li, J., & Song, C. (2019). Effects of payment for ecosystem services and agricultural subsidy programs on rural household land use decisions in China: Synergy or trade-off? Land use policy, 81, 785-801. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.057
36. Watson, J. E. M., Evans, T., Venter, O., Williams, B., Tulloch, A., Stewart, C., . . . Lindenmayer, D. (2018). The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(4), 599-610. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x. doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x
37. Yitzhaki, S. (1994). Economic distance and overlapping of distributions. Journal of Econometrics, 61(1), 147-159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)90081-7
38. Zhou, M., Wang, F., & Wang, K. (2019). Destination Service Encounter Modeling and Relationships with Tourist Satisfaction. Sustainability, 11(4), 960.
Downloads
Published
2020-03-25
How to Cite
Nguyen, H. H., & Huynh, N. T. (2020). EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF PAYMENTS FOR FOREST ECOSYSTEM SERVICES BY PROPENSITY SCORES ANALYSIS. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 67(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekoPolj2001087N
Issue
Section
Original scientific papers
