Elsevier

Ecosystem Services

Volume 47, February 2021, 101224
Ecosystem Services

The importance of community perceptions and capacity building in payment for ecosystems services: A case study at Phu Kao, Thailand

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101224Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The watershed forest is a life-support system i.e., cultural value and direct benefits from NTFPs and water provision.

  • PES implementation is site specific with community perceptions and capacities as important conditions for project development.

  • PES-project development requires technical expertise, long-term commitments from all stakeholders and government intervention.

  • Fostering strong partnerships among all relevant sectors is an essential action for PES-project implementation.

Abstract

Although payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a globally-recognized mechanism for effective forest protection (e.g., REDD + for forest carbon), implementation can be challenging, especially on a local level. This study examined community perceptions of and willingness to participate in PES-project development for protection of a watershed forest at Phu Kao (PK) in northeast Thailand. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 404 household representatives from 10 villages in or near PK during 2018 and 2019. Although PES-project development is a new concept at PK, we received positive responses from the villagers. Estimated amounts of willingness to pay (WTP, n = 204) were smaller than willingness to accept (WTA, n = 200). Income constraint was the main factor limiting WTP, followed by perceptions that forest protection was the government's responsibility, and lack of understanding/trust on PES implementation. Meanwhile, benefit reduction, especially food sources and income generated from non-timber forest products, hindered WTA. PES-development, at least in the early stages, requires a proper balance of technical expertise, governmental intervention, and long-term commitment from relevant stakeholders. Project failure is likely without a good understanding of community perceptions and capacity building.

Introduction

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is one of the most promising and innovative solutions for biological conservation since being introduced at the Rio conference in 1992 (Wunder and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, 2009; Schomers and Matzdorf, 2013; Ingram et al., 2014; Paudyal et al., 2018). On a conceptual level, PES internalizes external costs, an underlying driver of environmental degradation, through creation of markets and quasi-markets (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010). Externalities can be overcome through negotiations between affected parties. Beneficiaries of ecosystem services (ES) use monetary incentives to pay land stewards for adopting environmentally sound, land use practices (Engel et al., 2008; Grima et al., 2016; Wegner, 2016).

Despite some obvious benefits, implementation of PES-projects can be challenging. PES is a multi-faceted term having several definitions (e.g., Wunder et al., 2008; Muradian et al., 2010) that can result in different project arrangements (Hellen, 2011; Schomers and Matzdorf, 2013). Social and biological complexities often complicate markets because the meanings of ecological, social, or spiritual values cannot be represented by income as a single ES indicator (Kolinjivadi et al., 2014; Borner et al., 2017). PES schemes are location-specific. Without carefully considering context and impacts, PES mechanisms designed to protect ES globally can have negative consequences locally (Vatn, 2010; Bhatta et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2018; Paudyal et al., 2018). Economic efficiency and ecological sustainability are considered as key measures of PES effectiveness. However, the most important policy considerations of PES schemes for stakeholders are social, financial, and institutional arrangements that promote trade-offs between equity, efficiency, and effectiveness, especially when obtaining livelihood benefits for impoverished rural people and long-term sustainability (Paudyal et al., 2018).

Subsequently, PES-projects require high level technical expertise, comprehensive design and consideration priority, and direct government administration/intervention to establish effective mechanisms for dealing with environmental functions and long-term elements of resource management (Vatn, 2010; Bhatta et al., 2014; Borner et al., 2017; Do et al., 2018; Paudyal et al., 2018; Brownson et al., 2019). As discussion of PES-projects and institutional arrangements become more frequent (Bhatta et al., 2014; Jarungrattanapong et al., 2016; Borner et al., 2017; Paudyal et al., 2018), facilitators sometimes overlook local actors, their perceptions and abilities for successful implementation (Waylen and Martin-Ortega, 2018). Although PES schemes usually involve multi-stakeholders with external assistance, especially from academic and research institutes, involvement depends on funding availability and project duration. Oftentimes local communities are left to manage PES-projects without having proper knowledge or experience, factors that can jeopardize long-term success.

PES was introduced in Thailand during the early 2000s. The Thai government acknowledged PES in its Eleventh National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP 2012–2016), but without implementation strategies, rules and regulations, and legal systems to facilitate PES-projects. The country lags behind other nations in Southeast Asia e.g., Indonesia (Kim et al., 2018) and Vietnam (Phan et al., 2017; Do et al., 2018) in adopting PES as a measure for effective conservation (Nabangchang, 2014; Jarungrattanapong et al., 2016). The majority of PES-projects remain at the design or pilot stage, often classified as PES-like projects due to missing elements, such as conditionality (Jarungrattanapong et al., 2016). Corporate social responsibility investments are examples of PES-like projects and considered primary funds for natural resource conservation in Thailand. But investors do not benefit directly from ES payments and funding is usually a one-time arrangement (Jarungrattanapong et al., 2016). Moreover, multidimensional values of ES, especially non-use values, make it difficult for villagers to see direct benefits in their daily life. The need for protection measures, particularly through PES schemes where individuals have to forego some conveniences, are minor.

This research aims to support effective mechanisms for PES-project implementation at Phu Kao (PK), a watershed forest inside Phu Kao – Phu Phan Kham National Park (PKNP) that regulates water flow into Ubolratana reservoir, the largest man-made lake in northeast Thailand. PK provides non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for local communities. ES are viewed as common-pool resources by villagers, rather than those used by individuals on private property, especially private companies. Since PES was a new concept, we questioned if it would be a feasible, efficient, and effective strategy for common-pool, natural resource management. With limited baseline data for PES-project development, we examined key ES and values, in addition to community perceptions of and willingness to participate in a PES-project. Lastly, we discussed pathways beyond PES at PK. Effective payment mechanisms became the next step at this point, since community understanding and capacity building were precursory for PES-project development.

Section snippets

Study site

Phu Kao is located in Nongbua Lamphu province, northeast Thailand (Fig. 1). The forest includes three villages (Wangmon, Chaimongkon and Dongbak) as a result of the 1998 Cabinet Solution declared on June 30, 1998. The Solution aimed to reduce land use conflicts between local communities established before park designation and governmental authorities, specifically the Royal Forest Department (RFD)1

Scope and study methods

Surrounding farmlands and communities put much pressure on the PK watershed forest due to land use activities e.g., cash-crop cultivation, livestock grazing, forest fires, and harvest of NTFPs. Forest fires occur every year, especially during the dry season between January and April. Phromma et al. (2019) found that agricultural encroachment into the park increased by 13.1% during 2013–2015. Moreover, Popradit et al. (2015) reported that species diversity of woody plants at PK forest ecosystems

Household socioeconomics and community livelihoods

During our two-year study, 404 household representatives from 10 villages in KMS and NKS were interviewed. The majority of participants were females in their mid-50s. Although the subjects had about 36 years of residency, nearly 50% of them had relocated from elsewhere. However, the villagers living outside and inside PK shared similar economic conditions. Average annual income was 98,659 Baht3/household, or approximately

Conclusions and implications

The watershed forest at PK provides numerous ES that support local livelihoods. Water provision and NTFPs are the primary benefits that villagers obtain from PK for subsistence living and income generation. Approximately 30.8 million Baht was projected from sales associated with dry-season rice cultivation, assuming that Hui Bong Dam is fully operational. NTFP contribution to household wealth was about 10% of their annual income. As a non-tangible benefit, villagers expressed their uniqueness

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research for its financial support (CRRP2017-06MY-KAWASAKI). This work is a collaborative project between the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan and Khon Kaen University in Thailand. We thank the Integrated Water Resource Management Research and Development Center in Northeast Thailand, Khon Kaen University for useful insights. This project would not be possible without the collaboration and support from the

References (40)

Cited by (10)

  • Ecosystem services-based decision-making: A bridge from science to practice

    2022, Environmental Science and Policy
    Citation Excerpt :

    There are many different ES-EDS assessment methods. These include model assessment methods, such as InVEST (Sun and Shi, 2020), RULSE (Kusi et al., 2020), CASA (Yan et al., 2021), and SolVES (Sherrouse et al., 2014); expert knowledge methods, such as equivalent factor methods based on expert experience (Xu et al., 2018), and matrix evaluation methods (Peng et al., 2020); value assessment, such as market price methods and substitution cost methods (Raviv et al., 2021); participatory surveys, such as questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (Pagdee and Kawasaki, 2021); and field sampling methods (Segre et al., 2020). The stakeholders involved in the decision-making need to be identified.

  • Community-based conservation for sustainable ecosystem services and tourism: A case study of Murchison Falls conservation area, Uganda

    2022, Management of Tourism Ecosystem Services in a Post Pandemic Context: Global Perspectives
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text