Search

This paper examines the discourse produced in the academic journal Ecological Economics from its inception in 1989, and compares this discourse with that of the field of environmental economics. I used methods for discourse analysis (Alceste and Iramuteq) on 6308 abstracts of papers published in four journals — namely Ecological Economics , the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , Environmental Values , and Environmental and Resource Economics , published between 1989 and 2013. The results suggest that the discourses of ecological economics and environmental economics have grown closer over time. The semantic classification of co-occurrent terms used in Ecological Economics indicates increasing significance of the notions of ecosystem services and of monetary valuation. I argue that this trend is parallel to Costanza's career-path, which suggests the rise of a tacit recognition of the New Environmental Pragmatic scientific approach. I conclude with some of the implications for EE of promoting this kind of discourse to such an extent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) is becoming increasingly popular as a way to manage ecosystems using economic incentives. The environmental economics approach to PES tries to force ecosystem services into the market model, with an emphasis on efficiency. The ecological economics approach, in contrast, seeks to adapt economic institutions to the physical characteristics of ecosystem services prioritizing ecological sustainability and just distribution and requiring a transdisciplinary approach. This paper summarizes the results of a participatory “atelier” workshop held in Costa Rica. We developed a set of principles (the Heredia Declaration) for PES systems and report on evolving initiatives in several countries. We discuss how the distinction between ecosystem goods (which are stock-flow resources) and ecosystem services (which are fund-service resources) and the physical characteristics of the fund-services affect the appropriate institutional form for PES. We conclude that PES systems represent an important way to effectively manage fund-service resources as public goods, and that this represents a significant departure from conventional market institutions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Implementing any conservation intervention, including Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), in the context of weak institutions is challenging. The majority of PES programs have been implemented in situations where the institutional framework and property rights are strong and target the behaviours of private landowners. By contrast, this paper compares three PES programs from a forest landscape in Cambodia, where land and resource rights are poorly defined, governance is poor, species populations are low and threats are high. The programs vary in the extent to which payments are made directly to individuals or to villages and the degree of involvement of local management institutions. The programs were evaluated against three criteria: the institutional arrangements, distribution of costs and benefits, and the conservation results observed. The most direct individual contracts had the simplest institutional arrangements, the lowest administrative costs, disbursed significant payments to individual villagers making a substantial contribution to local livelihoods, and rapidly protected globally significant species. However, this program also failed to build local management organisations or understanding of conservation goals. By contrast the programs that were managed by local organisations were slower to become established but crucially were widely understood and supported by local people, and were more institutionally effective. PES programs may therefore be more sustainable when they act to empower local institutions and reinforce intrinsic motivations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]