Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador
Main Article Content
Abstract
The valuation of ecosystem services in high Andean zones, specifically in páramo ecosystems, is essential as they provide livelihoods for local livelihoods through water regulation, water storage, carbon sequestration, protection against landslides and floods, tourism and biodiversity, which is why establishing ecosystem services is essential. The present research focuses on a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed studies related to ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador using Science Direct, Taylos & Francis and Springer databases (search for titles, abstracts and keywords: The search terms used were the combination of the following keywords: "ecosystem services", "payment ecosystem services", "paramo", "Andes", "Ecuador", "grassland". From the bibliographic search, articles were considered only if they met the following criteria: English language articles, focused on high Andean ecosystems, search periods 2010-2020. It has been shown that there are several gaps in ecosystem services issues such as PES (payments for environmental services) as they influence the management of natural resources, also CE (Emissions Trading) are useful to make participants reflect on specific elements of payments for environmental services. The most important findings in this context were the poor distribution of wealth and lack of knowledge of the processes to access these environmental benefits.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Material appearing in the journal may be reproduced and cited, provided that it complies with the conditions established in the licenses of the published articles Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Chadwick, O. A., & Harden, C. P. (2016). Changes in carbon storage with land management promoted by payment for ecosystem services. Environmental Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000199
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., DeMaagd, N., Suárez, E., Cárate Tandalla, D., Vasco Tapia, S., & Mena Vásconez, P. (2019). Biodiversity outcomes of payment for ecosystem services: lessons from páramo grasslands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(4), 885-908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01700-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01700-3
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., & Lopez-Carr, D. (2014). What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy, 36, 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002.
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Lopez-Carr, D., & Romero, J. (2014). Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for 'win-win'? Ecosystem Services, 8, 148-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2014.03.007.
Farley, K. A., Anderson, W. G., Bremer, L. L., & Harden, C. P. (2011). Compensation for ecosystem services: An evaluation of efforts to achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian paramo grasslands. Environmental Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291100049X
Farley, K. A., & Bremer, L. L. (2017). "Water Is Life": Local Perceptions of Páramo Grasslands and Land Management Strategies Associated with Payment for Ecosystem Services. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(2), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1254020
Hayes, T., & Murtinho, F. (2018). Communal governance, equity and payment for ecosystem services. Land Use Policy, 79, 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.08.001
Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., Cárdenas Camacho, L. M., Crespo, P., McHugh, S., & Salmerón, D. (2014). Can Conservation Contracts Co-exist with Change? Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Context of Adaptive Decision-Making and Sustainability. Environmental Management, 55(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1
Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2015). An institutional analysis of Payment for Environmental Services on collectively managed lands in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 118, 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2015.07.017
Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2017). The Impact of Payments for Environmental Services on Communal Lands: An Analysis of the Factors Driving Household Land-Use Behavior in Ecuador. World Development, 93, 427-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2017.01.003.
Joslin, A. J. (2019). Unpacking 'Success': Applying Local Perceptions to Interpret Influences of Water Fund Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Ecuadorian Andes. Society and Natural Resources, 32(6), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1559379
Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S., & Mariel, P. (2020). Payments for ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in Colombia. Ecological Economics, 169, 106499. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.106499
Rolando, J. L., Turin, C., Ramírez, D. A., Mares, V., Monerris, J., & Quiroz, R. (2017). Key ecosystem services and ecological intensification of agriculture in the tropical high-Andean Puna as affected by land-use and climate changes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 236, 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.010.
Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges (2019). In L. E. Delgado & V. H. Marín (Eds.), Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28452-7
Vásconez, P. M., Castillo, A., Flores, S., Hofstede, R., Josse, C., Lasso, S., Medina, G., Ochoa, N., & Ortiz, D. (Eds.) (2011). Páramo : studied, inhabited, managed and institutionalized landscape. EcoCiencia.
Vergara-Buitrago, P. A. (2020). Strategies implemented by Colombia's National System of Protected Areas to conserve páramos. Revista de Ciencias Ambientales, 54(1), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.15359/rca.54-1.9
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Chadwick, O. A., & Harden, C. P. (2016). Changes in carbon storage with land management promoted by payment for ecosystem services. Environmental Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000199
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., DeMaagd, N., Suárez, E., Cárate Tandalla, D., Vasco Tapia, S., & Mena Vásconez, P. (2019). Biodiversity outcomes of payment for ecosystem services: lessons from páramo grasslands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(4), 885-908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01700-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01700-3
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., & Lopez-Carr, D. (2014). What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy, 36, 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002.
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Lopez-Carr, D., & Romero, J. (2014). Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for 'win-win'? Ecosystem Services, 8, 148-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2014.03.007.
Farley, K. A., Anderson, W. G., Bremer, L. L., & Harden, C. P. (2011). Compensation for ecosystem services: An evaluation of efforts to achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian paramo grasslands. Environmental Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291100049X
Farley, K. A., & Bremer, L. L. (2017). "Water Is Life": Local Perceptions of Páramo Grasslands and Land Management Strategies Associated with Payment for Ecosystem Services. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(2), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1254020
Hayes, T., & Murtinho, F. (2018). Communal governance, equity and payment for ecosystem services. Land Use Policy, 79, 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.08.001
Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., Cárdenas Camacho, L. M., Crespo, P., McHugh, S., & Salmerón, D. (2014). Can Conservation Contracts Co-exist with Change? Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Context of Adaptive Decision-Making and Sustainability. Environmental Management, 55(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1
Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2015). An institutional analysis of Payment for Environmental Services on collectively managed lands in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 118, 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2015.07.017
Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2017). The Impact of Payments for Environmental Services on Communal Lands: An Analysis of the Factors Driving Household Land-Use Behavior in Ecuador. World Development, 93, 427-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2017.01.003.
Joslin, A. J. (2019). Unpacking 'Success': Applying Local Perceptions to Interpret Influences of Water Fund Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Ecuadorian Andes. Society and Natural Resources, 32(6), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1559379
Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S., & Mariel, P. (2020). Payments for ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in Colombia. Ecological Economics, 169, 106499. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.106499
Rolando, J. L., Turin, C., Ramírez, D. A., Mares, V., Monerris, J., & Quiroz, R. (2017). Key ecosystem services and ecological intensification of agriculture in the tropical high-Andean Puna as affected by land-use and climate changes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 236, 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.010.
Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges (2019). In L. E. Delgado & V. H. Marín (Eds.), Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28452-7
Vergara-Buitrago, P. A. (2020). Strategies implemented by the Colombian National System of Protected Areas to conserve páramos. Revista de Ciencias Ambientales, 54(1), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.15359/rca.54-1.9