Spatial prioritization to achieve the triple bottom line in Payment for ecosystem services design
No Preview Available
Citations
Altmetric:
Altmetric::
Associated Records
File Licence
Editors
Date
2022-06-01
Source Title
Ecosystem Services
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ELSEVIER
Melbourne Authors
Affiliation
Minerva Elements
Document Type
Journal Article
Subject Code
Citation
López-Cubillos, S., Runting, R. K., Suárez-Castro, A. F., Williams, B. A., Armenteras, D., Manuel Ochoa-Quintero, J. & McDonald-Madden, E. (2022). Spatial prioritization to achieve the triple bottom line in Payment for ecosystem services design. Ecosystem Services, 55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101424.
Access Status
This item is currently not available from this repository
Access URL
Open Access URL
Open Access at PMC
Linked Resource URL
NHMRC Grant Code
ARC Grant Code
Description
Abstract
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes are an increasingly important approach that often try to achieve triple bottom line solutions – achieving biodiversity conservation and social equity–, while minimizing costs. However, when planning for multiple objectives with a limited budget, spatial mismatches and trade-offs between objectives are likely to exist. Here, we present a framework for evaluating the potential spatial trade-offs among different objectives for sound policy- and decision-making. We explore the trade-offs: 1) between water and above-ground carbon storage ecosystem services; 2) among ecosystem services (both individually and when they are considered simultaneously) and biodiversity; and 3) among ecosystem services, biodiversity, and social equity in Colombia. We found that there are clear trade-offs between water services and biodiversity, and between social equity and biodiversity, suggesting that PES schemes targeting just one of these objectives may lead to poor outcomes for the others. However, there are a minimal trade-off between carbon and biodiversity, indicating that PES schemes targeted at biodiversity likely also contribute to carbon sequestration objectives. The framework we employ here can be used in other contexts to navigate the potential trade-offs in PES designed for triple bottom line solutions to allow decision-makers to better target where to prioritize PES investment.