Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector-the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review

Abstract

Unsustainable practices in the land use sector contribute to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases. Payment for environmental services (PESs) provide economic incentives to reduce the negative environmental impacts of land use and are a popular approach to mitigate climate change in low- and middle-income countries. Some PES programmes also aim to improve socioeconomic outcomes and reduce poverty. This systematic review examines the effect of programmes on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes. We identified 44 quantitative impact evaluations and 60 qualitative studies of PES programmes for inclusion in the review, to assess both the effects of PES and identify context, design and implementation features that may influence PES effectiveness. The studies covered 18 programmes from 12 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The review finds that PES may increase household income, reduce deforestation and improve forest cover, but the findings are, however, based on low and very low quality evidence from a small number of programmes and should be treated with caution. Qualitative evidence indicates that several factors influence whether PES programmes are likely to be effective in different contexts and suggests that the inclusion of strong governance structures and the effective targeting of both locations and participants may improve intervention effectiveness. Funders, implementing agencies and researchers should collaborate to develop a coordinated programme of rigorous, mixed-methods impact evaluation implemented across contexts. Until such evidence is available, PES programmes remain a high-risk strategy for climate change mitigation.

Figure 1

Proposed theory of change for payment for environmental services programmes [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 2

PRISMA diagram [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 3

Programme settings [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 4

Summary of risk of bias across impact evaluations [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 5

Summary of overall risk of bias ratings across impact evaluations [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 6

Effects of payment for environmental service on household socioeconomic outcomes

Figure 7

Effects of payment for environmental service on total household income

Figure 8

Effects of payment for environmental service on household income from nonagricultural sources

Figure 9

Effects of payment for environmental service on household income from agricultural sources

Figure 10

Effects of payment for environmental service on household asset index

Figure 11

Effects of payment for environmental service on environmental outcomes

Figure 12

Effects of payment for environmental service on forest cover

Figure 13

Effects of payment for environmental service on deforestation

Figure 14

Summary of overall critical appraisal ratings across studies included in the qualitative synthesis [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 15

Critical appraisal category ratings across studies included in the qualitative synthesis (excludes studies of critical quality) [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]