Costa Rica is well-known for its dramatic reversal of high deforestation rates. This reversal can be attributed to a number of factors, including the implementation of stronger environmental regulations, financial incentives for conservation, and shifts in global commodities markets. In productive landscapes, NGO’s have also incentivized voluntary reforestation and agroforestry efforts using non-monetary resources, such as free trees, technical guidance and fencing materials.
We used a mixed methods approach to compare grassroots reforestation efforts with the national Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program in terms of their ecosystem services impacts in the higher-elevation portions of the Bellbird Biological Corridor of Costa Rica. We conducted focus groups (n=4) and interviews (n=70) with participants and non-participants in these programs to assess motivations and perceived program impacts. We also used the Ecosystem Services Identification and Inventory Tool (ESII Tool), a site-scale ecosystem services modeling tool, to evaluate the changes these programs have generated in multiple ecosystem services based on a visual site evaluation of vegetation, soils, waterways, and other features (n=48). We evaluated changes by developing “without participation” scenarios based on land uses that participants said they would have implemented in the absence of program participation.
Results/Conclusions
The focus groups and interviews revealed a wide range of perceived benefits from reforestation, including improved water availability, timber availability, biodiversity, and agricultural productivity due to increased wind protection. In contrast, the direct economic benefits of payments were perceived to be the major benefit of PES participation, although participants also noted benefits for biodiversity and water resources. Ecosystem services modeling revealed that while larger and more mature reforestation plantings have improved the provisioning of ecosystem services, more recent and smaller grassroots reforestation efforts haven’t yet had significant impacts. Although PES sites provided relatively high levels of ecosystem services, the program did not incentivize any changes in land use on the sites surveyed and therefore didn’t generate any additionality in ecosystem services provisioning.
This research demonstrates the value of using mixed methods to capture locally-important benefits that may not otherwise be incorporated into ecosystem services assessments. Taken together, our findings suggest that while the additional, non-economic benefits of PES in this region have been limited, grassroots reforestation efforts have improved a diversity of ecosystem services. This further suggests that economic incentives may not be needed for reforestation programs targeting ecosystem services that have local human well-being benefits in productive landscapes.