Relational values in evaluations of upstream social outcomes of watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services: a review

Full text

COSUST-863;
NO.
OF
PAGES
8
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Bremer
LL,
et
al.:
Relational
values
in
evaluations
of
upstream
social
outcomes
of
watershed
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services:
a
review,
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
Relational
values
in
evaluations
of
upstream
social
outcomes
of
watershed
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services:
a
review
Leah
L
Bremer
1,2
,
Kate
A
Brauman
3
,
Sara
Nelson
4
,
Kelly
Meza
Prado
3,5
,
Eric
Wilbur
6
and
Ana
Carolina
O
Fiorini
7
Relational
values
associated
with
meaningful
and
just
human–
environment
relationships
(e.g.
care
and
responsibility)
have
been
proposed
as
motivating
‘upstream’
participation
in
Payments
for
Watershed
Services
(PWS).
However,
the
way
relational
values
are
affected
by
and
interact
with
PWS
remains
poorly
understood.
We
reviewed
50
studies
of
social
outcomes
of
PWS
and
found
that
approximately
half
assessed
or
discussed
relational
values.
This
included
changes
in
relational
values
presented
positively,
such
as
amplifying
values
and
norms
around
care
for
land;
negatively,
such
as
undermining
traditional
practices
and
intergenerational
learning;
and
influencing
other
outcomes,
such
as
links
between
land
ties
and
human
health.
To
improve
understanding
of
the
full
suite
of
outcomes
linked
to
the
effectiveness,
durability,
and
equity
of
PWS,
we
propose
a
research
agenda
based
on
locally-based
relational
value
systems
that
include,
for
example,
place-based
conceptualizations
of
responsibility,
care,
and
relation
to
the
natural
world.
Addresses
1
University
of
Hawai‘i
Economic
Research
Organization,
University
of
Hawai‘i
at
Ma
¯noa,
Honolulu,
HI,
96822,
USA
2
Water
Resources
Research
Center,
University
of
Hawai‘i
at
Ma
¯noa,
Honolulu,
HI,
96822,
USA
3
Institute
on
the
Environment,
University
of
Minnesota,
St.
Paul,
MN,
55108,
USA
4
Department
of
Geography,
University
of
British
Columbia,
Vancouver,
British
Columbia,
VCT
1Z2,
Canada
5
The
Natural
Capital
Project,
University
of
Minnesota,
St.
Paul,
MN,
55108,
USA
6
School
of
Natural
Resources
and
Environment,
University
of
Florida,
Gainesville,
FL,
32603,
USA
7
Department
of
Civil
and
Environmental
Engineering,
Stanford
University,
Stanford,
CA,
94305,
USA
Corresponding
author:
Bremer,
Leah
L
(lbremer@hawaii.edu)
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2018,
35:xx–yy
This
review
comes
from
a
themed
issue
on
Sustainability
challenges
Edited
by
Unai
Pascual,
Kai
Chan
and
Rachelle
Gould
Received:
07
April
2018;
Accepted:
29
October
2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
1877-3435/ã
2018
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
Introduction
Payment
for
Watershed
Services
(PWS),
a
broad
subset
of
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services
(PES),
in
which
down-
stream
water
users,
NGOs,
and/or
governments
finance
upstream
watershed
conservation,
are
becoming
more
common
globally
[1

,2].
As
these
projects
proliferate,
it
is
imperative
to
better
understand
both
their
environ-
mental
and
social
outcomes
[3,4

,5].
Research
around
scaling
these
programs
has
focused
disproportionately
on
the
motivations
of
and
benefits
for
downstream
water
‘users.’
8
The
social
outcomes
for
upstream
participants
—
or
the
‘providers’
of
ecosystem
services
—
have
been
understudied,
particularly
non-monetary
outcomes
such
as
cultural
impacts
[6

,7,8

].
Yet,
social
benefits
to
upstream
participants
are
often
explicit
program
goals,
and
they
are
also
critical
to
the
durability
and
scaling
of
PWS,
as
sustained
participation
hinges
on
communities
feeling
that
their
ways
of
life
and
values
are
respected
[4

,9

]
In
‘mainstream’
or
‘conservation
efficiency’
conceptuali-
zations
of
PES
[10,11],
upstream
participants
are
often
presumed
to
be
motivated
by
instrumental
values,
and
thus
compensation
for
conservation
activities
is
struc-
tured
as
payments
or
in-kind
contributions
to
material
welfare.
Similarly,
mainstream
conceptualizations
of
PWS
have
focused
on
increasing
economic
efficiency
to
maxi-
mize
ecosystem
service
gain
[12].
However,
the
literature
on
participation
in
PWS
programs
suggests
that
partici-
pants
are
also
motivated
by
values
such
as
social
respon-
sibility,
sense
of
identity
tied
to
land
stewardship,
and
natural
heritage
[13,14].
Therefore,
social
assessments
that
focus
on
instrumental
values
alone
may
not
reflect
participants’
experiences,
motivations,
and
perceived
benefits
[15

].
The
assertion
that
values
beyond
instrumental
benefits
are
relevant
to
PWS
is
supported
by
evidence
that
par-
ticipation
is
not
fully
explained
by
economic
cost-benefit
analysis
[16,17].
The
concept
of
relational
values
has
recently
been
articulated
in
the
ecosystem
services
liter-
ature
as
a
way
to
broaden
understanding
of
people’s
motivations
to
care
for
the
natural
world
[18

,19],
offering
8
While
PWS
often
emphasize
benefits
to
downstream
water
users
who
financially
support
the
programs,
the
upstream
program
participants
can
also
benefit
directly
from
changes
in
watershed
services.
Available
online
at
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2018,
35:1–8

insight
into
the
motivations
of
and
outcomes
for
upstream
participants
in
PWS.
In
emerging
work
on
‘nature’s
contribution
to
people’—relational
values
are
defined
as
‘preferences,
principles,
and
virtues’
associated
with
meaningful,
reciprocal,
and
just
human–nature
relation-
ships
[18

:
1462].
Relational
values
‘do
not
directly
ema-
nate
from
nature
but
are
derivative
of
our
relationships
with
it
and
our
responsibilities
towards
it’
[20

:
12].
More
specifically,
Himes
and
Muraca
[21]
distinguish
the
con-
tent
of
relational
values
from
the
notion
that
all
practices
of
valuation
take
place
relationally:
relational
values
are
non-instrumental
and
epistemologically
(as
opposed
to
morally)
anthropocentric,
meaning
that
the
relationships
they
uphold
involve
humans.
In
contrast
to
the
dichotomy
of
intrinsic
values
(inherent
to
nature,
independent
of
human
relations)
versus
instrumental
values
(nature
as
a
means
to
achieving
human
preferences)
that
has
charac-
terized
recent
debates
in
conservation
[22],
relational
values
are
rooted
in
notions
of
mutual
obligation
to
fellow
humans
and
non-humans
and
in
place-based
practices
of
stewardship
that
sustain
socio-cultural
relations
and
ideas
of
a
‘good
life’
[15

,23].
We
posit
that
relational
values
—
such
as
care
for
place
and
social
connections
inherent
in
traditional
land
man-
agement
—
influence
perceived
outcomes
of
PWS
[9

,24].
For
example,
a
farmer
may
value
grazing
in
land
targeted
for
reforestation
in
multiple
ways,
including
for
its
instrumental
value
of
income
generation,
but
equally
as
a
long-standing
cultural
practice
rooted
in
a
sense
of
responsibility
to
care
for
land
[25].
A
PWS
program
that
fails
to
acknowledge
such
relational
values
will
likely
be
ineffective
at
recruiting
participants
and
could
also
inad-
vertently
threaten
those
values
by,
for
example,
reducing
access
to
traditional
lands.
This
could
have
cascading
implications
for
other
well-being
outcomes
such
as
social
cohesion
and
mental
health.
These
hypotheses
align
with
work
proposing
that
PWS
are
better
understood
as
a
means
to
complement
and
strengthen
relational
values
by
‘re-valu[ing]
the
role
of
land
stewards’
[26]
or
‘rewarding’
continued
conservation
[15

,27].
In
this
article,
we
investigate
how
the
literature
on
social
outcomes
of
PWS
has
considered
relational
values.
We
focus
on
upstream
participants
because
they
are
tasked
with
changing
behavior
or
implementing
conservation
strategies,
which
has
implications
for
local
livelihoods
and
values
tied
to
program
equity
and
sustainability.
While
relational
values
are
also
relevant
to
downstream
users,
our
focus
upstream
is
specifically
intended
to
highlight
implications
of
relational
values
for
compensa-
tion
and
upstream
socio-economic
monitoring
in
PWS.
The
idea
that
values
associated
with
land
management
influence
the
success
of
environmental
programs
and
are
outcomes
themselves
is
not
new
[24],
yet
there
is
no
synthesis
of
how
these
values
have
or
have
not
been
considered
in
evaluations
of
social
outcomes
of
PWS.
We
focus
on
PWS
as
they
are
some
of
the
most
mature
PES
programs
globally
[1

]
and
because
water
has
long
posed
challenges
to
market-oriented
conservation
due
to
its
status
as
a
‘fugitive
resource,’
not
easily
subject
to
prop-
erty
rights
[28].
Its
simultaneous
role
as
a
valuable
eco-
nomic
good,
a
basic
necessity
of
human
and
non-human
life,
and
a
sacred
entity
in
many
cultures
makes
water
and
the
lands
influencing
water
provision
a
key
site
of
resource
conflict
linked
to
competing
value
systems.
We
begin
by
summarizing
the
broad
categories
of
out-
comes
assessed
and
then
discuss
whether
and
how
changes
in
relational
values
are
considered
as
outcomes
or
as
mediators
of
other
social
outcomes.
Based
on
this
review,
we
propose
a
research
agenda
that
prioritizes
locally-based
relational
values
that
likely
influence
pro-
gram
effectiveness
and
durability.
Methods
Our
review
of
PWS
programs
included
water
funds
and
other
payment
or
investment
in
watershed
services
pro-
grams
with
both
monetary
and
in-kind
payments
[2,29].
We
located
articles
in
Web
of
Science
using
topic
search
(TS)
term:
TS
=
(‘payment
for
ecosystem
services’
OR
‘payment*
for
watershed
services’
OR
‘investment*
in
watershed
services’
OR
‘water
funds’
OR
‘payment*
for
environmental
services’)
AND
TS
=
(‘impacts’
OR
‘outcomes’
OR
‘social’
OR
‘livelihoods’
OR
‘equity’
OR
‘socio-economic’
OR
‘economic’
OR
‘human
well-
being’
OR
‘values’
OR
‘knowledge’
OR
‘attitudes’).
This
returned
796
articles.
Abstracts
were
screened
and
articles
included
if
they:
firstly,
focused
on
a
PWS,
including
multi-objective
programs;
and
secondly,
included
analy-
sis
of
social
outcomes
for
upstream
participants
using
qualitative
and/or
quantitative
social
science
methods.
Studies
with
only
perspectives
of
program
managers
or
downstream
users
were
excluded,
as
the
focus
of
this
review
was
on
upstream
communities.
If
a
study
included
more
than
one
watershed
PWS
program,
we
included
each
as
a
data
point.
These
criteria
reduced
the
number
of
articles
to
31.
In
addition,
we
assessed
articles
cited
within
selected
articles
as
well
as
those
from
two
recent
reviews
[6

,30

]
for
a
total
of
50
articles
(Appendix
1
in
Supple-
mentary
material).
We
coded
outcomes
based
on
categories
commonly
used
in
assessments
of
human
well-being:
living
standards,
health,
social
and
cultural
cohesion,
environmental
con-
ditions
(i.e.
ecological
values),
and
governance
(i.e.
influ-
ence
of
local
leadership)
[31,32]
(Table
1).
These
dimen-
sions
of
human
well-being
are
underpinned
by
distinct
and
overlapping
instrumental
and
relational
values.
For
example,
environmental
conditions
can
be
understood
in
terms
of
instrumental
values
(e.g.
ecosystem
services
such
as
sediment
retention
which
reduce
water
treatment
costs)
as
well
as
relational
values
(e.g.
responsibility
to
care
for
nature
and
protect
it
for
future
generations).
We
2
Sustainability
challenges
COSUST-863;
NO.
OF
PAGES
8
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Bremer
LL,
et
al.:
Relational
values
in
evaluations
of
upstream
social
outcomes
of
watershed
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services:
a
review,
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2018,
35:1–8
www.sciencedirect.com

assessed
whether
relational
values
were
evaluated,
which
ones,
whether
they
were
incorporated
into
program
design,
how
they
were
evaluated,
and
how
they
were
linked
to
other
social
outcomes.
Each
manuscript
was
evaluated
by
two
independent
researchers
who
identified
relational
values
as
the
‘preferences,
principles,
and
vir-
tues
associated
with
relationships’
between
people
and
the
natural
world
[18

:
1462];
a
third
researcher
evaluated
cases
of
disagreement.
Results
and
discussion
53
studies
of
PWS
programs
within
50
articles
met
our
criteria,
with
China,
Mexico,
and
Central
America
the
primary
regions
represented
(Appendix
1
in
Supplemen-
tary
material).
Social
outcomes
were
primarily
assessed
as
changes
in
income
or
material
assets
(79%),
though
stud-
ies
also
considered
program
effects
on
values
associated
with
ecological
values
(45%),
social
and
cultural
cohesion
(26%),
governance
(32%),
and
health
(9%).
While
studies
that
assess
changes
in
income
do
consider
other
out-
comes,
in
general
we
found
a
divide
between
quantitative
studies
assessing
changes
in
income,
which
rarely
included
relational
values,
and
qualitative
studies
focused
on
a
broader
range
of
outcomes.
Relational
values
were
explicitly
assessed
or
discussed
in
26
of
53
cases
and
exclusively
assessed
qualitatively
(Table
1).
The
term
relational
values
was
never
used
in
the
studies
we
evaluated,
as
it
is
a
relatively
recent
term
in
this
context.
Just
two
studies
[33

,34

]
explicitly
focused
on
how
participation
in
PWS
affects
held
values
associated
with
land
management:
Arriagada
et
al.
[33

]
found
that
PWS
amplified
perceptions
of
the
environ-
mental
and
cultural
values
of
forests,
while
Rico
Garcı
´a-
Amado
et
al.
[34

]
found
that,
in
comparison
to
Integrated
Conservation
and
Development
Programs
[35,36],
partic-
ipation
in
PWS
increased
perceptions
of
utilitarian
and
monetary—as
opposed
to
‘intrinsic’—values
of
conservation.
Though
not
the
explicit
focus,
consideration
of
outcomes
that
could
be
classified
as
relational
values
was
common
(Table
1).
In
particular,
relational
values
were
the
primary
lens
through
which
ecological
values
were
described
(71%
of
studies
that
assess
ecological
values)
(Table
1.5).
For
example,
several
articles
described
the
ability
to
protect
forests
for
future
generations
as
a
stated
benefit
to
parti-
cipants
in
PWS
[37–39].
We
classified
this
as
a
relational
value
akin
to
intergenerational
equity;
while
the
Relational
values
in
Payment
for
Watershed
Services
Bremer
et
al.
3
COSUST-863;
NO.
OF
PAGES
8
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Bremer
LL,
et
al.:
Relational
values
in
evaluations
of
upstream
social
outcomes
of
watershed
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services:
a
review,
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
Table
1
Examples
of
relational
values
as
presented
in
the
literature
on
social
outcomes
of
PWS
Category
and
definition
of
social
outcomes
tied
to
well-being
metrics
Examples
of
how
PWS
influence
relational
values
or
how
relational
values
mediate
other
social
outcomes
((+)
=
framed
as
positive
or
()
=
framed
as
negative).
n
=
number
of
studies
1.
Income/material
living
standards
For
example
income,
assets,
living
conditions
(locally
defined),
crop
production
(+)
Payments
as
complemented
by
other,
intangible
benefits
(e.g.
implement
socially
desirable
behaviors;
protect
land
for
future
generations),
to
produce
positive
local
perceptions
of
programs
(n
=
5)
()
Income
from
PWS
leads
to
decline
of
socio-cultural
ties
and
traditional
connections
to
land
(n
=
3)
2.
Health
Mental
and
physical,
including
indirect
measures
like
access
to
water,
food,
and
medicine,
life
expectancy,
nutrition
()
Health
declines
related
to
loss
of
traditional
agricultural
production
and
hunting
(n
=
1)
3.
Social
and
cultural
cohesion
For
example
social
cohesion,
indicators
of
trust,
social
connections,
and
conflict;
ability
to
fulfill
cultural
traditions
(+)
PWS
helps
in
continuity
of
traditional
livelihoods
and
culture
(n
=
2)
()
PWS
undermines
cultural
connections
to
land
and
social
relations
around
land
management
(n
=
2)
Need
to
adapt
PWS
to
local/indigenous
contexts
(n
=
2)
()
Insufficient
attention
to
local
knowledge
and
values
increases
social
conflict
and
disrupts
local
connections
to
land
(n
=
3)
4.
Governance
Influence
of
local
leadership
on
the
environment;
perceived
strength
of
local
governance
and
rules;
number
and
quality
of
local
institutions;
land
tenure
(+)
PWS
strengthens
local
governance
when
acknowledging
local
knowledge
and
sovereignty
(n
=
2)
(+)
PWS
increases
land
tenure
security
which
increases
motivation
to
conserve
(n
=
1)
()
PWS
undermines
local
management/governance
(n
=
4)
()
PWS
can
threaten
land
and
food
security
and
disrupt
traditional
tenure
systems
(n
=
2)
5.
Environmental
conditions
Quality
of
environment
related
to
human
health,
cultural
and
spiritual
fulfillment,
and
material
living
standards;
ecosystem
services
(provisioning,
cultural,
and
supporting);
perceptions
of
environment
(+)
PWS
increases
community
organization
around
conservation
and
strengthens
social
norms
around
conservation
(n
=
5)
(+)
PWS
as
social
acknowledgement
of
conservation
activities
which
provide
a
social
benefit
for
others
and
for
future
generations
(intergenerational
equity)
(n
=
5)
()
Local
perceptions/relationships
with
nature
made
invisible
by
PWS
(n
=
3)
()
Reduced
traditional
land
management
activities
threatens
relationships
to
land
(n
=
3)
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2018,
35:1–8

anticipated
benefit
of
forest
protection
for
future
genera-
tions
was
rarely
stated,
an
interaction
of
both
instrumental
and
relational
values
such
as
obligation
to
future
genera-
tions
is
likely.
It
was
unclear
from
the
majority
of
these
articles
whether
PWS
strengthened
relational
values
of
care
and
intergenerational
equity,
though
two
studies
explicitly
suggested
that
well-designed
PWS
did
so
[40,41]
(Table
1.3;
1.5).
In
one,
a
study
in
Oaxaca,
Mexico
found
that
PWS
strengthened
relational
values
around
stewardship
(i.e.
‘virtuous
behavior
toward
the
forests’),
attributing
this
both
to
program
design
and
to
strong
pre-
existing
community
organization
and
pro-social
norms
[41]
(Table
1.4;
1.5).
Problems
and
conflicts
associated
with
environmental
change,
such
as
reduced
access
to
land
or
diminished
ability
to
carry
out
traditional
practices,
were
also
expressed
as
relational
values
(Table
1.5).
For
example,
Ibarra
et
al.
[42]
described
how
PWS
rules
in
southern
Mexico
altered
traditional
practices
by
prohibiting
hunt-
ing
in
protected
areas
and
by
reducing
the
amount
of
land
available
for
agriculture,
thereby
shortening
fallow
cycles.
In
addition
to
attributing
these
land-use
changes
to
a
decrease
in
crop
production
(as
an
instrumental
value),
the
authors
highlight
a
decline
in
social
cohesion
and
traditional
knowledge
systems
that
underpin
relational
stewardship
values
(Table
1.1;
1.3;
1.5).
Several
studies
also
highlighted
how
‘apolitical’
concep-
tualizations
of
PWS
often
fail
to
acknowledge
that
power
relations
may
privilege
outside
values
or
conceptualiza-
tions
of
nature
over
local
relational
values
(i.e.
values
around
relationships
between
people
and
land
that
are
specific
to
particular
places)
[43

,44,45

]
(Table
1.5).
For
example,
Aguilar-Støen
et
al.
[45

]
described
how
inter-
national
development
agencies
and
corporations
defined
what
types
of
land
uses
and
perceptions
of
nature
would
dictate
program
design
in
Nicaragua
at
the
expense
of
local
relational
values.
Similarly,
Rodrı
´guez-de-Francisco
&
Boelens
[43

:
152]
described
how
‘de-politicized’
PWS
implementation
imposes
a
‘socially
disembedded
view
of
water
resources’
on
local
communities.
These
findings
suggest
that
social
and
environmental
monitoring
and
assessment
of
PWS
need
to
be
grounded
in
local
‘preferences,
principles,
and
virtues’
[18

:
1462]
associ-
ated
with
people–land
relationships.
PWS
influence
on
local
governance
systems
was
some-
times
discussed
in
terms
of
notions
of
collective
rights
and
responsibilities
to
care
for
land,
which
can
be
classified
as
a
relational
value
(Table
1.4).
In
several
studies,
PWS
was
seen
as
strengthening
local
governance
systems
that
serve,
among
other
things,
to
help
actualize
collective
values,
including
relational
values
such
as
rights
and
obligations
to
care
for
forests
and
other
ecosystems
in
a
culturally
appropriate
way
(Table
1.4).
For
example,
Denham
[40]
attributed
largely
positive
outcomes
(90%
of
participants
satisfied)
of
PWS
in
Mexico
in
one
indig-
enous
community
to
a
program
design
that
upheld
indig-
enous
sovereignty
and
self-determination.
Several
studies
from
Ecuador
concluded
that
PWS
added
legitimacy
and
clarity
to
local
rules
in
communities
with
strong
pre-
existing
governance
around
pa
´ramo
(highland
Andean
grassland)
management
[46,47]
(Table
1.4).
However,
these
cases
did
not
explore
the
connection
between
local
governance
systems
and
relational
values.
Researchers
frequently
speculated
that
relational
values,
particularly
notions
of
responsibility
to
care,
explain
par-
ticipant
satisfaction
with
PWS
or
continued
participation
despite
negligible
economic
returns
[26,48,49]
(Table
1.1;
1.5).
For
example,
Kosoy
et
al.
[26]
describe
how
parti-
cipants
see
payments
as
a
‘small
help,’
which
the
authors
interpret
to
mean
a
token
recognizing
stewardship
activi-
ties
(Table
1.5).
Other
studies,
however,
identify
reasons
other
than
the
above-described
relational
values
to
explain
satisfaction
and
ongoing
participation
despite
minimal
economic
benefit,
including
protection
from
more
restrictive
protected
area
status
or
labor
constraints
[50,51].
Relational
values
are
also
discussed
as
indirect
or
medi-
ating
factors
influencing
other
social
outcomes
in
PWS
programs
(Table
1).
In
particular,
authors
cited
lack
of
attention
to
relational
values
as
a
reason
PWS
reduced
social
and
cultural
cohesion
and
exacerbated
existing
social
conflict
[42,51]
(Table
1.2).
For
example,
Ibarra
et
al.
[41]
concludes
that,
in
addition
to
reducing
socio-
cultural
ties
directly
linked
to
traditional
hunting
and
agricultural
lands,
Mexico’s
PWS
program
could
result
in
health
declines
associated
with
increased
consumption
of
processed
foods
because
program
payments
increase
income
and
reduce
traditional
food
sources
(Table
1.1;
1.2;
1.3).
In
another
example,
participants
in
a
PWS
program
in
Ecuador
perceived
positive
social
outcomes
when
the
program
recognized
and
reinforced
existing
local
relational
values
and
social
conflict
when
PWS
failed
to
take
these
values
into
account
[50].
In
this
case,
many
communal
landowners
explained
their
motivation
to
par-
ticipate
in
terms
of
water
and
also
as
a
sense
of
responsi-
bility
and
pride
in
‘taking
care’
of
land.
In
these
cases,
by
providing
resources
to
continue
conservation
activities,
PWS
appeared
to
reinforced
relational
values
around
land
stewardship,
which
was
viewed
as
positive
by
participants
[9

,50].
However,
in
another
context,
where
members
of
a
rural
community
enrolled
land
that
had
been
communal
but
was
now
private,
the
researchers
found
that
the
program
did
not
address
pre-existing
social
connections
around
grazing
land
management
that
are
important
relational
values.
In
this
case,
researchers
found
a
senti-
ment
by
some
members
of
the
community,
particularly
young
people,
that
PWS
was
‘locking
up’
important
areas
of
inter-connected
grazing
lands,
spurring
social
conflict
(Table
1.3).
4
Sustainability
challenges
COSUST-863;
NO.
OF
PAGES
8
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Bremer
LL,
et
al.:
Relational
values
in
evaluations
of
upstream
social
outcomes
of
watershed
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services:
a
review,
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2018,
35:1–8
www.sciencedirect.com

Conclusions
and
policy
recommendations
Our
review
suggests
that
relational
values
of
responsibil-
ity
and
care
for
resources
in
source
watersheds
are
strongly
affected
by
PWS
in
both
positive
and
negative
ways
and
also
function
as
mediating
factors
influencing
other
social
outcomes.
Yet,
while
discussed
in
approxi-
mately
half
of
studies
reviewed,
they
are
rarely
the
focus
of
social
assessments.
Relational
values
were
addressed
more
often
in
qualitative
studies
of
diverse
social
out-
comes
compared
to
studies
undertaking
quantitative
assessments,
particularly
those
assessing
changes
in
income.
Given
that
instrumental
and
relational
value
systems
are
deeply
intertwined
in
determining
the
effec-
tiveness,
durability,
and
equity
of
PWS
and
other
similar
policy
mechanisms
[52,53],
we
advocate
for
greater
inte-
gration
of
instrumental
and
relational
values
into
PWS
(and
PES
more
broadly)
assessment.
We
also
expect
that
explicit
evaluation
of
PWS
interaction
with
relational
values,
such
as
care,
stewardship,
and
identity
will
improve
understanding
of
social
outcomes
and
provide
information
to
improve
PWS
design
and
implementation
(Figure
1).
Based
on
our
literature
review,
we
propose
a
research
agenda
around
three
themes
of
relational
values
and
PWS,
which
could
be
applied
more
broadly
to
PES
and
other
conservation
incentive
programs.
How
does
PWS
affect
relational
values?
Whether
PWS,
or
economic
incentives
more
generally,
amplify
or
displace
(i.e.
‘crowd
in’
or
‘crowd
out’)
other
motivations
to
conserve
has
been
an
important
topic
of
research
[52].
Our
literature
review
shows
that
the
ability
to
responsibly
manage
or
protect
land
for
identity,
social
responsibility,
and
future
generations
was
seen
as
a
ben-
efit
of
PWS
in
some
cases.
Fruitful
areas
for
future
research
include
greater
attention
to
how,
and
in
what
contexts,
PWS
supports
or
restricts
relational
values,
and
how
relational
and
instrumental
values
interact,
as
rela-
tional
values
have
been
shown
to
be
‘dynamic
and
sus-
ceptible
to
change
with
experiences’
[54].
For
example,
where
relational
values
are
not
carefully
considered
in
program
design,
economic
incentives
can
lead
to
declines
in
traditional
land
management
practices
and
participant
dissatisfaction
[e.g.
in
Ref.
42].
Similar
findings
around
loss
of
access
to
land
and
implications
for
relational
values
emerged
from
a
review
of
protected
areas
[55].
Including
economic
incentives
within
a
broader
policy
framework
that
recognizes
and
includes
relational
values
may
be
more
equitable
and
sustainable
[21].
How
does
PWS
affect
institutions,
and
how
does
this
influence
the
ability
to
actualize
relational
values?
Creating
and
reinforcing
local
governance
through
PWS
is
a
goal
of
some
international
actors
[e.g.
in
Ref.
56],
and
PWS
more
broadly
could
function
as
‘incentives
for
collective
action’
[58].
Where
communities
hold
strong
relational
values
(such
as
care
for
land
as
part
of
collective
identity),
PWS
could
influence
both
those
values
and
governance
systems
that
actualize
them.
While
studies
have
addressed
links
between
PWS
and
local
governance
[46,47,59],
future
research
should
address
how
changes
in
local
governance
resulting
from
PWS
affect
relational
value
systems
and
their
implementation.
For
example,
Relational
values
in
Payment
for
Watershed
Services
Bremer
et
al.
5
COSUST-863;
NO.
OF
PAGES
8
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Bremer
LL,
et
al.:
Relational
values
in
evaluations
of
upstream
social
outcomes
of
watershed
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services:
a
review,
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
Figure
1
Upstream “provider”
community
Land-water
connections
Water and other
ecosystem services
Relational Values
Instrumental Values
Downstream “user”
community
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
PWS
are
frequently
conceived
of
as
a
way
to
link
downstream
to
upstream
communities,
leveraging
downstream
resources
to
fund
upstream
improvements
to
water
management.
Mainstream
conceptualizations
of
PWS
contend
that
upstream
outcomes
be
evaluated
in
terms
of
changes
in
income
or
livelihoods
related
to
economic
incentives
or
to
benefits
in
terms
of
instrumental
values
of
hydrologic
services.
However,
PWS—both
through
economic
incentives
and
through
changes
in
land
and
water
use
and
interactions—also
can
affect
and
be
affected
by
relational
value
systems.
Instrumental
and
relational
values
around
community
land-water
relationships
intersect
in
PWS
and
should
be
considered
together.
www.sciencedirect.com
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2018,
35:1–8

better
understanding
of
how
PWS
strengthens
or
weakens
local
rules
around
resource
use
would
help
shed
light
on
how
economic
incentives
interact
with
local
value
systems.
How
can
PWS
be
designed
to
amplify
relational
values
alongside
instrumental
values?
There
is
emerging
evidence
that
PWS
programs
that
amplify
local
relational
values
are
more
successful
and
durable
[40,41].
Mixed-methods
research
into
effective
framing
and
design,
and
greater
attention
to
power
dynamics
in
conceptualizing
nature,
is
likely
to
improve
PWS
effectiveness.
Ultimately,
PWS
seek
to
incentivize
specific
types
of
land
management.
In
doing
so,
these
programs
interact
with
participants’
individual
and
shared
values
around
land
and
how
it
ought
to
be
cared
for.
Greater
attention
to
how
relational
values
mediate
outcomes
of
PWS,
and
how
they
may
themselves
be
changed
by
PWS,
is
critical.
PWS
programs
that
do
not
attend
to
local
values
are
at
risk
of
causing
harm
while
failing
to
effectively
implement
con-
servation.
Conversely,
integrating
relational
value
sys-
tems
into
program
design
and
framing
may
lead
to
more
effective
and
equitable
PWS.
Putting
these
values
on
par
with
instrumental
outcomes
when
evaluating
and
design-
ing
PWS
also
has
the
potential
to
change
the
way
that
PWS
are
described
and
evaluated
in
the
literature
[15

].
Instead
of
seeking
and
critiquing
ideal
programs
of
eco-
nomic
efficiency
[10],
PWS
might
be
defined
and
evalu-
ated
as
sites
of
intersection
among
pluralistic,
instrumen-
tal
and
relational
values
in
source
watersheds
[15

,53].
As
relational
values
become
more
prominent
in
evalua-
tions
of
PES,
care
must
be
taken
not
to
oversimplify
or
co-
opt
indigenous
and
other
local
relational
ontologies
when
bringing
them
into
a
Western-based
evaluation
frame-
work.
Evaluation
of
relational
values
should
recognize
that
relational
values
as
term
originates
from
a
long-
overdue
appreciation
of
local
value
systems
in
communi-
ties
where
reciprocal
relationships
to
place
are
central
to
survival,
thriving,
and
worldview
[60,61].
Meaningful
evaluation
requires
actively
engaging
local
partners
to
assess
outcomes
and
values
most
important
to
those
who
care
for
the
lands
that
PWS
aim
to
protect.
Uncited
reference
[57].
Acknowledgements
We
thank
the
many
participants
and
program
managers
of
PWS
programs
that
we
have
worked
with
for
their
collaboration
and
support.
We
also
thank
Unai
Pascual
and
three
anonymous
reviewers
for
their
comments
and
suggestions
on
the
manuscript
as
well
as
Victoria
Ward
(UHERO)
for
figure
design.
Funding
for
this
work
was
provided
by
NSF
grant
1624329
through
the
Belmont
Forum
project
ClimateWIse.
Appendix
A.
Supplementary
data
Supplementary
material
related
to
this
article
can
be
found,
in
the
online
version,
at
doi:https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024.
References
and
recommended
reading
Papers
of
particular
interest,
published
within
the
period
of
review,
have
been
highlighted
as:

of
special
interest

of
outstanding
interest
1.

Salzman
J,
Bennett
G,
Carroll
N,
Goldstein
A,
Jenkins
M:
The
global
status
and
trends
of
Payments
for
Ecosystem
Services.
Nat
Sustain
2018,
1:136-144.
Summarizes
state
of
global
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services,
including
Payment
for
Watershed
Services
programs,
finding
over
550
active
programs
active
globally.
Identifies
key
challenges
for
scaling
including
motivated
buyers,
motivated
sellers,
metrics,
and
low
transaction
costs
institutions.
2.
Bennett
G,
Ruef
F:
Alliances
for
Green
Infrastructure:
State
of
Watershed
Investment
2014
-
Executive
Summary.
Forest
Trends
Ecosystem
Service
Marketplace;
2014.
3.
Naeem
S,
Ingram
JC,
Varga
A,
Agardy
T,
Barten
P,
Bennett
G,
Bloomgarden
E,
Bremer
LL,
Burkill
P,
Cattau
M
et
al.:
Get
the
science
right
when
paying
for
nature’s
services.
Science
(80-)
2015,
347:1206-1207.
4.

Pascual
U,
Phelps
J,
Garmendia
E,
Brown
K,
Corbera
E,
Martin
A,
Gomez-Baggethun
E,
Muradian
R:
Social
equity
matters
in
payments
for
ecosystem
services.
Bioscience
2014,
64:1027-
1036.
Reframes
the
equity
versus
efficiency
debate
in
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services
and
argues
that
there
are
important
causal
links
between
social
equity
and
ecological
outcomes
of
PES
that
need
to
be
carefully
con-
sidered
in
program
design
and
implementation.
Does
not
use
the
term
relational
value,
but
discusses
the
importance
of
integrating
non-material
values
into
PES
implementation
and
design
and
the
importance
of
paying
attention
to
the
social
context
under
which
PES
occurs.
5.
Borner
J,
Baylis
K,
Corbera
E,
Eziine-de-blas
D,
Honey-Roses
J,
Persson
M,
Wunder
S:
The
Effectiveness
of
Payments
for
Environmental
Services
2017,
vol.
96359-374.
6.

Blundo-Canto
G,
Bax
V,
Quintero
M,
Cruz-Garcia
GS,
Groeneveld
RA,
Perez-Marulanda
L:
The
different
dimensions
of
livelihood
impacts
of
Payments
for
Environmental
Services
(PES)
schemes:
a
systematic
review.
Ecol
Econ
2018,
149:160-
183.
Conducted
a
systematic
review
of
livelihood
outcomes
of
PWS
globally
and
found
that
outcomes
are
mixed
and
sometimes
conflicting.
Empha-
sizes
that
socio-cultural
dimensions
of
livelihoods
are
poorly
studied.
7.
Hejnowicz
AP,
Raffaelli
DG,
Rudd
MA,
White
PCL:
Evaluating
the
outcomes
of
payments
for
ecosystem
services
programmes
using
a
capital
asset
framework.
Ecosyst
Serv
2014,
9:83-97.
Reviewed
existing
literature
on
social
outcomes
of
PES
using
a
capital
asset
framework
and
concludes
a
lack
of
attention
to
evaluating
and
fostering
social,
human,
and
institutional
capital.
8.

Samii
C,
Lisiecki
M,
Kulkarni
P,
Paler
L,
Chavis
LE:
Effects
of
payment
for
environmental
services
(PES)
on
deforestation
and
poverty
in
low
and
middle
income
countries:
a
systematic
review.
Cambell
Syst
Rev
2014,
10.
Reviewed
outcomes
of
PES
in
terms
of
poverty
alleviation
and
defor-
estation
and
concludes
that
PES
does
not
reduce
deforestation
and
that
there
is
not
sufficient
evidence
to
assess
welfare
outcomes.
9.

Farley
KA,
Bremer
LL:
“Water
is
life”:
local
perceptions
of
pa
´ramo
grasslands
and
land
management
strategies
associated
with
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services.
Ann
Am
Assoc
Geogr
2017,
4452:1-11.
One
of
few
studies
that
focuses
on
values
of
PWS
participants
towards
the
lands
that
PWS
aims
to
influence.
Finds
that
PWS
participants
value
pa
´ramo
grasslands
for
cultural,
provisioning,
and
regulating
services
that
underpin
multiple
dimensions
of
human
well-being.
6
Sustainability
challenges
COSUST-863;
NO.
OF
PAGES
8
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Bremer
LL,
et
al.:
Relational
values
in
evaluations
of
upstream
social
outcomes
of
watershed
Payment
for
Ecosystem
Services:
a
review,
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
Current
Opinion
in
Environmental
Sustainability
2018,
35:1–8
www.sciencedirect.com

10.
Engel
S,
Pagiola
S,
Wunder
S:
Designing
payments
for
environmental
services
in
theory
and
practice:
an
overview
of
the
issues.
Ecol
Econ
2008,
65:663-674.
11.
McAfee
K,
Shapiro
EN:
Payments
for
Ecosystem
Services
in
Mexico:
nature,
neoliberalism,
social
movements,
and
the
state.
Ann
Assoc
Am
Geogr
2010,
100:579-599.
12.
Pattanayak
SK,
Wunder
S,
Ferraro
PJ:
Show
me
the
money:
do
payments
supply
environmental
services
in
developing
countries?
Rev
Environ
Econ
Policy
2010,
4:254-274.
13.
Bremer
LL,
Farley
KA,
Lopez-Carr
D:
What
factors
influence
participation
in
payment
for
ecosystem
services
programs?
An
evaluation
of
Ecuador’s
SocioParamo
program.
Land
Use
Policy
2014,
36:122-133.
14.
Figueroa
F,
Caro-Borrero
A
´,
Revollo-Ferna
´ndez
D,
Merino
L,
Almeida-Len
˜ero
L,
Pare
´L,
Espinosa
D,
Mazari-Hiriart
M:
“I
like
to
conserve
the
forest,
but
I
also
like
the
cash”:
socioeconomic
factors
influencing
the
motivation
to
be
engaged
in
the
Mexican
Payment
for
Environmental
Services
Programme.
J
For
Econ
2016,
22:36-51.
15.

Chan
KMA,
Anderson
E,
Chapman
M,
Jespersen
K,
Olmsted
P:
Payments
for
ecosystem
services:
rife
with
problems
and
potential—for
transformation
towards
sustainability.
Ecol
Econ
2017,
140:110-122.
Discusses
a
suite
of
concerns
critiques
of
PES
and
proposes
re-framing
PES
to
address
these
concerns,
including
greater
incorporation
and
amplification
of
relational
values
in
program
design
and
implementation.
16.
Arriagada
RA,
Sills
EO,
Ferraro
PJ,
Pattanayak
SK:
Do
payments
pay
off?
Evidence
from
participation
in
Costa
Rica’s
PES
program.
PLoS
One
2015,
10:1-17.
17.
Grillos
T:
Economic
vs
non-material
incentives
for
participation
in
an
in-kind
payments
for
ecosystem
services
program
in
Bolivia.
Ecol
Econ
2017,
131:178-190.
18.

Chan
KMA,
Balvanera
P,
Benessaiah
K,
Chapman
M,
Dı
´az
S:
Why
protect
nature?
Rethinking
values
and
the
environment.
Proc
Natl
Acad
Sci
U
S
A
2016,
113:1462-1465.
Introduces
the
framing
of
relational
values
as
important
in
motivating
care
for
nature.
19.
Klain
SC,
Olmsted
P,
Chan
KMA,
Satterfield
T:
Relational
values
resonate
broadly
and
differently
than
intrinsic
or
instrumental
values,
or
the
New
Ecological
Paradigm.
PLoS
One
2017,
12:1-
21.
20.

Pascual
U,
Balvanera
P,
Dı
´az S,
Pataki
G,
Roth
E,
Stenseke
M,
Watson
RT,
Başak
Dessane
E,
Islar
M,
Kelemen
E
et
al.:
Valuing
nature’s
contributions
to
people:
the
IPBES
approach.
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
2017,
26–27:7-16.
Presents
rationale
for
inclusive
valuation
of
nature’s
contributions
for
improved
decision
making.
Provides
methodological
guidance
and
ela-
borated
conceptualization
of
relational
values.
21.
Himes
A,
Muraca
B:
Relational
values:
the
key
to
pluralistic
valuation
of
ecosystem
services.
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sust
2019.
this
issue
(COSUST_2017_175).
22.
Tallis
H,
Lubchenco
J:
Working
together:
a
call
for
inclusive
conservation.
Nature
2014,
515:27-28.
23.
Gould
RK,
Ardoin
NM,
Woodside
U,
Satterfield
T,
Hannahs
N,
Daily
GC:
The
forest
has
a
story:
cultural
ecosystem
services
in
Kona,
Hawai‘i.
Ecol
Soc
2014,
19:55.
24.
Asah
ST,
Guerry
AD,
Blahna
DJ,
Lawler
JJ:
Perception,
acquisition
and
use
of
ecosystem
services:
human
behavior,
and
ecosystem
management
and
policy
implications.
Ecosyst
Serv
2014,
10:180-186.
25.
Richards
RC,
Kennedy
CJ,
Lovejoy
TE,
Brancalion
PHS:
Considering
farmer
land
use
decisions
in
efforts
to
‘scale
up’
Payments
for
Watershed
Services.
Ecosyst
Serv
2017,
23:238-
247.
26.
Rosa
H,
Kandel
S,
Dimas
L:
Compensation
for
environmental
services
and
rural
communities:
lessons
from
the
Americas.
Int
For
Rev
2004,
6:187-194.
27.
Kosoy
N,
Martinez-Tuna
M,
Muradian
R,
Martinez-Alier
J:
Payments
for
environmental
services
in
watersheds:
insights
from
a
comparative
study
of
three
cases
in
Central
America.
Ecol
Econ
2007,
61:446-455.
28.
Ciriacy-Wantrup
SV:
The
economics
of
environmental
policy.
Land
Econ
1971,
47:36-45.
29.
Goldman-Benner
RL,
Benitez
S,
Boucher
T,
Calvache
A,
Daily
G,
Kareiva
P,
Kroeger
T,
Ramos
A:
Water
funds
and
payments
for
ecosystem
services:
practice
learns
from
theory
and
theory
can
learn
from
practice.
Oryx
2012,
46:55-63.
30.

Liu
Z,
Kontoleon
A:
Meta-analysis
of
livelihood
impacts
of
payments
for
environmental
services
programmes
in
developing
countries.
Ecol
Econ
2018,
149:48-61.
Meta-analysis
of
causal
statistical
studies
of
changes
in
income
with
PES.
Finds,
overall,
moderately
positive
impacts,
with
high
payments,
high
degree
of
volunteerism,
and
high
opportunities
for
alternative
income
sources
all
correlated
with
improved
outcomes.
31.
Leisher
C,
Samberg
LH,
van
Beukering
P,
Sanjayan
M:
Focal
areas
for
measuring
the
human
well-being
impacts
of
a
conservation
initiative.
Sustainability
2013,
5:997-1010.
32.
Stiglitz
JE,
Sen
A,
Fitousi
J:
On
the
report
by
the
Commission
on
the
Measurement
of
Economic
Performance
and
Social
Progress
(2009).
SSRN
Electron
J
2009
http://dx.doi.org/
10.2139/ssrn.1714428.
33.

Arriagada
R,
Villasen
˜or
A,
Rubiano
E,
Cotacachi
D,
Morrison
J:
Analysing
the
impacts
of
PES
programmes
beyond
economic
rationale:
perceptions
of
ecosystem
services
provision
associated
to
the
Mexican
case.
Ecosyst
Serv
2018,
29:116-127.
Finds
little
impact
of
PWS
on
household
income
or
assets,
but
that
PWS
increases
participants
perceptions
of
cultural,
provisioning,
and
regulat-
ing
services
from
the
forests.
Such
environmental
values
are
put
forth
as
reasons
for
participation
despite
a
lack
of
economic
benefits
from
incentives.
34.

Rico
Garcı
´a-Amado L,
Ruiz
Pe
´rez
M,
Barrasa
Garcı
´a S:
Motivation
for
conservation:
assessing
integrated
conservation
and
development
projects
and
payments
for
environmental
services
in
La
Sepultura
Biosphere
Reserve,
Mexico,
Chiapas.
Ecol