Asset-building payments for ecosystem services: assessing landowner perceptions of reforestation incentives in Lebanon

  • Arbi J. Sarkissian 1Bangor University; College of Natural Sciences; School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography; Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW; UK 2American University of Beirut; Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Dept. of Landscape Design and Ecosystem Management; P.O. Box 11-0236/ AUB Riad El Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
  • Robert M. Brook Bangor University; College of Natural Sciences; School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography; Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW
  • Salma N. Talhouk American University of Beirut; Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Dept. of Landscape Design and Ecosystem Management; P.O. Box 11-0236/ AUB Riad El Solh, Beirut 1107 2020
  • Neal J. Hockley Bangor University; College of Natural Sciences; School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography; Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW
Keywords: agro-ecosystems, biodiversity, conditionality, displacement, mixed-methods, participation, PES


Aim of study: Incentivising landowners to supply ecosystem services remains challenging, especially when this requires long-term investments such as reforestation. We investigated how landowners perceive, and would respond to, distinct types of incentives for planting diverse native trees on private lands in Lebanon. Our aim was to understand landowners’ attitudes towards hypothetical Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) contracts options; their likely participation; and the potential additionality they would provide. 

Area of study: Highland villages situated within eight of Lebanon’s 20 Important Plant Areas 

Materials and methods: Mixed-methods surveys were conducted with 34 landowners to determine past, present and future land-use strategies. Study participants were presented with three differently structured reforestation contract options (or schemes). The three schemes (results-based loan, action-based grant, and results-based payments) differed in their expected risks and benefits to landowners. Qualitative debriefing questions followed each of the schemes presented. 

Main results: Although the results-based loan did deter uptake relative to the lower risk action-based grant, results-based payments did not significantly increase uptake or planting area, suggesting asymmetric attitudes to risk. Qualitative probing revealed economic, social (e.g. trust) and institutional factors (e.g. legal implications of planting forest trees on private land) that limited willingness to participate in the results-based contract option. 

Research highlights: This study demonstrates the importance of combining qualitative and quantitative methods to better understand landowner perceptions of incentives and risks, particularly in challenging socio-political contexts.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Neal J. Hockley, Bangor University; College of Natural Sciences; School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography; Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW


Banerjee S, Cason TN, de Vries FP, Hanley N, 2017. Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes. J Environ Econ Manage 83: 68-89.

Barrett CB, Bulte EH, Ferraro PJ, Wunder S, 2013. Economic instruments for nature conservation. In: Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2; Macdonald DW & Willis KJ (eds). pp: 59-73. John Wiley & Sons, Oxford.

Blennow K, Persson J, Wallin A, Vareman N, Persson E, 2014. Understanding risk in forest ecosystem services: implications for effective risk management, communication and planning. Forestry 87 (2): 219-228.

Burton RJF, Schwarz G, 2013. Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 30 (1): 628-641.

Chen X, Lupi F, He G, Liu J, 2009. Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106 (28): 11812-11817.

Chen X, Lupi F, Viña A, He G, Liu J, 2010. Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conserv Biol 24 (6): 1469-1478.

Cole RJ, 2010. Social and environmental impacts of payments for environmental services for agroforestry on small-scale farms in southern Costa Rica. Int J Sust Dev World 17 (3): 208-216.

Davis SD, Heywood VH, Hamilton AC, 1994. Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the Middle East. In: Centres of plant diversity: a guide and strategy for their conservation; Heywood VH & Davis SD (eds). IUCN Publ Unit, pp: 354. Cambridge.

Duesberg S, O'Connor D, Dhubháin AN, 2013. To plant or not to plant—Irish farmers' goals and values with regard to afforestation. Land Use Policy 32 (0): 155-164.

Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S, 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65 (4): 663-674.

Fisher JA, 2012. No pay, no care? A case study exploring motivations for participation in payments for ecosystem services in Uganda. Oryx 46 (1): 45-54.

Gibbons JM, Nicholson E, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG, 2011. Should payments for biodiversity conservation be based on action or results? J Appl Ecol 48 (5): 1218-1226.

Gibbs HK, Ruesch AS, Achard F, Clayton MK, Holmgren P, Ramankutty N, Foley JA, 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. P Natl Acad Sci USA 107 (38): 16732-16737.

Griscom HP, Ashton MS, Berlyn GP, 2005. Seedling survival and growth of native tree species in pastures: Implications for dry tropical forest rehabilitation in central Panama. For Ecol Manage 218 (1-3): 306-318.

Hegde R, Bull GQ, Wunder S, Kozak R, 2014. Household participation in a payments for environmental services programme: the Nhambita Forest Carbon Project (Mozambique). Environ Dev Econ (0): 1-19.

Honey-Rosés J, López-García J, Rendón-Salinas E, Peralta-Higuera A, Galindo-Leal C, 2009. To pay or not to pay? Monitoring performance and enforcing conditionality when paying for forest conservation in Mexico. Environ Conserv 36 (2): 120-128.

Hudson D, Lusk J, 2004. Risk and transactions cost in contracting: Results from a choice-based experiment. J Agric Food Ind Organ 2 (1): 1-17.

Kisaka L, Obi A, 2015. Farmers' preferences for management options as payment for environmental services scheme. Int Food Agribus Man 18(3): 171-192.

Kosoy N, Corbera E, Brown K, 2008. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: Case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39 (6): 2073-2083.

Lindenmayer DB, Hulvey KB, Hobbs RJ, Colyvan M, Felton A, Possingham H, Steffen W, Wilson KA, Youngentob K, Gibbons P, 2012. Avoiding bio-perversity from carbon sequestration solutions. Conserv Lett 5 (1): 28-36.

Locatelli B, Imbach P, Wunder S, 2014. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Environ Conserv 41 (1): 27-36.

Makdisi S, 2004. The lessons of Lebanon: The economics of war and development. I.B. Tauris & Co., Ltd., London. 248 pp.

Makhzoumi JM, Talhouk SN, Zurayk R, Sadek R, 2012. Landscape approach to bio-cultural diversity conservation in rural Lebanon. In: Perspectives on nature conservation - Patterns, pressures and prospects; Tiefenbacher J (ed). pp: 179-200. InTech/Creative Commons.

Matzdorf B, Sattler C, Engel S, 2013. Institutional frameworks and governance structures of PES schemes. Forest Policy Econ 37(0): 57-64.

McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K, 2013. Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci & Policy 33: 416-427.

Menapace L, Colson G, Raffaelli R, 2013. Risk aversion, subjective beliefs, and farmer risk management strategies. Am J Agric Econ 95 (2): 384-389.

MOE/UNDP/GEF, 2009. Towards 2010 Biodiversity Target: Fourth National Report of Lebanon to the Convention of Biological Diversity. Beirut, Lebanon. 243 pp.

MOE/UNDP/GEF, 2014. Safeguarding and Restoring Lebanon's Woodland Resources Technical Report. Beirut, Lebanon. 96 pp.

Mohanna C, Adada F, Besacier C, 2017. Forest and landscape restoration in Lebanon. [Dec. 17, 2016].

Montagnini F, Finney C, 2011. Payments for environmental services in Latin America as a tool for restoration and rural development. AMBIO 40 (3): 285-297.

Pallant J, 2010. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Open University Press/McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. 345 pp.

Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A, Gómez-Baggethun E, Muradian R, 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64 (11): 1027-1036.

Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ, 2010. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy 4 (2): 254-274.

Peterson JM, Smith CM, Leatherman JC, Hendricks NP, Fox JA, 2015. Transaction costs in payment for environmental service contracts. Am J Agric Econ 97 (1): 219-238.

Pullin AS, Bangpan M, Dalrymple S, Dickson K, Haddaway N, Healey JR, et al., 2013. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ Evid 2 (1): 2-41.

Radford EA, Catullo G, de Montmollin B, 2011. Important plant areas of the south and east Mediterranean region: priority sites for conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Málaga, Spain. 108 pp.

Regato P, Asmar F, 2011. Analysis and evaluation of forestation efforts in Lebanon: Expert Report, Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture and FAO, Beirut, Lebanon. 59 pp.

Salibi A, 2007. Marketing Study for olive, olive oil and apple in Lebanon. Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture. Beirut, Lebanon. 30 pp.

Sattout EJ, Abboud M, 2007. Thematic assessment report on biodiversity. NCSA Project No. 00045426, UNDP/GEF/ MOE. Beirut, Lebanon. 96 pp.

Schleyer C, Plieninger T, 2011. Obstacles and options for the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees in Saxony, Germany. Environ Conserv 38 (4): 454-463.

Schomers S, Matzdorf B, 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst Serv 6 (0): 16-30.

Solberg M, 2014. Patronage, contextual flexibility, and organisational innovation in Lebanese protected areas management. Conserv Soc 12 (3): 268-279.

Trevisan ACD, Schmitt-Filho AL, Farley J, Fantini AC, Longo C, 2016. Farmer perceptions, policy and reforestation in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Ecol Econ 130: 53-63.

Wu T, Wang Y, Yu C, Chiarawipa R, Zhang X, Han Z, Wu L, 2012. Carbon sequestration by fruit trees - Chinese apple orchards as an example. PLOS ONE 7 (6): e38883.

Wunder S, 2007. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol 21 (1): 48-58.

Wunder S, 2008. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environ Dev Econ 13 (3): 279-297.

Wunder S, Nelson H, Nikolakis W, 2014. Lessons in the design of payments for environmental services: Theory and experience. In: Forests and Globalization: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development; Nikolakis W & Innes JL (eds). pp: 202. Routledge, NY.

Yazbek MM, Houri N, El-Zein M, Safi S, Sinno-Seoud N, Talhouk SN, 2010. Important plant areas in Lebanon: A preliminary study based on published literature and consultations with national experts. AUB-NCC, Beirut, Lebanon.

Zanella MA, Schleyer C, Speelman S, 2014. Why do farmers join payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes? An assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil. Ecol Econ 105: 166-176.

Zubair M, Garforth C, 2006. Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: The role of farmers' perceptions and attitudes. Agrofor Syst 66 (3): 217-229.

How to Cite
SarkissianA. J., BrookR. M., TalhoukS. N., & HockleyN. J. (2017). Asset-building payments for ecosystem services: assessing landowner perceptions of reforestation incentives in Lebanon. Forest Systems, 26(2), e012.
Research Articles