Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Applying the social–ecological systems framework to the evaluation and design of payment for ecosystem service schemes in the Eurasian steppe

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The application of payment for ecosystem services schemes to dryland areas has been limited, particularly for schemes that seek to improve the grassland upon which resource users in these landscapes depend. The high levels of climatic and resource variability, strength of informal institutions governing resource use and contested nature of resource decline are examples of defining characteristics that may challenge the application of more conventional payment for ecosystem services schemes in dryland contexts. We used a social–ecological systems framework to (i) help identify design criteria for effective and efficient payment for ecosystem services schemes in drylands under a pastoral land-use, and (ii) explore the applicability of the framework to dryland areas. Using eco-compensation schemes in the Chinese governed areas of the Eurasian steppe as a case study, we found that the framework adequately identified the need for non-equilibrium dynamics to be incorporated into scheme design. However, the framework was less able to explicitly enunciate the importance of micro-economics and cultural values for scheme viability. In contexts like the Eurasian steppe where some level of grazing may maximise the species richness of grasslands, acknowledging history of use in the resource unit subsystem component of the framework, not just the user subsystem component, would improve the framework. The explicit incorporation of contested issues into the framework is also needed, as dryland areas have a history of being misunderstood by non-dryland cultures, researchers and policymakers. We conclude that tailoring a general diagnostic tool towards the specific social–ecological attributes of the drylands under a pastoral land-use will improve the ability of payment for ecosystem services schemes to reach their conservation aims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Addison J (2012) Institutional settings, herder livelihoods and rangeland condition in the Gobi Desert. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland

  • Addison J, Brown C (2014) A multi-scaled analysis of the effect of climate, commodity prices and risk on the livelihoods of Mongolian pastoralists. J Arid Environ 109:54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Addison J, Friedel M, Brown C, Davies J, Waldron S (2012) The critical review of degradation assumptions applied to Mongolia’s Gobi Desert. The Rangel J 34(2):125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Addison J, Davies J, Friedel M, Brown C (2013) Do pasture user groups lead to improved rangeland condition in the Mongolian Gobi Desert? J Arid Environ 94:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adhikari B, Agrawal A (2013) Understanding the social and ecological outcomes of PES projects: a review and an analysis. Conserv Soc 11(4):359–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adhikari B, Boag G (2013) Designing payments for ecosystem services schemes: some considerations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:72–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A (2002) The drama of the commons, 2002., Common resources and institutional sustainabilityNational Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderies J, Janssen M, Ostrom O (2004) A framework to analyse the robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol Soc 9(1):18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angassa A (2012) Effects of grazing intensity and bush encroachment on herbaceous species and rangeland condition in southern Ethiopia. Land Degrad Dev 25(5):438–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer S, Predick K (2014) An ecosystem services perspective on brush management: research priorities for competing land-use objectives. J Ecol 102:1394–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagchi S, Ritchie M (2010) Introduced grazers can restrict potential soil carbon sequestration through impacts on plant community composition. Ecol Lett 13:959–968

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bai Y, Wu J, Clark C, Pan Q, Zhang L, Chen S, Wang Q, Han X (2012) Grazing alters ecosystem functioning and C:N: P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. J Appl Ecol 49:1204–1215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier E, Tesfaw A (2012) Can REDD+ save the forest? The role of payments and tenure. Forests 3:881–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basurto X, Coleman E (2010) Institutional and ecological interplay for successful self-governance of community-based fisheries. Ecol Econ 69:1094–1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett M, Xie C, Hogarth N, Peng D, Putzel L (2014) China’s conversion of cropland to forest program for household delivery of ecosystem services: how important is a local implementation regimes to survival rate outcomes? Forests 5:2345–2376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger J, Buuveibaatar B, Mishra C (2013) Globalization of the cashmere market and the decline of large mammals in Central Asia. Conserv Biol 27(4):679–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bijoor N, Li W, Zhang Q, Huang G (2006) Small scale Co-management for the Sustainable Use of Xilingol Biosphere Reserve, Inner Mongolia. J Hum Environ 35(1):25–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch J, Newton A, Alvarez Aquino C, Cantarello E, Echeverria C, Kitzberger T, Schiappacasse I, Garavito N (2010) Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. PNAS 107(50):21925–21930

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Booker K, Huntsinger L, Bartolome J, Sayre N, Stewart W (2013) What can ecological science tell us about opportunities for carbon sequestration on arid rangelands in the United States? Glob Environ Change 23(1):240–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown K (2003) Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit. Front Ecol Environ 1(9):479–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, MacLeod N (2011) A site-based approach to delivering rangeland ecosystem services. Rangel J 33(2):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown CG, Waldron SA, Longworth JW (2008) Sustainable development in China’s Western Region: managing people, livestock and grasslands. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. ISBN 978-1-84542-744-3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bulte E, Boone R, Stringer R, Thornton P (2008) Elephants or onions? Paying for nature in Amboseli, Kenya. Environ Dev Econ 13(03):395–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter S, Mooney H, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries R, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah A, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira H, Perrings C, Reid W, Sarukhan J, Scholes R, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. PNAS 106(5):1305–1312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chatre A, Agrawal A (2008) Forest commons and local enforcement. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(36):13286–13291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chee Y (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 120:549–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Bai J, Li X, Luo G, Li J, Larry Li B (2013) Changes in land use/land cover and ecosystem services in Central Asia during 1990–2009. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:116–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chobotova V (2013) The role of market-based instruments for biodiversity conservation in Central and Eastern Europe. Ecol Econ 95:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements T, John A, Nielsen K, An D, Tan S, Milner-Gulland E (2010) Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparisons of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol Econ 69:1283–1291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox M, Gwen A, Sergio V (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol Soc 15(4):38

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Odorico P, Bhattachan A (2012) Hydrologic variability in dryland regions: impacts on ecosystem dynamics and food security. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:3145–3157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dengler J, Janisova M, Torok P, Wellstein C (2014) Biodiversity of Palearctic grasslands: a synthesis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 182:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinerstein E, Varma K, Wikramanayake E, Powell G, Lumpkin S, Naidoo R, Korchinsky M, Del Valle C, Lohan S, Seidensticker J, Joldersma D, Lovejoy T, Kushlin A (2013) Enhancing conservation, ecosystem services and local livelihoods through a wildlife premium mechanism. Conserv Biol 27(1):14–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dougill A, Stringer L, Leventon J, Riddell M, Rueff H, Spracklen D, Butt E (2012) Lessons from community-based payment for ecosystem service schemes: from forests to rangelands. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:3178–3190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutilly-Diane C, McCarthy N, Turkelboom F, Bruggeman A, Tiedemann J, Street K, Serra G (2007) Could payments for environmental services improve rangeland management in Central Asia, West Asia and North Africa? CGIAR system-wide program on collective action and property rights. CAPRI Working Paper No. 62

  • Epstein G, Vogt J, Mincey S, Cox M, Fischer B (2013) Missing ecology: integrating ecological perspectives with the social–ecological system framework. Int J Commons 7(2):432–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham R, Silcock J, Dwyer J (2011) Plant species richness responses to grazing protection and degradation history in a low productivity landscape. J Veg Sci 22(6):997–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Gimenez ME (1999) Sustaining the steppes: a geographical history of pastoral land use in Mongolia. Geogr Rev 89(3):315–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Kulindwa K, Mwanyoka I, Turner R, Burgess N (2010) Common pool resource management and PES: lessons and constraints for water PES in Tanzania. Ecol Econ 69:1253–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost P, Bond I (2008) The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services. Ecol Econ 65:776–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbach K, Lubell M, DeClerck F (2012) Payment for ecosystem services: the roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agric Ecosyst Environ 146:27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giordano M (2003) The geography of the commons: the role of scale and space. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(2):365–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GLP (2005) Global land project—science plan and implementation strategy, IGBP (International Geosphere Biosphere Program) Report No. 53, International Human Dimensions Programme Report No. 19, IGBP Secretariat, Stockholm

  • Goldstein J, Presnall C, Lopez-Hoffman L, Nabhan G, Knight R, Ruyle G, Toombs T (2011) Beef and beyond: payment for ecosystem services on western US rangelands. Rangelands 33(5):4–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner R, Stanley OGP (2013) More than money for conservation: exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31:4–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner R, Young M, Mcdonald A, Brooks M (2000) Incentive instruments for the sustainable use of marine resources. Ocean Coast Manag 43(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner R, Patterson L, Miller O (2009) Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agric Syst 99(2–3):86–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker RB, Jessop PJ, Smith WJ, Melville GJ (2010) A ground cover-based incentive approach to enhancing resilience in rangelands viewed as complex adaptive systems. Rangel J 32:283–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris R (2010) Rangeland degradation on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau: a review of the evidence of its magnitude and causes. J Arid Environ 71:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart R (2001) Plant biodiversity on shortgrass steppe after 55 years of zero, light moderate or heavy cattle grazing. Plant Ecol 00:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho P (2000) The clash over state and collective property: the making of the Rangeland Law. China Q 161:240–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honneland G (1999) A model of compliance in fisheries: theoretical foundations and practical application. Ocean Coast Manag 42(8):699–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang L, Xu X, Shao Q, Liu J (2014) Improving carbon mitigation potential through grassland ecosystem restoration under climatic change in North-eastern Tibetan Plateau. Adv Meteorol 2014:379–306

  • Huntsinger L, Oviedo J (2014) Ecosystem services are social–ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: the case of California’s Mediterranean rangelands. Ecol Soc 19(1):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack B, Kousky C, Sims K (2008) Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. PNAS 105:28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M, Anderies J, Ostrom E (2007) Robustness of social–ecological systems to spatial and temporal variability. Soc Nat Resour 20(4):307–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishigbayar J, Fernandez-Gimenez M, Angerer J, Reid R, Chatsallkam J, Baasandorf Y, Zumberelmaa D (2015) Mongolian rangelands at a tipping point? Biomass and cover are stable but composition shifts and richness declines after 20 years of grazing and increasing temperatures. J Arid Environ 115:100–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li W, Huntsinger L (2011) China’s grassland contract policy and its impacts on herder ability to benefit in Inner Mongolia: tragic feedbacks. Ecol Soc 16:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipper L, Cutilly-Diane C, McCarthy N (2010) Supplying carbon sequestration from West African rangelands: opportunities and barriers. Rangel Ecol Manag 63(1):155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu G, Wan J, Zhang H, Cai L (2008) Eco-compensation policies and mechanisms in China. Reciel 17:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Lkhagvadorj D, Hauck M, Dulamsuren Ch, Tsogtbaatar J (2013) Pastoral nomadism in the forest-steppe of the Mongolian Altai under a changing economy and a warming climate. J Arid Environ 88:82–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockie S (2013) Market instruments, ecosystem services and property rights: assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land Use Policy 31:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahanty S, Suich H, Tacconi L (2013) Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31:38–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment—ecosystems and human well-being: desertification synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearns R (1993) Territoriality and land tenure among Mongolian Pastoralists: variation, continuity and change. Nomadic Peoples 33:73–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearns R (2004) Sustaining livelihoods on Mongolia’s pastoral commons: insights from a participatory poverty assessment. Dev Change 35(1):107–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton N, Rueff H, Sternberg T, Batbuyan B, Thomas D (2015) Explaining spatial variations in climate hazard impacts in Western Mongolia. Landsc Ecol 30(1):91–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra C, Allen P, McCarthy T, Madhusudan M, Bayarjargal A, Prins H (2003) The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow leopard. Conserv Biol 17(6):1512–1520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muradian R (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69:1202–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(39):15181–15187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analysing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell D (2004) Heathens in the chapel? Economics and the conservation of native biodiversity. Pac Conserv Biol 10(2):88–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reading RP, Bedunah D, Amgalanbaatar S (2006) Conserving biodiversity on Mongolian rangelands: implications for protected area development and pastoral uses. In: Bedunah D, Durant McArthur E, Fernandez-Gimenez M (eds) Rangelands of Central Asia: proceedings of the conference on transformations, issues and future challenges. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Salt Lake City

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds T (2012) Institutional determinants of success among forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev 40(3):542–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S, Milnber-Gulland E, Alimaev I (2003) Rangeland degradation in Kazakhstan during the Soviet etc: re-examining the evidence. J Arid Environ 53:419–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki T, Okubo S, Okayasu T, Jamsran U, Ohkuro T, Takeuchi K (2009) Two-phase functional redundancy in plant communities along a grazing gradient in Mongolian rangelands. Ecology 90(9):2598–2608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager E, Blomquist W, Tang S (1994) Mobile flows, storage, and self-organized institutions for governing common-pool resources. Land Econ 70(3):294–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehy D (1995) Grazing and interactions among large wild and domestic herbivores in Mongolia. Biodiversity Project 9-10, Mongolian Ministry of Nature and Environment, Ulaanbaatar

  • Sjogersten S, Atkin C, Clarke M, Mooney S, Wu B, West H (2013) Responses to climate change and farming policies by rural communities in northern China: a report on field observation and farmers’ perception in dryland north Shaanxi and Ningxia. Land Use Policy 32:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneath D (1998) State policy and pasture degradation in Inner Asia. Science 281(5380):1147–1148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sneath D (2003) Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia. Oxf Dev Stud 31(4):441–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneath D (2012) The ‘Age of the market’ and the Regime of Debt: the role of credit in the transformation of Pastoral Mongolia. Soc Anthropol 20(4):458–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soucek S (2000) A history of Inner Asia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg T, Rueff H, Middleton N (2015) Contraction of the Gobi Desert 2000–2012. Remote Sens 7(2):1346–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlgren T, Schell L, Vanden Heuvel B (1999) How grazing and soil quality affect native and exotic plant diversity in rocky mountain grasslands. Ecol Appl 9:45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutinen J, Kuperan J (1999) A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance. Int J Soc Econ 26(1/2/3):174–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui Y (2012) Swinging between nomadism and sedentarism: a case study of social and environmental change in the nomadic society of the Altay Steppes, Xinjiang. Nomadic Peoples 16:50–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uthes S, Fen L, Lin Z, Xiaochang C (2010) Payments for grassland ecosystem services: a comparison of two examples in China and Germany. J Resour Ecol 1(4):319–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt J, Epstein G, Mincey B, Fischer C, McCord P (2015) Putting the “E” in SES: unpacking the ecology in the Ostrom social–ecological system framework. Ecol Soc 20(1):55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Wehrden H, Hanspach J, Ronnenberg K, Wesche K (2010) Inter-annual rainfall variability in Central Asia—a contribution to the discussion on the importance of environmental stochasticity in drylands. J Arid Environ 74(10):1212–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Wehrden H, Hanspach J, Paczensky P, Fischer J, Wesche K (2012) A global assessment of the non-equilibrium concept in rangelands. Ecol Appl 22(2):393–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Wehrden H, Wesche K, Chuluunkhuyag O, Fust P (2015) Correlation of trends in cashmere production and declines of large wild mammals: response to Berger et al. 2013. Conserv Biol 29(1):286–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade R (1994) Village republics: economic conditions for collective action in South India. ICS Press, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang R, Ripley E (1997) Effects of grazing on a Leymus chinensis grassland on the Songnen plain of North-eastern China. J Arid Environ 36:307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesche K, Retzer V (2005) Is degradation a major problem in semi-desert environments of the Gobi region in southern Mongolia? Erforschung biologischer Ressourcen der Mongolei 9:133–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield S, Reed M (2012) Participatory environmental assessment in drylands: introducing a new approach. J Arid Environ 77:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams D (1996) Grassland enclosures: catalyst of land degradation in Inner Mongolia. Hum Organ 55(3):307–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J, Peet R, Dengler J, Partel M (2012) Plant species richness: the world records. J Veg Sci 23:796–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu X, Li Z, Fu B, Zhou W, Liu H, Liu G (2014) Restoration of ecosystem carbon and nitrogen storage and microbial biomass after grazing exclusion in semi-arid grasslands of Inner Mongolia. Ecol Eng 73:395–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42, CIFOR, Bogor

  • Xu Z, Wan S, Zhu G, Ren H, Han X (2010) The influence of historical land use and water availability on grassland restoration. Restor Ecol 18(S1):217–225

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang G (2007) Theoretical analysis and case study of ecological compensation based on ecosystem services assessment—taking Xilingol steppe as an example. Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing (in Chinese with English summary)

  • Yeh E (2013) The politics of conservation in contemporary rural China. J Peasant Stud 40(6):1165–1188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin R, Zhao M (2012) Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes—China’s experience as an example. Ecol Econ 73:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhen L, Orchirbat B, Lv Y, Wei Y, Liu X, Chen J, Yao Z, Li F (2010) Comparing patterns of ecosystem service consumption and perceptions of range management between ethnic herders in Inner Mongolia and Mongolia. Environ Res Lett 5:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhen L, Li F, Yan H, Liu G, Liu J, Zhang H, Du B, Wu R, Sun C, Wang C (2014) Herders’ willingness to accept versus the public sector’s willingness to pay for grassland restoration in the Xilingol League of Inner Mongolia, China. Environ Res Lett 9:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

CSIRO Land and Water provided in-kind support during the compilation of this paper. Thank you to Matt Curnock and Samantha Stone-Jovicich for an early review, the anonymous reviewers, and Karsten Wesche for the initial invitation to submit this paper as part of the Special Edition. Conversations with Colin Brown (University of Queensland) and colleagues working in Inner Mongolia and Mongolia helped inform this manuscript but all errors belong to the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIRO Land and Water, ATSIP, James Cook University, Douglas Campus, James Cook Drive, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia

    J. Addison

  2. The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, James Cook Drive, Townsville, QLD, 4811, Australia

    R. Greiner

Authors
  1. J. Addison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Greiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Addison.

Additional information

Communicated by Karsten Wesche.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Addison, J., Greiner, R. Applying the social–ecological systems framework to the evaluation and design of payment for ecosystem service schemes in the Eurasian steppe. Biodivers Conserv 25, 2421–2440 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1016-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1016-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation