Examine this table, from Kosoy et al. 2007. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America (Ecological Economics). Three different sites are examined (Jesus de Otoro, San Pedro del Norte, Heredia), which are in 3 Central American countries. People were asked to forego their regular harvesting (etc.) activities in favor of receiving payment for protecting watershed habitat. They earned PES/area (per year, 4th column in the table below). Compare these profits from protecting ecosystem services, to three measures of foregone income: net on-far profits, “Fair PES”, and Willingness to rent. These all represent foregone (lost) income when the decision is made to conserve. Interpret this table (tell me your interpretation), and comment on the utility of direct payments for conservation.

 

Table 2 - Providers Provider Gross income (on-farm and off-farm) US$/year Jesus de Otoro 2 3 Average San Pedro del Norte 2 3 Average Heredia 3 6 7 8 9 10 Average 7625 5374 12,059 8353 4562 3005 360 863 1329 2024 60,000 90,377 13,800 171,573 19,091 13,398 33,679 4522 132,000 52,110 59,055 PES (in a year) to gross income 0.4 1.2 0.6 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.08 0.03 0.7 0.5 1.6 1.2 9.5 6.6 1.3 6.9 0.1 21.8 PES/ Net on-farm "Fair profits PES" area US$/ha/ US$/ha/year US$/ha/ US$/ha/year year year 15.9 11.9 9.5 12.4 26.4 18.7 26.6 26.6 33.1 26.3 43.0 21.4 55.7 55.6 51.9 52.1 30.3 52.3 49.0 42.2 45.4 106 423 -39 -65 206 126 15.6 55.6 19.4 30.2 Willingness Main benefit from forest to rent 89 133 266 531 133 n/a 89 354 156 319 147 334 227 200 50 400 600 1500 650 455 100 114 80 30 68 100 n/a 152 n/a 120 105 300 200 466 Wood Soil protection Climate regulation Wood Water Wood Climate regulation Water Scenery Climate regulation Water Biodiversity Scenery Leisure Water Scenery Scenery Scenery