1932

Abstract

We develop a theory of change for payments for environmental services (PES) to review their imminent strengths and weaknesses in light of a growing body of impact evaluation studies. We show that PES are probably at least as environmentally additional as other conservation tools, based on the limited evidence. The original vision of PES as being direct, flexible, and potentially effective remains valid, but PES design and implementation have to be upgraded in their economic functioning to better realize this potential. Adverse self-selection, inadequate administrative targeting, and ill-enforced conditionality constitute three key obstacles that may considerably hamper PES success. Policies such as spatial targeting to service density, threat and cost levels, and payment differentiation can alleviate the design challenges. PES site selection needs to further move into high-threat areas. Making adequate PES design choices also requires the political will to boost environmental effects.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094206
2020-10-06
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/12/1/annurev-resource-100518-094206.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094206&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alix-Garcia J, De Janvry A, Sadoulet E 2008. The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services. Environ. Dev. Econ. 13:3375–94
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alix-Garcia J, McIntosh C, Sims KRE, Welch JR 2013. The ecological footprint of poverty alleviation: evidence from Mexico's Oportunidades Program. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95:417–35
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alix-Garcia J, Shapiro EN, Sims KRE 2012. Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico's National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Land Econ 88:613–38
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alix-Garcia J, Sims KRE, Yañez-Pagans P 2015. Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico's Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 7:41–40
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Alix-Garcia J, Wolff H. 2014. Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annu. Rev. Resourc. Econ. 6:361–80
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Alston LJ, Andersson K, Smith SM 2013. Payment for environmental services: hypotheses and evidence. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 5:139–59
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Andersson KP, Cook NJ, Grillos T, Lopez MC, Salk CF et al. 2018. Experimental evidence on payments for forest commons conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1:128–35
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Angelsen A. 2017. REDD+ as result‐based aid: general lessons and bilateral agreements of Norway. Rev. Dev. Econ. 1:2237–64
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Arriagada RA, Ferraro PJ, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK, Cordero-Sancho S 2012. Do payments for environmental services affect forest cover? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Econ 88:2382–99
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Asquith N, Wunder S, Agarwal C, Appleton A, Aylward B et al. 2008. Payments for Watershed Services: the Bellagio Conversations Santa Cruz, Boliv: Fund. Nat. Boliv.
  11. Barbier EB, Burgess JC, Dean TJ 2018. How to pay for saving biodiversity. Science 360:6388486–88
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Barton DN, Benavides K, Chacon-Cascante A, Le Coq JF, Quiros MM et al. 2017. Payments for ecosystem services as a policy mix: demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments. Environ. Policy Govern. 27:5404–21
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bennett MT. 2008. China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual. Ecol. Econ. 65:4699–711
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blundo-Canto G, Bax V, Quintero M, Cruz-Garcia GS, Groeneveld RA, Perez-Marulanda L 2018. The different dimensions of livelihood impacts of Payments For Environmental Services (PES) schemes: a systematic review. Ecol. Econ. 149:160–83
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Börner J, Baylis K, Corbera E, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Honey-Rosés J et al. 2017. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev 96:359–74
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Börner J, Marinho E, Wunder S 2015. Mixing carrots and sticks to conserve forests in the Brazilian Amazon: a spatial probabilistic modeling approach. PLOS ONE 10:2e0116846
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Börner J, Schulz D, Wunder S, Pfaff A 2020. The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12:45–64
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Börner J, Vosti SA. 2013. Managing tropical forest ecosystem services: an overview of options. Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services R Muradian, L Rival 21–46 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Börner J, Wunder S, Reimer F, Bakkegaard RK, Viana V et al. 2013. Promoting Forest Stewardship in the Bolsa Floresta Programme: Local Livelihood Strategies and Preliminary Impacts Rio de Janeiro/Manaus/Bonn: CIFOR/FAS/ZEF
  20. Bösch M, Elsasser P, Wunder S 2019. Why do payments for watershed services emerge? A cross-country analysis of adoption contexts. World Dev 119:111–19
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bottazzi P, Wiik E, Crespo D, Jones JPG 2018. Payment for environmental “self-service”: exploring the links between farmers' motivation and additionality in a conservation incentive programme in the Bolivian Andes. Ecol. Econ. 150:11–23
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Bouma JA, Verbraak M, Dietz F, Brouwer R 2019. Policy mix: mess or merit. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 8:132–47
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Brouwer R, Tesfaye A, Pauw P 2011. Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environ. Conserv. 38:4380–92
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bulte E, Lipper L, Stringer R, Zilberman D 2008. Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives. Environ. Dev. Econ. 13:3245–54
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Burke PJ. 2016. Undermined by adverse selection: Australia's direct action abatement subsidies. Econ. Pap. 35:3216–29
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Busch J, Ferretti-Gallon K, Engelmann J, Wright M, Austin KG et al. 2015. Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia's moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. PNAS 112:1328–33
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Busch J, Mukherjee A. 2018. Encouraging state governments to protect and restore forests using ecological fiscal transfers: India's tax revenue distribution reform. Conserv. Lett. 11:2e12416
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Carwardine J, O'Connor T, Legge S, Mackey B, Possingham HP, Martin TG 2012. Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Lett. 5:3196–204
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily DC 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLOS Biol 4:112138–52
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Chervier C, Le Velly G, Ezzine-de-Blas D 2019. When the implementation of payments for biodiversity conservation leads to motivation crowding-out: a case study from the Cardamoms forests, Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 156:499–510
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Claassen R, Cattaneo A, Johansson R 2008. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 65:4737–52
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Clements T, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2015. Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia. Conserv. Biol. 29:178–87
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Clements T, Rainey H, An D, Rours V, Tan S et al. 2013. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a direct payment for biodiversity conservation: the Bird Nest Protection Program in the northern plains of Cambodia. Biol. Conserv. 157:50–59
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Coase RH. 1960. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3:1–44
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Costedoat S, Corbera E, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Honey-Rosés J, Baylis K et al. 2015. How effective are biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico. PLOS ONE 10:3e0119881
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Costedoat S, Koetse M, Corbera E, Ezzine-de-Blas D 2016. Cash only? Unveiling preferences for a PES contract through a choice experiment in Chiapas, Mexico. Land Use Policy 58:302–17
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psych. Bull. 125:627–68
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Dedeurwaerdere T, Admiraal J, Beringer A, Bonaiuto F, Cicero L et al. 2016. Combining internal and external motivations in multi-actor governance arrangements for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 58:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Engel S. 2016. The devil in the detail: a practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 9:1–2179–207
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65:4663–74
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ezzine-de-Blas D, Corbera E, Lapeyre R 2019. Payments for environmental services and motivation crowding: towards a conceptual framework. Ecol. Econ. 156:434–43
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ezzine-de-Blas D, Wunder S, Ruiz-Pérez M, Moreno-Sanchez RDP et al. 2016. Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLOS ONE 11:3e0149847
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Farley J, Aquino A, Daniels A, Moulaert A, Lee D, Krause A 2010. Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69:112075–84
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Farley J, Costanza R. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol. Econ. 69:112060–68
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ferraro PJ. 2001. Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conserv. Biol. 15:4990–1000
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ferraro PJ. 2008. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 65:4810–21
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ferraro PJ. 2011. The future of payments for environmental services. Conserv. Biol. 25:61134–38
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ferraro PJ. 2018. Are payments for ecosystem services benefiting ecosystems and people?. Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma P Kareiva, M Marvier, B Silliman 159–66 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ferraro PJ, Kiss A. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298:55991718–19
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLOS Biol 4:e105
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ferraro PJ, Simpson D. 2002. The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Econ 78:3339–53
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Fleming DA. 2010. Slippage effects of the conservation reserve program: new evidence from satellite imagery Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, July 25–27 Denver, CO:
  53. Fooks JR, Higgins N, Messer KD, Duke JM, Hellerstein D, Lynch L 2016. Conserving spatially explicit benefits in ecosystem service markets: experimental tests of network bonuses and spatial targeting. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 98:2468–88
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Fooks JR, Messer KD, Duke JM 2015. Dynamic entry, reverse auctions, and the purchase of environmental services. Land Econ 91:157–75
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Frey BS. 1994. How intrinsic motivation is crowded out and. Ration. Soc. 6:334–52
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Fu G, Uchida E, Shah M, Deng X 2019. Impact of the Grain for Green program on forest cover in China. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 8:3231–49
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Geist HJ, Lambin EF. 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation: tropical forests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations. BioScience 52:2143–50
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Giudice R, Börner J, Wunder S, Cisneros E 2019. Selection biases and spillovers from collective conservation incentives in the Peruvian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:4045004
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gneezy U, Rustichini A. 2000. Pay enough or don't pay at all. Q. J. Econ. 115:791–810
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Grieg-Gran M. 2000. Fiscal incentives for biodiversity conservation: the ICMS Ecológico in Brazil EEP Discuss. Pap. DP 00-01, Environ. Econ. Prog., Int. Inst. Environ. Dev London: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/66990/2489_Grieg_Gran2000_Financial_incentives_ICMS.pdf?sequence=1
  61. Grillos T, Bottazzi P, Crespo D, Asquith N, Jones JPG 2019. In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: a randomized trial in Bolivia. Ecol. Econ. 166:106404
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hahn RW, Stavins RN. 1992. Economic incentives for environmental protection: integrating theory and practice. Am. Econ. Rev. 82:2464–68
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hart R, Latacz-Lohmann U. 2005. Combating moral hazard in agri-environmental schemes: a multiple-agent approach. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 32:175–91
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Honey-Rosés J, Baylis K, Ramírez MI 2011. A spatially explicit estimate of avoided forest loss. Conserv. Biol. 25:51032–43
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Honey-Rosés J, Lopez-Garcia J, Rendon-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. 36:2120–28
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KRE 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. PNAS 105:289465–70
    [Google Scholar]
  67. James N, Sills E. 2019. Payments for ecosystem services: program design and participation. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.580
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Jayachandran S, de Laat J, Lambin EF, Stanton CY, Audy R, Thomas NE 2017. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357:6348267–73
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Jones KW, Holland MB, Naughton-Treves L, Morales M, Suárez L, Keenan K 2017. Forest conservation incentives and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Environ. Conserv. 44:156–65
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kay K. 2016. Breaking the bundle of rights: conservation easements and the legal geographies of individuating nature. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 48:3504–22
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kerr JM, Vardhan M, Jindal R 2014. Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services. Intern. J. Comm. 8:2595–616
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Khalumba M, Wünscher T, Wunder S, Büdenbender M, Holm-Müller K 2014. Combining auctions and performance-based payments in a forest enrichment field trial in western Kenya. Conserv. Biol. 28:3861–66
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kosoy N, Corbera E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 69:61228–36
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Landell-Mills N, Porras IT. 2002. Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor Rep., Int. Inst. Environ. Dev London:
  75. Le Velly G, Sauquet A, Cortina-Villar S 2017. PES impact and leakages over several cohorts: the case of the PSA-H in Yucatan, Mexico. Land Econ 93:2230–57
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Locatelli B, Imbach P, Wunder S 2014. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Environ. Conserv. 41:127–36
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 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
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Mauerhofer V, Hubacek K, Coleby A 2013. From polluter pays to provider gets: distribution of rights and costs under payments for ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 18:441
    [Google Scholar]
  79. McDaniel PR, Repetti RR. 1993. Horizontal and vertical equity: the Musgrave/Kaplow Exchange. Florida Tax Rev 1:10607–17
    [Google Scholar]
  80. McGrath FL, Carrasco LR, Leimona B 2017. How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity. Ecosyst. Serv. 25:44–55
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Mohebalian PM, Aguilar FX. 2016. Additionality and design of forest conservation programs: insights from Ecuador's Socio Bosque Program. For. Policy Econ. 71:103–14
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Mohebalian PM, Aguilar FX. 2018. Beneath the canopy: tropical forests enrolled in conservation payments reveal evidence of less degradation. Ecol. Econ. 143:64–73
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Montoya-Zumaeta JG, Rojas E, Wunder S 2019. Adding rewards to regulation: the impacts of watershed conservation on land cover and household wellbeing in Moyobamba, Peru. PLOS ONE 14:e0225367
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Muñoz-Piña C, Guevara Sangines A, Torres-Rojo JM, Braña J 2008. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol. Econ. 65:4725–36
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Muradian R, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, Adaman F, Aguilar B et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 6:4274–79
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Naeem S, Ingram JC, Varga A, Agardy T, Barten P et al. 2015. Get the science right when paying for nature's services. Science 347:62271206–7
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Narloch U. 2011. Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services: how to make incentive mechanisms work for conservation PhD Thesis, Univ Cambridge, UK:
  88. Narloch U, Pascual U, Drucker AG 2012. Collective action dynamics under external rewards: experimental insights from Andean farming communities. World Dev 40:102096–107
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Oliveira Fiorini AC, Mullally C, Swisher M, Putz FE 2020. Forest cover effects of payments for ecosystem services: evidence from an impact evaluation in Brazil. Ecol. Econ. 169:106522
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Pagiola S. 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 65:4712–24
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G 2005. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date. World Dev 33:2237–53
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Pagiola S, Honey-Rosés J, Freire-González J 2016. Evaluation of the permanence of land use change induced by payments for environmental services in Quindío, Colombia. PLOS ONE 11:3e0147829
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Pagiola S, Honey-Rosés J, Freire-González J 2017. Assessing the permanence of land use change induced by payments for environmental services: evidence from Nicaragua PES Learning Pap. 2017–1, World Bank Washington, DC:
  94. Pagiola S, Platais G. 2002. Payments for environmental services Environ. Strat. Notes 3, Environ. Dep., World Bank Washington, DC:
  95. Pagiola S, Platais G, Sossai M 2019. Protecting natural water infrastructure in Espírito Santo, Brazil. Water Econ. Policy 5:41850027
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Pascual U, Muradian R, Rodríguez LC, Duraiappah A 2010. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 69:61237–44
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E et al. 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64:111027–36
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ 2010. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4:2254–74
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Persson MU, Alpízar F. 2013. Conditional cash transfers and payments for environmental services—a conceptual framework for explaining and judging differences in outcomes. World Dev 43:124–37
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Pfaff A, Robalino J. 2017. Spillovers from conservation programs. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9:299–315
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Polasky S, Lewis DJ, Plantinga AJ, Nelson E 2014. Implementing the optimal provision of ecosystem services. PNAS 111:176248–53
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Porras I, Chacón-Cascante A, Robalino J, Oosterhuis F PES and other economic beasts: assessing PES within a policy mix in conservation Presented at the 9th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics June 14–17, Istanbul
  103. Ramirez-Reyes C, Sims KRE, Potapov P, Radeloff VC 2018. Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico reduce forest fragmentation. Ecol. Appl. Ecol. Soc. Am. 28:81982–97
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Ring I, Barton DN. 2015. Economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem governance. Handbook of Ecological Economics, J Martinez‐Alier, R Muradian 413–49 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Robalino J, Pfaff A. 2013. Ecopayments and deforestation in Costa Rica: a nationwide analysis of PSA's initial years. Land Econ 89:3432–48
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Robalino J, Sandoval C, Barton DN, Chacon A, Pfaff A 2015. Evaluating interactions of forest conservation policies on avoided deforestation. PLOS ONE 10:4e0124910
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Rode J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Krause T 2015. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol. Econ. 117:270–82
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Rosa da Conceição H, Börner J, Wunder S 2015. Why were upscaled incentive programs for forest conservation adopted? Comparing policy choices in Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru. Ecosyst. Serv. 16:243–52
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Rosa da Conceição H, Börner J, Wunder S 2018. REDD+ as a public policy dilemma: understanding conflict and cooperation in the design of conservation incentives. Forests 9:11725
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Ruggiero PGC, Metzger JP, Tambosi LR, Nichols E 2019. Payment for ecosystem services programs in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: effective but not enough. Land Use Policy 82:283–91
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Salzman J, Bennett G, Carroll N, Goldstein A, Jenkins M 2018. The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nat. Sustain. 1:3136–44
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Samii C, Lisiecki M, Kulkarni P, Paler L, Chavis L et al. 2015. Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low- and middle-income countries Rep., Campbell Collab Oslo:
  113. Sattler C, Trampnau S, Schomers S, Meyer C, Matzdorf B 2013. Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success. Ecosyst. Serv. 6:31–45
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Schlager E, Ostrom E. 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Econ 68:3249–62
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Sills EO, Atmadja SS, de Sassi C, Duchelle AE, Kweka DL et al. 2014. REDD+ on the Ground: A Case Book of Subnational Initiatives Across the Globe Bogor: CIFOR
  116. Simonet G, Subervie J, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Cromberg M, Duchelle AE 2018. Effectiveness of a REDD+ project in reducing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101:1211–29
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Simpson R, Sedjo RA. 1996. Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: a comparison of direct and indirect approaches. Environ. Dev. Econ. 1:241–57
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Sims KRE, Alix-Garcia JM. 2017. Parks versus PES: evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86:8–28
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Snilsveit B, Stevenson J, Langer L, da Silva N, Rabat Z et al. 2019. Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector—the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-method systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 15:3e1045
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Sohngen B, Brown S. 2004. Measuring leakage from carbon projects in open economies: a stop timber harvesting project in Bolivia as a case study. Can. J. For. Res. 34:829–39
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Suyanto S. 2007. Lessons on the conditional tenure and RiverCare schemes in Sumberjaya, Indonesia: conditionality in payment for environmental service. s. In Insight: Notes from the Field MS Rosander 29–35 Bangkok: RECOFTC
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Tacconi L, Mahanty S, Suich H 2010. Payments for Environmental Services, Forest Conservation and Climate Change: Livelihoods in the REDD? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  123. Vaissiere AC, Quetier F, Calvet C, Levrel H, Wunder S 2020. Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: clarifying the family ties. Ecol. Econ. 169:106428
    [Google Scholar]
  124. van der Ven H, Cashore B 2018. Forest certification: the challenge of measuring impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32:104–11
    [Google Scholar]
  125. van Hecken G, Merlet P, Lindtner M, Bastiaensen J 2019. Can financial incentives change farmers' motivations? An agrarian system approach to development pathways at the Nicaraguan agricultural frontier. Ecol. Econ. 156:519–29
    [Google Scholar]
  126. van Noordwijk M, Leimona B, Jindal R, Villamor GB, Vardhan M et al. 2012. Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37:389–420
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Vatn A. 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69:61245–52
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Vollan B. 2008. Socio-ecological explanations for crowding-out effects from economic field experiments in southern Africa. Ecol. Econ. 67:560–73
    [Google Scholar]
  129. von Thaden J, Manson RH, Congalton RG, López-Barrera F, Salcone J 2019. A regional evaluation of the effectiveness of Mexico's payments for hydrological services. Reg. Environ. Change 19:61751–64
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Weiss CH. 1997. How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway. Eval. Rev. 21:4501–24
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Angelsen A. 2009. Global and national REDD+ architecture: Linking institutions and actions. Realizing REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options A Angelsen 13–24 Bogor, Indones.: CIFOR
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Whitten SM, Wünscher T, Shogren JF 2017. Conservation tenders in developed and developing countries—status quo, challenges and prospects. Land Use Policy 63:552–60
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Wiik E, d'Annunzio R, Pynegar E, Crespo D, Asquith N, Jones JPG 2019. Experimental evaluation of the impact of a payment for environmental services program on deforestation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1:2e8
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Wittenmyer G, Elsen P, Bean WT, Burton C, Brashares JS 2008. Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Science 321:5885123–26
    [Google Scholar]
  135. World Bank 2018. Evaluating the permanence of forest conservation following the end of payments for environmental services in Uganda Rep. AUS0000379 World Bank Washington, DC:
  136. Wu J. 2000. Slippage effects of the Conservation Reserve Program. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 82:979–92
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Wunder S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts Occas. Pap. 42, CIFOR, Bogor, Indones .
  138. Wunder S. 2008. How do we deal with leakage?. Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications A Angelsen 65–76 Bogor, Indones: CIFOR
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Wunder S. 2013. When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conserv. Lett. 6:230–37
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Wunder S. 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 117:234–43
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Wunder S, Albán M. 2008. Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecol. Econ. 65:4685–98
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Wunder S, Brouwer R, Engel S, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Muradian R et al. 2018. From principles to practice in paying for nature's services. Nat. Sustain. 1:3145–50
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Wunder S, Campbell B, Frost PGH, Iwan R, Sayer JA, Wollenberg L 2008a. When donors get cold feet: the community conservation concession in Setulang (Kalimantan, Indonesia) that never happened. Ecol. Soc. 13:112
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S 2008b. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 65:834–52
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Wünscher T, Engel S, Wunder S 2008. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Econ. 65:822–33
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Wünscher T, Wunder S. 2017. Conservation tenders in low-income countries: opportunities and challenges. Land Use Policy 63:672–78
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Zilberman D, Lipper L, McCarthy N 2008. When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor. Environ. Dev. Econ. 13:3255–78
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094206
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094206
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error