Consequences of actor level livelihood heterogeneity for additionality in a tropical forest payment for environmental services programme with an undifferentiated reward structure

Global Environmental Change

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 127-136

  Newton, Peter ^a   Nichols, Elizabeth S ^b   Endo, Whaldener ^c   Peres, Carlos A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^c NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Amazonia; Bolsa Floresta; Differentiated payment structure; Livelihoods; Opportunity cost; Payments for environmental services; Tropical forest

Indexed keywords

CARBON SEQUESTRATION; DEFORESTATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; FOREST CLEARANCE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HETEROGENEITY; HOUSEHOLD INCOME; HYDROLOGICAL REGIME; INCENTIVE; INCOME DISTRIBUTION; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY; TROPICAL FOREST; VOLUNTARY APPROACH;

AMAZONIA;

MANIHOT ESCULENTA;

EID: 84855989108     PISSN: 09593780     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.006     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Asquith N.M., Vargas M.T., Wunder S. Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:675-684.
2. Boyd J., Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:616-626.
3. Chen X.D., Lupi F., He G.M., Liu J.G. Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2009, 106:11812-11817.
4. Chen X.D., Lupi F., Vina A., He G.M., Liu J.G. Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conservation Biology 2010, 24:1469-1478.
5. Chhatre A., Agrawal A. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2009, 106:17667-17670.
6. Corbera E., Soberanis C.G., Brown K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:743-761.
7. de Koning F., Aguiòaga M., Bravo M., Chiu M., Lascano M., Lozada T., Suarez L. Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environmental Science & Policy 2011, 14:531-542.
8. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:663-674.
9. Farley J., Costanza R. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:2060-2068.
10. FAS, 2011. Fundação Amazonas Sustentável. (accessed 19.05.11). http://www.fas-amazonas.org/.
11. FAS, 2011. Fundação Amazonas Sustentável: relatório de pesquisa de opinião. (accessed 19.05.11). http://www.fas-amazonas.org/pt/useruploads/files/apresenta%C3%87%C3%83o_resultado_geralx.pdf.
12. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:643-653.
13. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa Espacais (INPE), 2011. Projeto PRODES: monitoramento da floresta Amazônica Brasileira por satélite. (accessed 19.05.11). http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/index.html.
14. Kosoy N., Corbera E. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1228-1236.
15. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 2008, 39:2073-2083.
16. Lee, E., Mahanty, S., 2009. Payments for environmental services and poverty reduction: risks and opportunities. RECOFTC Issues Paper. Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
17. Lindert, K., Linder, A., Hobbs, J., de la Brière, B., 2007. The nuts and bolts of Brazil's Bolsa Família programme: implementing conditional cash transfers in a decentralized context. SP Discussion Paper. The World Bank, Washington.
18. Liu S., Costanza R., Farber S., Troy A. Valuing ecosystem services: theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Ecological Economics Reviews 2010, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 54-78.
19. Long, J., 2010. Making ends meet: conservation and forest dependency in Peru. Student Conference for Conservation Science, Amercian Museum of Natural History. (online) (accessed 30.10.2011). http://symposia.cbc.amnh.org/sccsny-vid/long.php.
20. May P.H., Millikan B. The Context of REDD+ in Brazil: Drivers, Agents and Institutions 2010, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
21. Meijerink G. The role of measurement problems and monitoring in PES schemes. Economics of Poverty, Environment and Natural Resource Use. Wageningen UR Frontis Series No. 25 2008, Springer, Berlin, pp. 61-85. R.B. Dellink, A. Ruijs (Eds.).
22. Milder J.C., Scherr S.J., Bracer C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 2010, 15:2. (online) http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art4/ (accessed: 21.09.11).
23. Muñoz-Piña C., Guevara A., Torres J.M., Braña J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:725-736.
24. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1202-1208.
25. Nelson F., Foley C., Foley L.S., Leposo A., Loure E., Peterson D., Peterson M., Peterson T., Sachedina H., Williams A. Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for community-based conservation in northern Tanzania. Conservation Biology 2010, 24:78-85.
26. Newton, P., Whaldener, E., Peres, C.A. Determinants of livelihood strategy variation in two extractive reserves in Amazonian flooded and unflooded forests. Environmental Conservation, , in press. doi:10.1017/S0376892911000580.
27. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:712-724.
28. Pagiola S., Arcenas A., Platais G. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 2005, 33:237-253.
29. Perrot-Maître D. The Vittel Payments for Ecosystem Services: A " Perfect" PES Case? 2006, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
30. Pham T.T., Campbell B.M., Garnett S. Lessons for pro-poor payments for environmental services: an analysis of projects in Vietnam. The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 2009, 31:117-133.
31. Redford K.H., Adams W.M. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology 2009, 23:785-787.
32. Rudel T.K., Defries R., Asner G.P., Laurance W.F. Changing drivers of deforestation and new opportunities for conservation. Conservation Biology 2009, 23:1396-1405.
33. SDS Plano de gestão da Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel de Uacari. Série Técnica Planos de Gestão 2010, Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentàvel, Carauari.
34. Shelley B.G. What should we call instruments commonly known as payments for environmental services? A review of the literature and a proposal. Ecological Economics Reviews 2011, 209-225. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden. R. Costanza, K. Limburg, I. Kubiszewski (Eds.).
35. Sommerville M., Jones J.P.G., Rahajaharison M., Milner-Gulland E.J. The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: a case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1262-1271.
36. Sommerville M., Milner-Gulland E.J., Rahajaharison M., Jones J.P.G. Impact of a community-based payment for environmental services intervention on forest use in Menabe, Madagascar. Conservation Biology 2010, 24:1488-1498.
37. Sommerville M.M., Jones J.P.G., Milner-Gulland E.J. A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecology and Society 2009, 14:34. (online) http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art34/ (accessed 19.05.11).
38. Takasaki Y., Barham B.L., Coomes O.T. Amazonian peasants, rain forest use, and income generation: the role of wealth and geographical factors. Society and Natural Resources 2001, 14:291-308.
39. 2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience 2009, 2:829.
40. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1245-1252.
41. Viana V. Bolsa Floresta (Forest Conservation Allowance): an innovative mechanism to promote health in traditional communities in the Amazon. Estudos Avançados 2008, 22:64.
42. Viana V. Sustainable Development in Practice: Lessons Learned from Amazonas 2010, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
43. Wunder S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts 2005, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
44. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 2007, 21:48-58.
45. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 2008, 13:279-297.
46. Wunder S., Albán M. Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:685-698.
47. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programmes in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:834-852.
48. Wünscher T., Engel S., Wunder S. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:822-833.