Paying for environmental services: Determining recognized participation under common property in a peri-urban context

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 38, Issue , 2014, Pages 46-55

  Neitzel, K Christoph ^a   Caro Borrero, Angela Piedad ^a   Revollo Fernandez, Daniel ^a   Aguilar Ibarra, Alonso ^a   Ramos, Alya ^a   Almeida Leñero, Lucia ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Common property; Hydrological services; Paying for environmental services; Peri urban context

Indexed keywords

COLLECTIVE PROPERTIES; COMMON PROPERTY; ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; HYDROLOGICAL SERVICES; INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT; PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; PERI-URBAN CONTEXT; VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION;

ECONOMICS;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84888053633     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Adesina A., Chianu J. Determinants of farmers' adoption and adaptation of alley farming technology in Nigeria. Agroforestry Systems 2002, 55(2):99-112.
2. Adesina A.A., Mbila D., Nkamleu G.B., Endamana D. Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2000, 80(3):255-265.
3. Alix-García J.M., Shapiro E.N., Sims K.R.E. The environmental effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: preliminary lessons for REDD, Land Tenure Center Brief 11 2010, University of Wisconsin.
4. Arnold J.E.M. Policy issues related to the role of trees in rural income and welfare security. Priorities for Forestry and Agroforestry Policy Research: Report of an International Workshop 1992, 15-31. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. H. Gregersen, P. Oram, J. Spears (Eds.).
5. Asquith N.M., Wunder S. Pagos por servicios hídricos: las conversaciones de Bellagio 2009, Fundación Natura Bolivia, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.
6. 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(4):675-684.
7. Ayuk E.T. Adoption of agroforestry technology: the case of live hedges in the central plateau of Burkina Faso. Agricultural Systems 1997, 54(2):189-206.
8. World Bank World development indicators - Mexico: life expectancy at birth, total (years) Online, retrieved January 28th, 2013. http://data.worldbank.org/country/mexico.
9. Bennett M.T. China's sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual?. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):699-711.
10. Bergen V., Löwenstein W., Olschewski R. Forstökonomie - Volkswirtschaftliche Grundlagen 2002, Vahlen.
11. Bolund P., Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 1999, 29(2):293-301.
12. Bray D.B., Merino Pérez L. La experiencia de las comunidades forestales en México - Veinticinco años de silvicultura y construcción de empresas forestales comunitarias 2004, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible A.C., Fundación Ford. 1 ed.
13. Bray D.B., Merino-Pérez L. The Rise of Community Forestry in Mexico: History, Concepts, and Lessons Learned from Twenty-Five Years of Community Timber Production. A Report in Partial Fulfillment of a Grant from the Ford Foundation 2002, The Ford Foundation.
14. Chambers R., Conway G.R. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296 1992, Institute of Development Studies.
15. Chambers R.G., Foster W.E. Participation in the farmer-owned reserve program: a discrete choice model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1983, 65(1):120-124.
16. Claassen R., Cattaneo A., Johansson R. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):737-752.
17. Corbera E., Brown K. Building institutions to trade ecosystem services: marketing forest carbon in Mexico. World Development 2008, 36(10):1956-1979.
18. 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(3):743-761.
19. Coulibaly-Lingani P., Savadogo P., Tigabu M., Oden P.-C. Factors influencing people's participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Forest Policy and Economics 2011, 13(4):292-302.
20. Delegación Magdalena Contreras D.F. Geomorfología e Hidrología 2012.
21. DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, Guidance Sheets 1-7 1999, Department for International Development.
22. Dobbs T.L., Pretty J. Case study of agri-environmental payments: the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):765-775.
23. Echeverría J. Guía Práctica para el Establecimiento de Esquemas de Pago por Servicios Ambientales y otros Instrumentos Económicos para la Gestión del Riesgo en las Cuencas Hidrográficas PREVDA, Programa Regional de Reducción de la Vulnerabilidad y Degradación Ambiental (PREVDA) 2010, Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana Ambiental (SICA).
24. Eguiarte F.A., Cruz U.F., Ramírez del Razo I., Apolinar B.d.J., Márquez V.A. Evaluación del avance de la mancha urbana sobre el área natural protegida de la Cañada de los Dinamos. Gaceta Ecológica - INE (Instituto Nacional de Ecología) 2002, 1(62):55-67.
25. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):663-674.
26. Ferraro P.J. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):810-821.
27. Godoy R.A. Determinants of smallholder commercial tree cultivation. World Development 1992, 20(5):713-725.
28. Grieg-Gran M., Porras I., Wunder S. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 2005, 33(9):1511-1527.
29. Gutman P. Ecosystem services: foundations for a new rural-urban compact. Ecological Economics 2007, 62(3-4):383-387.
30. Hosier R.H. The economics of smallholder agroforestry: two case studies. World Development 1989, 17(11):1827-1839.
31. Huang S.-L., Chen Y.-H., Kuo F.-Y., Wang S.-H. Emergy-based evaluation of peri-urban ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity 2011, 8(1):38-50.
32. Hyman E.L. Pulpwood treefarming in the Philippines from the viewpoint of the smallholder: an ex post evaluation of the PICOP project. Agricultural Administration 1983, 14(1):23-49.
33. Ibarra Gené E. The profitability of forest protection versus logging and the role of payments for environmental services (PES) in the Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, Costa Rica. Forest Policy and Economics 2007, 10(1-2):7-13.
34. IG-UNAM Reporte de investigación para el Diagnóstico sectorial de la cuenca del río Magdalena: Componente 7 Socioeconómica. Plan Maestro de Manejo Integral y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Cuenca del río Magdalena, México 2008, Instituto de Geografía - Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. SMA-GDF, UNAM (Eds.).
35. Illukpitiya P. Technical Efficiency in Agriculture and Dependency on Forest Resources: An Economic Analysis of Rural Households and the Conservation of Natural Forests in Sri Lanka, Technical Paper 2005, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) and International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
36. Jujnovsky J., Almeida-Leñero L., Bojorge-García M., Monges Y.L., Cantoral-Uriza E., Mazari-Hiriart M. Hydrologic ecosystem services: water quality and quantity in the Magdalena River, Mexico City. Hidrobiológica 2010, 20(2):113-126.
37. Kelley K., Clark B., Brown V., Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2003, 15(3):261-266.
38. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 2008, 39(6):2073-2083.
39. Landell-Mills N., Porras I.T. Silver Bullet or Fools' Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor. Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry 2002, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.
40. Long J.S., Freese J. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata 2006, Stata Press. 2nd edition.
41. Martínez R. Guía conceptual y metodológica para el diseño de esquemas de pagos por servicios ambientales en latino América y el Caribe, Documento Borrador 2008, Departamento de Desarrollo Sostenible (DDS) y Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), Washington DC.
42. Mayrand K., Paquin M. Pago por servicios ambientales: Estudio y evaluación de esquemas vigentes, Report 2004, Unisféra - Centre Internacional Centre, Montreal.
43. Mortensen T.L., Leistritz F.L., Leitch J.A., Ekstrom B.L. A Baseline Analysis of Participants in the Conservation Reserve Program in North Dakota, Agricultural Economics Miscellaneous Reports 119548 1988, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
44. 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(4):725-736.
45. Murillo-Hernández R. El Programa de Pago de Servicios Ambientales y su aplicación en un núcleo agrario con manejo comunitario del bosque 2008, Facultad de Economía. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México, D.F., (PhD thesis).
46. Nagubadi V., McNamara K.T., Hoover W.L., Mills W.L.J. Program participation behavior of nonindustrial forest landowners: a probit analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 1996, 28(2):323-336.
47. Neupane R.P., Sharma K.R., Thapa G.B. Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. Agricultural Systems 2002, 72(3):177-196.
48. Niemelä J., Saarela S.-R., Söderman T., Kopperoinen L., Yli-Pelkonen V., Väre S., Kotze D.J. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation 2010, 19(11):3225-3243.
49. Nowak P.J. The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociology 1987, 52(2):208-220.
50. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):712-724.
51. 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(2):237-253.
52. Pérez Campuzano E., Perevochtchikova M., Ávila Foucat V.S. Suelo de Conservación del Distrito Federal - ¿hacia una gestión y manejo sustentable? 2011, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México DF. 1st ed.
53. PMRM Plan Maestro Río Magdalena - Plan Maestro de Manejo Integral y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Cuenca del Río Magdalena del Distrito Federal, Diagnóstico integral 2008, Gobierno del Distrito Federal - Secretaría del Medio Ambiente (GCF-SMA) y Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México DF.
54. Rahm M.R., Huffman W.E. The adoption of reduced tillage: the role of human capital and other variables. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66(4):405-413.
55. Ramos A. Propuesta de reclasificación y zonificación participativa de la Zona Protectora Forestal Cañada de Contreras, Distrito Federal, México 2008, Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), México DF, (Master's thesis).
56. Rico García-Amado L., Ruíz-Pérez M., Reyes-Escutia F., Barrasca-García S., Contreras-Mejía E. Efficiency of payments for environmental services: equity and additionality in a case study from a biosphere reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics 2013, 70(12):2361-2368.
57. Robertson N., Wunder S. Huellas frescas en el bosque. Evaluación de iniciativas incipientes de pagos por servicios ambientales en Bolivia 2005, Center for International Forest Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
58. Scherr S.J. Not out of the woods yet: challenges for economic research on agroforestry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1992, 74(3):802-808.
59. Schteingart M., Salazar C.E. Expansión urbana, sociedad y ambiente. El caso de la Ciudad de México 2005, El Colegio de México, México DF. 1st ed.
60. Schuck E.C., Nganje W., Yantio D. The role of land tenure and extension education in the adoption of slash and burn agriculture. Ecological Economics 2002, 43(1):61-70.
61. Smith T.M.F. On the validity of inferences from non-random sample. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1983, 146(4):394-403.
62. Speranza C.I.I., van de Sand I. Can the rural economy deliver ecosystem services?. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science Nutrition and Natural Resources 2010, 5(031):1-16.
63. Teklewold H., Köhlin G. Risk preferences as determinants of soil conservation decisions in Ethiopia. Discussion Paper Series EfD DP 10-19 2010, Environment for Development (EfD).
64. Thacher T., Lee D., Schelhas J. Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 1996, 35(3):269-289.
65. Tognetti S.S., Mendoza G., Aylward B., Southgate D., Garcia L. Guía para el desarrollo de opciones de pago por servicios ambientales (PSA) de las cuencas hidrológicas, Technical Report 2004, Departamento de Ambiente del Banco Mundial y Bank-Netherlands Watershed Partnership Program, Washington DC.
66. Warman A. El campo mexicano en el siglo XX 2001, Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE).
67. Wossink G.A.A., van Wenum J.H. Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual land contingent participation. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2003, 30(4):461-485.
68. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts, Occasional Paper 42 2005, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
69. Wunder S. Necessary Conditions for Ecosystem Service Payments, Economics and Conservation in the Tropics: A Strategic Dialogue 2008.
70. Wunder S., Albán M. Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):685-698.
71. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):834-852.
72. Zbinden S., Lee D.R. Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica's PSA Program. World Development 2005, 33(2):255-272.