Intermediary roles and payments for ecosystem services: A typology and program feasibility application in Panama

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 6, Issue , 2013, Pages 104-116

  Huber Stearns, Heidi R ^a   Goldstein, Joshua H ^a,b   Duke, Esther A ^a  

^a Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability   (United States)

^b THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Actors; Enabling conditions; Institutional context; Organizational capacity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890129567     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.006     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Agrawal A. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development 2001, 29:1649-1672.
2. Balvanera P., Uriarte M., Almeida-Leñero L., Altesor A., DeClerck F., Gardner T., Hall J., et al. Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosystem Services 2012, 2:56-70.
3. Bracer, C., Scherr, S., Molnar, A., Sekher, M., Ochieng, B.O., Sriskanthan, G., 2007. Organization and Governance for Fostering Pro-Poor Compensation for Environmental Services: CES Scoping Study Issue Paper 4. World Agroforestry Centre ICRAF Working Paper 39.
4. Brouwer R., Tesfaye A, Pauw P. Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environmental Conservation 2011, 38(4):380-392.
5. Report of the International Expert Workshop, 13-16th December 2010 2012, BfN/Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany, (BfN-Skripten 326 at). F. Carius (Ed.).
6. Cash D., Clark W., Alcock F., Dickson N., Eckley N., Guston D., Jager J., Mitchell R. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2003, 100:14.
7. Clark T.W., Ashton M.S., Dixon L. Innovation and appraisal of sustainability efforts in La Amistad, Bocas del Toro, Panama and Talamanca, Costa Rica Region-a synthesis. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2006, 22(1):183.
8. Corbera E., Kososy N., Martinez-Tuna M. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso America. Global Environmental Change 2007, 17:365-380.
9. Corbera E., Brown K., Adger N. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystems services. Development and Change 2007, 38(4):587-613.
10. Corbera E., Gonzales Soberanis C., Brown.K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programmes. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:743-761.
11. Daniels A., Bagstad K., Esposito V., Moulaert A., Rodriguez C. Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica's PES: are we asking the right questions?. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:2116-2126.
12. Duke E. Informing the Design and Governance of a Pro-Poor Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in Western Panama 2010, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
13. 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.
14. Glesne C. Becoming Qualitative Researchers 2011, Pearson Education, Inc., Boston, MA. 4th edition.
15. Howells J. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 2006, 35:715-728.
16. Jack B.K., Kousky C., Sims K. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008, 150(28):9465-9470.
17. Kemkes R., Farley J., Koliba C. Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:2069-2074.
18. Leimona, B., Lee, E., 2008. Pro-Poor Payment for Environmental Services: Some Considerations. January Brief. World Agroforestry Centre, and Bangkok, Thailand. Regional Community Forestry Training Centre, Indonesia.
19. Locatelli B., Rojas V., Salinas Z. Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica: a fuzzy multi-criteria analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 2008, 10:275-285.
20. Mike H., Simon M. Research Note 1: Glossary of Intermediaries 2008, University of Salford, SURF Centre, Salford, UK.
21. Milder J., Scherr S., Bracer C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 2010, 15(2):4.
22. Moss T. Intermediaries and the governance of sociotechnical networks in transition. Environment and Planning 2009, 41:1480-1495.
23. Moss T., Medd W., Guy S., Marvin S. Organizing water: the hidden role of intermediary work. Water Alternatives 2009, 2(1):16-33.
24. Muñoz Escobar M., Hollaender R., Pineda Weffer C. Institutional durability of payments for watershed ecosystem services: lessons from two case studies from Columbia and Germany. Ecosystem Serv. 2013, 6:104-116.
25. Muradian R, Arsel M., Pellegrini L., Adaman F., Aguliar B., Agrawal B., Corbera E., et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters 2013, 6(4):274-279.
26. Oestreicher J., Benessiah K., Ruiz-Jaen M., Sloan S., Turner K., Pelletier J., Guay B., Clark K., Roche D., Meiners M., Potvin C. Avoiding deforestation in Panamanian protected areas: an analysis of protection effectiveness and implications for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Global Environmental Change 2009, 19:279-291.
27. Ostrom, E., 1999. Self-Governance and Forest Resources. CIFOR Occasional Paper no. 20, pp. 1-11.
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(2):237-253.
29. Pascual U., Muradian R., Rodríguez L., Duraiappah A. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1237-1244.
30. Patton M. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods 2002, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 3rd ed.
31. Peskett L., Schreckenberg K., Brown J. Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the forest sector: learning lessons for REDD+ from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environmental Science and Policy 2011, 14:216-229.
32. Pham T.T., Campbell B., Garnett S., Aslin H., Hoang M.H. Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environmental Conservation 2010, 37(1):64-72.
33. Redford K., Adams W. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology 2009, 23(4):785-787.
34. Rosa H., Kandel S., Dimas L. Compensation for environmental services and rural communities: lessons from the Americas. International Forestry Review 2004, 6(2):187-194.
35. Sternlieb F., Bixler R.P., Huber-Stearns H., Huayhuaca C. A question of fit: reflections on boundaries, organizations, and social-ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Management 2013, 130:117-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.053.
36. Swallow B., Kallesoe M., Iftikar U., van Noordwijk M., Bracer C., Scheer S., Raju K., Poats S., Duraiappah A., Ochieng B., Mallee H., Rumley R. Compensation and rewards for environmental services in the developing world: framing pan-tropical analysis and comparison. Ecology and Society 2009, 14(2):26.
37. Tacconi L. Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 2012, 73:29-36.
38. The Nature Conservancy Amistad Biosphere Reserve, Costa Rica and Panama: Parks in Peril End of Project Report 2007, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
39. van Noordwijk M., Leimona B. Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia: payments, compensation, or co-investment?. Ecology and Society 2010, 15(4):17.
40. van Noordwijk, M., Leimona, B., Emerton, L., Tomich, T., Velarde, S., Kallesoe, M., Sekher, M., Swallow, B., 2007. Criteria and Indicators for Environmental Service Compensation and Reward Mechanisms: Realistic, Voluntary, Conditional And Pro-Poor. CES Scoping Study Issue Paper no. 2. ICRAF Working Paper, 37. World Agroforestry Centre. Nairobi, Kenya.
41. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1245-1252.
42. Wunder S. Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics?. Ecology and Society 2006, 11(2):23.
43. Wunder S. Between Purity and Reality: Taking Stock of PES Schemes in the Andes. In Ecosystem Marketplace. Integrated Solutions: Water Biodiversity and the Clean Development Mechanism. EM Market Insights: Beyond Carbon 2009, 1-40. The Katoomba Group, Forest Trends and Ecosystem Marketplace.