Payments for environmental services and contested neoliberalisation in developing countries: A case study from Vietnam

Journal of Rural Studies

Volumn 36, Issue , 2014, Pages 423-440

  McElwee, Pamela ^a   Nghiem, Tuyen ^b   Le, Hue ^b   Vu, Huong ^b   Tran, Nghi ^c  

^a the State University of New   (United States)

^b VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Viet Nam)

^c Tropenbos International Vietnam ^*  (Viet Nam)

Author keywords

Conservation; Ecosystem services; Forestry; Markets; Neoliberalism; Payments for environmental services

Indexed keywords

DEVELOPING WORLD; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; INCENTIVE; NATURE CONSERVATION; NEOLIBERALISM;

VIET NAM;

EID: 84915764207     PISSN: 07430167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.08.003     Document Type: Article

References (228)

1. Adams W.M., Hodge I.D., Sandbrook L. New spaces for nature: the re-territorialisation of biodiversity conservation under neoliberalism in the UK. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2013, 35:574-588. 10.1111/tran.12050.
2. Adhikari B. Market-based Approaches to Environmental Management: a Review of Lessons from Payment for Environmental Services in Asia 2009, Working Papers, Asian Development Bank Institute, Manila.
3. Adhikari B., Agrawal A. Understanding the social and ecological outcomes of PES projects: a review and an analysis. Conserv. Soc. 2013, 11:359-374.
4. Adhikari B., Boag G. Designing payments for ecosystem services schemes: some considerations. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5:72-77.
5. Ajayi O.C., Jack B.K., Leimona B. Auction design for the private provision of public goods in developing countries: lessons from payments for environmental services in Malawi and Indonesia. World Dev. 2012, 40:1213-1223.
6. Alix-Garcia J.M., Shapiro-Garza E., Sims K. Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico's national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Econ. 2012, 88:613-638.
7. Alston L.J., Andersson K., Smith S.M. Payment for environmental services: hypotheses and evidence. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2013, 5:139-159.
8. Anthias P., Radcliffe S.A. The ethno-environmental fix and its limits: indigenous land titling and the production of not-quite-neoliberal natures in Bolivia. Geoforum 2013, in press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.06.007.
9. ARBCP Alternative livelihoods for improved biodiversity conservation. Presentation at South-east Asia Workshop on Payments for Ecosystem Services: Incentives for Improving Economic Policy, Biodiversity Conservation, and Natural Resource Management Target Performance, Bangkok, Thailand, 29 June-1 July, 2009 2009.
10. Arias M.E., Fairhead J.A., Lawrence K.S., Killeen T.J., Farrell T.A. Paying the forest for electricity: a modelling framework to market forest conservation as payment for ecosystem services benefiting hydropower generation. Environ. Cons. 2011, 38:473-484.
11. Arriagada R.A., Ferraro P.J., Sills E.O., Pattanayak S.K., Cordero-Sancho S. Do payments for environmental services affect forest cover? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Econ. 2012, 88:382-399.
12. Arriagada R.A., Sills E.O., Pattanayak S.K. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate participation in Costa Rica's program of payments for environmental services. J.Sustain. For. 2009, 28:3-5.
13. 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. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:675-684.
14. Awono A., Somorin O.A., Atyi R.E., Levang P. Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: insights from southern Cameroon. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2014, 35:76-86.
15. Bakker K. Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2005, 95:542-565.
16. Bakker K. The limits of "neoliberal natures": debating green neoliberalism. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2010, 34:715-735.
17. Balvanera P., Uriarte M., Almeida-Leñero L., Altesor A., DeClerck F., Gardner T., Hall J., Lara A., Laterra P., Peña-Claros M., Matos D.M.S., Vogl A.L., Romero-Duque L.P., Arreola L.F., Caro-Borrero Á.P., Gallego F., Jain M., Little C., de Oliveira Xavier R., Paruelo J.M., Peinado J.E., Poorter L., Ascarrunz N., Correa F., Cunha-Santino M.B., Hernández-Sánchez A.P., Vallejos M. Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 2:56-70.
18. Baumol W.J., Oates W.E. The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. Swed. J. Econ. 1971, 73:42-54.
19. Bennett G., Carroll N., Hamilton K. Charting New Waters: State of Watershed Payments 2012 2013, Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC.
20. Bennett M.T. China's sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual?. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:699-711.
21. Beymer-Farris B.A., Bassett T.J. The REDD menace: resurgent protectionism in Tanzania's mangrove forests. Glob. Environ. Change 2012, 22:332-341.
22. Blackman A., Woodward R.T. User financing in a national payments for environmental services program: Costa Rican hydropower. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1626-1638.
23. Bond I., Mayers J. Fair Deals for Watershed Services. Natural Resource Issues No 13 2010, IIED, London.
24. Bosselmann A.S., Lund J.F. Do intermediary institutions promote inclusiveness in PES programs? The case of Costa Rica. Geoforum 2013, 49:50-60.
25. Boyd E. The Noel Kempff project in Bolivia: gender, power, and decision-making in climate mitigation. Gend. Dev. 2002, 10:70-77.
26. Boyd E., May P., Chang M., Veiga F.C. Exploring socioeconomic impacts of forest based mitigation projects: lessons from Brazil and Bolivia. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2007, 10:419-433.
27. Börner J., Mendoza A., Vosti S.A. Ecosystem services, agriculture, and rural poverty in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon: interrelationships and policy prescriptions. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64:356-373.
28. Börner J., Wunder S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S., Tito M.R., Pereira L., Nascimento N. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1272-1282.
29. Branca G., Lipper L.K., Neves B., Lopa D., Mwanyoka I. Payments for watershed services supporting sustainable agricultural development in Tanzania. J.Environ. Dev. 2011, 20:278-302.
30. Brauman K.A., Daily G.C., Duarte T.K., Mooney H.A. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007, 32:67-98.
31. Bremer L.L., Farley K.A., López-Carr D. What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? an evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy 2014, 36:122-133.
32. Brenner N., Peck J., Theodore N. Variegated neoliberalization: geographies, modalities, pathways. Glob. Netw. 2010, 10:182-222.
33. Brockington D., Duffy R. Capitalism and conservation: the production and reproduction of biodiversity conservation. Antipode 2010, 42:469-484.
34. Brouwer R., Tesfaye A., Pauw P. Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environ. Cons. 2011, 38:380-392.
35. Bulte E., Lipper L.K., Stringer R., Zilberman D. Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13:245-254.
36. Bumpus A.G. The matter of carbon: understanding the materiality of tCO2e in carbon offsets. Antipode 2011, 43:612-638.
37. Bumpus A.G., Liverman D.M. Accumulation by decarbonization and the governance of carbon offsets. Econ. Geogr. 2008, 84:127-155.
38. Büscher B., Sullivan S., Neves-Graça K., Igoe J., Brockington D. Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capital. Nat. Social. 2012, 23:4-30.
39. Cashore B., Auld G., Newsom D. Forest certification (eco-labeling) programs and their policy-making authority: explaining divergence among North American and European case studies. For. Policy Econ. 2003, 5:225-247.
40. Castree N. Neoliberalism and the biophysical environment: a synthesis and evaluation of the research. Environ. Soc. Adv. Res. 2010, 1:5-45.
41. Chomitz K.M., Brenes E., Constantino L. Financing environmental services: the Costa Rican experience and its implications. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 240:157-169.
42. Clements T., John A., Nielsen K., An D., Tan S., Milner-Gulland E.J. Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1283-1291.
43. Clements T., Rainey H., An D., Rours V., Tan S., Thong S., Sutherland W.J., Milner-Gulland E.J. 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. 2013, 157:50-59.
44. Coase R.H. The problem of social cost. J.Law Econ. 1960, 3:1-44.
45. Corbera E., Brown K. Offsetting benefits? Analyzing access to forest carbon. Environ. Plann. A 2010, 42:1739-1761.
46. Corbera E., Brown K., Adger W.N. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev. Change 2007, 38:587-613.
47. Corbera E., Kosoy N., Tuna M.M. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Glob. Environ. Change 2007, 17:365-380.
48. Corbera E., Soberanis C.G., Brown K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem Services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:743-761.
49. Corson C. Territorialization, enclosure and neoliberalism: non-state influence in struggles over Madagascar's forests. J.Peasant Stud. 2011, 38:703-726.
50. Cupples J. Rural development in El Hatillo, Nicaragua: gender, neoliberalism, and environmental risk. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2004, 25:343-357.
51. Daniels A.E., Bagstad K., Esposito V., Moulaert A., Rodriguez C.M. Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica's PES: are we asking the right questions?. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:2116-2126.
52. de Koning F., Aguiñaga 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. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2011, 14:531-542.
53. Dempsey J., Robertson M.M. Ecosystem services: Tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36:758-779.
54. Derissen S., Latacz-Lohmann U. What are PES? A review of definitions and an extension. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:12-15.
55. Dougill A.J., Stringer L.C., Leventon J., Riddell M., Rueff H., Spracklen D.V., Butt E. Lessons from community-based payment for ecosystem service schemes: from forests to rangelands. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 2012, 367:3178-3190.
56. Duchelle A.E., Cromberg M., Gebara M.F., Guerra R., Melo T., Larson A., Cronkleton P., Börner J., Sills E.O., Wunder S., Bauch S., May P., Selaya G., Sunderlin W.D. Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: lessons from REDD+ initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World Dev. 2014, 55:53-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.014.
57. Ecosystem Marketplace Payments for Ecosystem Services 2008, Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC.
58. Egoh B.N., O'Farrell P.J., Charef A., Gurney L.J., Koellner T., Abi H.N., Egoh M., Willemen L. An African account of ecosystem service provision: use, threats and policy options for sustainable livelihoods. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 2:71-81.
59. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:663-674.
60. Ferraro P.J., Lawlor K., Mullan K.L., Pattanayak S.K. Forest figures: ecosystem services valuation and policy evaluation in developing countries. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2012, 6:20-44.
61. Fletcher R. Using the master's tools? Neoliberal conservation and the evasion of inequality. Dev. Change 2012, 43:295-317.
62. Fletcher R., Breitling J. Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. Geoforum 2012, 43:402-411.
63. FONAFIFO, CONAFOR, Ministry of Environment Lessons Learned for REDD+ from PES and Conservation Incentive Programs 2012, World Bank, Washington DC.
64. Garbach K., Lubell M., DeClerck F.A.J. Payment for ecosystem services: the roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 156:27-36.
65. García-Amado L.R., Pérez M.R., Escutia F.R., García S.B., Mejía E.C. Efficiency of payments for environmental services: equity and additionality in a case study from a biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:2361-2368.
66. Gauvin C., Uchida E., Rozelle S., Xu J., Zhan J. Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services with dual goals of environment and poverty alleviation. Environ. Manag. 2009, 45:488-501.
67. Gene E.I. The profitability of forest protection versus logging and the role of payments for environmental services (PES) in the Reserva Forestal Golfo Dulce, Costa Rica. For. Policy Econ. 2007, 10:7-13.
68. GIZ, MARD SÔ tay Hoi và Dáp vêỳ Chính sách Chi tra Dich vu MÔi tru[U+031B]oỳng Ruỳng [Handbook of Questions and Answers on Payments for Forest Environmental Services] 2012, GIZ and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi.
69. Goldman-Benner R.L., Benitez S., Boucher T., Calvache A., Daily G., Kareiva P., Kroeger T., Ramos A. Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx 2012, 46:55-63.
70. Gong Y., Bull G., Baylis K. Participation in the world's first clean development mechanism forest project: the role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1292-1302.
71. Gómez-Baggethun E., Barton D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86:235-245.
72. Gómez-Baggethun E., De Groot R., Lomas P.L. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1209-1218.
73. Greiner R., Stanley O. More than money for conservation: exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:4-10.
74. Grieg-Gran M., Porras I., Wunder S. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Dev. 2005, 33:1511-1527.
75. Gross-Camp N.D., Martin A., McGuire S., Kebede B., Munyarukaza J. Payments for ecosystem services in an African protected area: exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and effectiveness. Oryx 2012, 46:24-33.
76. Gueorguieva A., Bolt K. ACritical Review of the Literature on Structural Adjustment and the Environment. Environmental Economics Series 2003, World Bank, Washington DC.
77. Guthman J. The Polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as neoliberal governance. Antipode 2007, 39:456-478.
78. Haglund L. Limiting Resources: Market-led Reform and the Transformation of Public Goods 2011, Pennsylvania State University Press, State College, PA.
79. Hahn R.W., Stavins R.N. Economic incentives for environmental protection: integrating theory and practice. Am. Econ. Rev. 1992, 82:464-468.
80. Harvey D. ABrief History of Neoliberalism 2007, Oxford University Press, New York. first ed.
81. Harvey D. The "new" imperialism: accumulation by dispossession. Social. Regist. 2010, 40.
82. Hayes T.M. Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environ. Cons. 2012, 39:144-153.
83. Hegde R., Bull G.Q. Performance of an agro-forestry based payments-for-environmental-services project in Mozambique: a household level analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 71:122-130.
84. Hess J., To T.T.H. Connecting Local Forest Managers with Beneficiaries: Payments for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam 2011, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Hanoi.
85. Heynen N.C., Mccarthy J., Prudham S., Robbins P. Neoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences 2007, Routledge, London.
86. Heynen N.C., Robbins P. The neoliberalization of nature: governance, privatization, enclosure and valuation. Capital. Nat. Social. 2005, 16:5-8.
87. Higgins V., Dibden J., Cocklin C. Market instruments and the neoliberalisation of land management in rural Australia. Geoforum 2012, 43:377-386.
88. Higgins V., Lockie S. Re-discovering the social: neo-liberalism and hybrid practices of governing in rural natural resource management. J.Rural Stud. 2002, 18:419-428.
89. Huang M., Upadhyaya S.K. Watershed-based payment for environmental services in Asia. Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program 2007, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.
90. Huang M., Upadhyaya S.K., Jindal R., Kerr J.M. Payments for watershed services in Asia: a review of current initiatives. J.Sustain. For. 2009, 28:551-575.
91. Humphreys D. Discourse as ideology: neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11:319-325.
92. Ibarra J.T., Barreau A., Campo C.D., Camacho C.I., Martin G.J., Mccandless S.R. When formal and market-based conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty: impacts of community conservation and payments for environmental services on an indigenous community of Oaxaca, Mexico. Int. For. Rev. 2011, 13:318-337.
93. Igoe J., Brockington D. Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction. Conserv. Soc. 2007, 5:432-449.
94. Jindal R., Kerr J.M., Carter S. Reducing poverty through carbon forestry? Impacts of the N'hambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique. World Dev. 2012, 40:2123-2135.
95. Jindal R., Kerr J.M., Ferraro P.J., Swallow B.M. Social dimensions of procurement auctions for environmental service contracts: evaluating tradeoffs between cost-effectiveness and participation by the poor in rural Tanzania. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:71-80.
96. Kari S., Korhonen-Kurki K. Framing local outcomes of biodiversity conservation through ecosystem services A case study from Ranomafana, Madagascar. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 3:e32-e39.
97. Katoomba Group Beyond Carbon 2009, Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington.
98. Kerr J.M. Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India. World Dev. 2002, 30:1387-1400.
99. Kolinjivadi V.K., Sunderland T. Areview of two payment schemes for watershed services from China and Vietnam: the interface of government control and PES theory. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. art10.
100. Konefal J. Environmental movements, market-based approaches, and neoliberalization: a case study of the sustainable seafood movement. Organ. Environ. 2013, 26:336-352.
101. Kosoy N., Corbera E. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1228-1236.
102. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 2008, 39:2073-2083.
103. Kossoy A., Guigon P. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2012 2012, World Bank, Washington.
104. Kroeger T., Casey F. An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64:321-332.
105. Landell-Mills N. Developing markets for forest environmental services: an opportunity for promoting equity while securing efficiency?. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. Lond. Series A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2002, 360:1817-1825.
106. 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 2002, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.
107. Lansing D.M. Understanding linkages between ecosystem service payments, forest plantations, and export agriculture. Geoforum 2013, 47:103-112.
108. Lawlor K., Madeira E., Blockhus J., Ganz D. Community participation and benefits in REDD+: a review of initial outcomes and lessons. Forests 2013, 4:296-318.
109. Legrand T., Froger G., Le Coq J.F. Institutional performance of payments for environmental services: an analysis of the Costa Rican program. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 37:115-123.
110. Leimona B., Villamor G.B., van Noordwijk M., Fauzi A., Utaira R. IFAD Grant Project TAG-534 Completion Report: Developing Mechanisms to Reward the Upland Poor in Asia for Environmental Services that They Provide 2008, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Office, Bogor.
111. Lemos M.C., Agrawal A. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31:297-325.
112. Liang D., Mol A.P.J. Political modernization in China's forest governance? Payment schemes for forest ecological services in Liaoning. J.Environ. Policy & Plan. 2013, 15:65-88.
113. Liu C., Wang Sen, Liu H., Zhu W. The impact of China's Priority Forest Programs on rural households' income mobility. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:237-248.
114. Liu J., Li S., Ouyang Z., Tam C., Chen X. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services. PNAS 2008, 105:9477-9482.
115. Liverman D.M., Vilas S. Neoliberalism and the environment in Latin America. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31:327-363.
116. Loft L., Pham T.T., Luttrell C. Lessons from Payments for Ecosystem Services for REDD+ Benefit-sharing Mechanisms 2014, CIFOR Information Brief, Bogor, Indonesia.
117. Madsen B., Carroll N., Moore Brands K. State of Biodiversity Markets Report: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide 2010, Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC.
118. Mahanty S., Suich H., Tacconi L. Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:38-47.
119. Mansfield B. Rules of privatization: contradictions in neoliberal regulation of North Pacific fisheries. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2004, 94:565-584.
120. Mansfield B. Assessing market-based environmental policy using a case study of North Pacific fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 2006, 16:29-39.
121. Mansfield B. Privatization: property and the remaking of nature-society relations: introduction to the special issue. Antipode 2007, 39:393-405.
122. Mansfield B. Property, markets, and dispossession: the Western Alaska Community Development Quota as neoliberalism, social justice, both, and neither. Antipode 2007, 39:479-499.
123. MARD Decree 99/2010/ND-CP on the Policy for Payment for Forest Environmental Services 2010, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi.
124. Martin A., Gross-Camp N., Kebede B., McGuire S., Munyarukaza J. Whose environmental justice? Exploring local and global perspectives in a payments for ecosystem services scheme in Rwanda. Geoforum 2014, 54:167-177.
125. Matulis B.S. The narrowing gap between vision and execution: neoliberalization of PES in Costa Rica. Geoforum 2013, 44:253-260.
126. Mayrand K., Paquin M. Payments for Environmental Services: a Survey and Assessment of Current Schemes 2005, Unisféra International Centre For the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America.
127. Mazur R.E. Realization or deprivation of the right to development under globalization? Debt, structural adjustment, and poverty reduction programs. GeoJournal 2004, 60:61-71.
128. McAfee K. The contradictory logic of global ecosystem services markets. Dev. Change 2012, 43:105-131.
129. McAfee K. Nature in the market-world: ecosystem services and inequality. Development 2012, 55:25-33.
130. McAfee K., Shapiro-Garza E. Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements, and the state. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2010, 100:579-599.
131. McCay B.J. ITQs and community: an essay on environmental governance. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2004, 33:162-170.
132. McDermott M.H., Mahanty S., Schreckenberg K. Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2013, 33:416-427.
133. McElwee P.D. Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: panacea or problem?. Geoforum 2012, 43:412-426.
134. MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report 2005, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
135. Melo I., Turnhout E., Arts B. Integrating multiple benefits in market-based climate mitigation schemes: the case of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity certification scheme. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2014, 35:49-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.010.
136. Milder J., Scherr S.J., Bracer C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15. article 4.
137. Milne S., Adams W.M. Market masquerades: uncovering the politics of community-level payments for environmental services in Cambodia. Dev. Change 2012, 43:133-158.
138. Milne S., Niesten E. Direct payments for biodiversity conservation in developing countries: practical insights for design and implementation. Oryx 2009, 43:530-541.
139. Minang P.A., van Noordwijk M. Design challenges for achieving reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins. Land Use Policy 2012, 31:61-70.
140. Minh H.H., van Noordwijk M., Pham T.T.T. Payment for Environmental Services: Experiences and Lessons in Vietnam 2008, World Agroforestry Centre - ICRAF, Hanoi.
141. Muradian R., Arsel M., Pellegrini L., Adaman F., Aguilar B., Agarwal B., Corbera E., de Blas D.E., Farley J., Froger G., García-Frapolli E., Gómez-Baggethun E., Gowdy J., Kosoy N., Le Coq J.F., Leroy P., May P., Méral P., Mibielli P., Norgaard R., Özkaynak B., Pascual U., Pengue W., Pérez M., Pesche D., Pirard R., Ramos-Martin J., Rival L.M., Saenz F., Van Hecken G., Vatn A., Vira B., Urama K. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6:274-279. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x.
142. 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. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1202-1208.
143. Muradian R., Rival L.M. Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1:93-100.
144. Muradian R., Rival L.M. Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services 2013, Springer, Dordrecht.
145. Narloch U., Pascual U., Drucker A.G. Cost-effectiveness targeting under multiple conservation goals and equity considerations in the Andes. Environ. Cons. 2011, 38:417-425.
146. NCEE The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting the Environment 2001, US Environmental Protection Agency and National Center for Environmental Economics, Washington DC.
147. Neitzel K.C., Caro-Borrero Á.P., Revollo-Fernandez D., Aguilar-Ibarra A., Ramos A., Almeida-Leñero L. Paying for environmental services: determining recognized participation under common property in a peri-urban context. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 38:46-55.
148. Nguyen Q.T. Payment for Environmental Services in Vietnam: an Analysis of the Pilot Project in Lam Dong Province 2011, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan.
149. Nkhata B.A., Mosimane A. Atypology of benefit sharing arrangements for the governance of social-ecological systems in developing countries. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. article 17.
150. Ortner S. On neoliberalism. Anthropol. this Century 2011, 1.
151. Osborne T.M. Fixing carbon, losing ground: payments for environmental services and land (in)security in Mexico. Hum. Geogr. 2013, 6:119-133.
152. Osborne T.M. Carbon forestry and agrarian change: access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. J.Peasant Stud. 2011, 38:859-883.
153. Ostrom E., Basurto X. Crafting analytical tools to study institutional change. J.Inst. Econ. 2010, 7:317-343.
154. 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 Dev. 2005, 33:237-253.
155. Pagiola S., Rios A.R., Arcenas A. Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13:299-325.
156. Pagiola S., Rios A.R., Arcenas A. Poor household participation in payments for environmental services: lessons from the silvopastoral project in Quindío, Colombia. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 47:371-394.
157. Pagiola S., Zhang W., Colom A. Can payments for watershed services help finance biodiversity conservation? A spatial analysis of highland Guatemala. J.Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2010, 2:7-24.
158. Pascual U., Muradian R., Rodríguez L.C., Duraiappah A.K. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1237-1244.
159. Pattanayak S.K., Wunder S., Ferraro P.J. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2010, 4:254-274.
160. Peck J., Tickell A. Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 2002, 34:380-404.
161. Pellizzoni L. Governing through disorder: neoliberal environmental governance and social theory. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21:795-803.
162. Peters J. The pilot payments for forest environmental services policy in Vietnam and PES pilot sites in the Dong Nai River Basin. Presentation to IWLEARN Regional Workshop on Payments for Environmental Services, Hanoi 2008.
163. Petheram L., Campbell B.M. Listening to locals on payments for environmental services. J.Environ. Manag. 2010, 91:1139-1149.
164. Pham T.T.T., Bennett K., Vu Tan Phuong, Brunner J., Le Ngoc Dung, Nguyen Dinh Tien Payments for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From Policy to Practice 2013, CIFOR, Bogor.
165. Pham T.T.T., Campbell B.M., Garnett S. Lessons for pro-poor payments for environmental services: an analysis of projects in Vietnam. Asia Pac. J. Public Adm. 2009, 31:117-133.
166. Pham T.T.T., Campbell B.M., Garnett S., Aslin H., Hoang M.H. Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environ. Cons. 2010, 37:64-72.
167. Pham T.T.T., Hoang M.H., Campbell B.M. Pro-poor payments for environmental services: challenges for the government and administrative agencies in Vietnam. Public Admin. Dev. 2008, 28:363-373.
168. Pham V.A. Implementation of policy on pilot payment for forest environment services in Lam Dong province, Viet Nam. Presentation at South-east Asia Workshop on Payments for Ecosystem Services: Incentives for Improving Economic Policy, Biodiversity Conservation, and Natural Resource Management Target Performance, Bangkok, Thailand, 29 June-1 July, 2009 2009.
169. Pirard R. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2012, 19-20:59-68.
170. Pirard R. Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in the public policy landscape: "Mandatory" spices in the Indonesian recipe. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 18:23-29.
171. Pirard R., Billé R., Sembrés T. Upscaling payments for environmental services (PES): critical issues. Tropical Conser. Sci. 2010, 3:249-261.
172. Pokorny B., Johnson J., Medina G., Hoch L. Market-based conservation of the Amazonian forests: revisiting win-win expectations. Geoforum 2012, 43:387-401.
173. Porras I.T., Aylward B., Dengel J. Monitoring Payments for Watershed Services Schemes in Developing Countries 2013, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.
174. Porras I.T., Barton D.N., Chacón-Cascante A., Miranda M. Learning from 20 Years of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica 2013, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.
175. Prasetyo F.A., Suwarno A., Purwanto, Hakim R. Making policies work for Payment for Environmental Services (PES): an evaluation of the experience of formulating conservation policies in districts of Indonesia. J.Sustain. For. 2009, 28:415-433.
176. Prudham S. Poisoning the well: neoliberalism and the contamination of municipal water in Walkerton, Ontario. Geoforum 2004, 35:343-359.
177. Redford K., Adams W.M. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23:785-787.
178. Resosudarmo I.A.P., Atmadja S., Ekaputri A.D., Intarini D.Y., Indriatmoko Y., Astri P. Does tenure security lead to REDD+ project effectiveness? Reflections from five emerging sites in Indonesia. World Dev. 2014, 55:68-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.015.
179. Reynolds T.W. Institutional determinants of success among forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 2012, 40:542-554.
180. Robalino J., Pfaff A. Ecopayments and deforestation in Costa Rica: a nationwide analysis of PSA's initial years. Land Econ. 2013, 89:432-448.
181. Robertson M. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum 2004, 35:361-373.
182. Rodríguez de Francisco J.C., Budds J., Boelens R. Payment for environmental services and unequal resource control in Pimampiro, Ecuador. Soc. Nat. Res. 2013, 26:1217-1233.
183. Rodríguez L.C., Pascual U., Muradian R., Pazmino N., Whitten S. Towards a unified scheme for environmental and social protection: learning from PES and CCT experiences in developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:2163-2174.
184. Rosa H., Kandel S., Dimas L. Compensation for environmental services and rural communities: lessons from the Americas. Int. For. Rev. 2004, 6:187-194.
185. Sanchez-Azofeifa G., Pfaff A., Robalino J., Boomhower J. Costa Rica's payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation, and impact. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21:1165-1173.
186. Sandbrook C.G., Fisher J.A., Vira B. What do conservationists think about markets?. Geoforum 2013, 50:232-240.
187. Schomers S., Matzdorf B. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:16-30. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002.
188. Scullion J., Thomas C.W., Vogt K.A., Perez-Maqueo O., Logsdon M.G. Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews. Environ. Cons. 2011, 38:426-434.
189. Shapiro-Garza E. Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico's national payments for ecosystem services programs: four sites of articulation and hybridization. Geoforum 2013, 46:5-15.
190. Shapiro-Garza E. Contesting market-based conservation: payments for ecosystem services as a surface of engagement for rural social movements in Mexico. Hum. Geogr. 2013, 6:134-150.
191. Sierra R., Russman E. On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59:131-141.
192. Simelton E., Bac D.V., Catacutan D., Do Trong Hoan, Hoa N.T., Traldi R. Local Capacity for Implementing Payments for Environmental Services Schemes: Lessons from the RUPES Project in Northeastern Viet Nam 2013, Working Paper 163, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Southeast Asia Regional Program, Hanoi, Vietnam.
193. 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. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1262-1271.
194. 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. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24:1488-1498.
195. Stanton T., Echavarria M., Hamilton K., Ott C. State of Watershed Payments: an Emerging Marketplace 2010, Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington DC.
196. Stavins R.N. Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments. Handbook of Environmental Economics 2003, 355-435. Elsevier, New York. K.G. Maler, J. Vincent (Eds.).
197. Steed B. Government payments for ecosystem services: lessons from Costa Rica. J.Land Use Environ. Law 2007, 23:177-202.
198. Suiseeya K.R.M., Caplow S. In pursuit of procedural justice: lessons from an analysis of 56 forest carbon project designs. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, 23:968-979.
199. Sunderlin W.D., Larson A.M., Duchelle A.E., Resosudarmo I.A.P., Huynh T.B., Awono A., Dokken T. How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Dev. 2014, 55:37-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.013.
200. Swallow B.M., Leimona B., Yatich T., Velarde S.J., Puttaswamaiah S. The Conditions for Effective Mechanisms of Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services 2007, World Agroforestry Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
201. Tacconi L. Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 73:29-36.
202. Tacconi L., Mahanty S., Suich H. The livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services and implications for REDD. Soc. Nat. Res. 2013, 26:733-744.
203. Tallis H., Kareiva P., Marvier M., Chang A. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. PNAS 2008, 105:9457-9464.
204. TEEB TEEB for Policy Makers: Responding to the Value of Nature. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Project, Bonn, Germany 2009.
205. To X.P., Dressler W.H., Mahanty S., Pham T.T.T., Zingerli C. The prospects for payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Vietnam: a look at three payment schemes. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 40:237-249.
206. Tschakert P. Environmental services and poverty reduction: options for smallholders in the Sahel. Agric. Syst. 2007, 94:75-86.
207. Turpie J.K., Marais C., Blignaut J.N. The working for water programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:788-798.
208. Uchida E., Xu J., Rozelle S. Grain for green: cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China's conservation set-aside program. Land Econ. 2005, 81:247-264.
209. Van Hecken G., Bastiaensen J. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2010, 13:785-792.
210. Van Hecken G., Bastiaensen J., Huybrechs F. Towards an institutional approach to payments for ecosystem services: perspectives from two Nicaraguan cases. Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services 2013, Springer, Dordrecht. R. Muradian, L.M. Rival (Eds.).
211. van Noordwijk M., Leimona B. Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia: payments, compensation, or co-investment. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15. article 17.
212. van Noordwijk M., Leimona B., Jindal R., Villamor G.B., Vardhan M., Namirembe S., Catacutan D., Kerr J.M., Minang P.A., Tomich T.P. Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37:389-420.
213. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1245-1252.
214. Weyerhaeuser H., Wilkes A., Kahrl F. Local impacts and responses to regional forest conservation and rehabilitation programs in China's northwest Yunnan province. Agric. Syst. 2005, 85:234-253.
215. Winrock Payment for Forest Environmental Services: a Case Study on Pilot Implementation in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam 2006-2010 2011, Winrock International, Hanoi.
216. Wunder S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts, Center for International Forestry Research 2005, CIFOR, Bogor, Working Paper.
217. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21:48-58.
218. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13:279-297.
219. Wunder S., Albán M. Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:685-698.
220. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:834-852.
221. Wunder S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. Payments for ecosystem services: a new way of conserving biodiversity in forests. J.Sustain. For. 2009, 28:576-596.
222. Wynne-Jones S. Connecting payments for ecosystem services and agri-environment regulation: an analysis of the Welsh Glastir Scheme. J.Rural Stud. 2013, 31:77-86.
223. Xu J., Yin R., Li Z., Liu C. China's ecological rehabilitation: unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts, and requisite policies. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57:595-607.
224. Xu W., Yin Y., Zhou S. Social and economic impacts of carbon sequestration and land use change on peasant households in rural China: a case study of Liping, Guizhou Province. J.Environ. Manag. 2007, 85:736-745.
225. Yang W., Liu W., Viña A., Luo J., He G., Ouyang Z., Zhang H., Liu J. Performance and prospects of payments for ecosystem services programs: evidence from China. J.Environ. Manag. 2013, 127:86-95.
226. Yin R., Zhao M. Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes-China's experience as an example. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 73:56-65.
227. Zbinden S., Lee D.R. Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica's PSA program. World Dev. 2005, 33:255-272.
228. Zhang W., Ricketts T.H., Kremen C., Carney K., Swinton S.M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64:253-260.