How effective are biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2015, Pages

  Costedoat, Sébastien ^a   Corbera, Esteve ^a,b   Ezzine de Blas, Driss ^c   Honey Rosés, Jordi ^d   Baylis, Kathy ^e   Castillo Santiago, Miguel Angel ^f  

^a INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^c CIRAD   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^f DEPARTAMENTO DE CONSERVACIÓN DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR CHANGE; BUDGET; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEFORESTATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HUMAN; MEXICO; PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE PROGRAM; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RURAL POPULATION; BIODIVERSITY; ECONOMICS; FOREST;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; FORESTS; HUMANS; MEXICO;

EID: 84926191088     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119881     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Landell-Mills N, Porras IT, International Institute for Environment and Development. Silver bullet or fools' gold: a global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impacts on the poor [Internet]. Stevenage, Hertfordshire: International Institute for Environment and Development; 2002. Available: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/9066IIED.pdf?
2. 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.
3. Miteva DA, Pattanayak SK, Ferraro PJ. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn't? Oxf Rev Econ Policy. 2012; 28: 69-92.
4. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK. Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments. PLoS Biol. 2006; 4: e105. PMID: 16602825
5. Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ. Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy. 2010; 4: 254-274.
6. Soto-Pinto L, Castillo-Santiago MA, Jiménez-Ferrer G. Agroforestry Systems and Local Institutional Development for Preventing Deforestation in Chiapas, Mexico. In: Moutinho P, editor. Deforestation Around the World. InTech; 2012. Available: http://www.intechopen.com/books/deforestation-around-the-world/agroforestry-systems-and-local-institutional-development-for-preventing-deforestation-in-chiapas-mex
7. Wunder S. The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation. Conserv Biol. 2007; 21: 48-58. PMID: 17298510
8. Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KRE. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008; 105: 9465-9470. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705503104 PMID: 18621696
9. Ferraro PJ. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 2008; 65: 810-821.
10. Sommerville MM, Jones JPG, Milner-Gulland EJ. A Revised Conceptual Framework for Payments for Environmental Services. Ecol Soc. 2009;14. Available: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art34/
11. Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May PH. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 2010; 69: 1202-1208.
12. Tacconi L. Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 2012; 73: 29-36.
13. Huang M, Upadhyaya SK, Jindal R, Kerr J. Payments for Watershed Services in Asia: A Review of Current Initiatives. J Sustain For. 2009; 28: 551-575.
14. Ferraro PJ. Regional Review of Payments for Watershed Services: Sub-Saharan Africa. J Sustain For. 2009; 28: 525-550.
15. Southgate D, Wunder S. Paying for Watershed Services in Latin America: A Review of Current Initiatives. J Sustain For. 2009; 28: 497-524.
16. Jindal R, Swallow B, Kerr J. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Nat Resour Forum. 2008; 32: 116-130.
17. Milne S, Niesten E. Direct payments for biodiversity conservation in developing countries: practical insights for design and implementation. Oryx. 2009; 43: 530-541.
18. Barsimantov J, Kendall J. Community Forestry, Common Property, and Deforestation in Eight Mexican States. J Environ Dev. 2012; 21: 414-437.
19. Corbera E, Soberanis CG, Brown K. Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol Econ. 2009; 68: 743-761.
20. 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.
21. Muñoz-Piña C, Guevara A, Torres JM, Braña J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol Econ. 2008; 65: 725-736.
22. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ. 2008; 65: 712-724.
23. Muñoz-Piña C, Rivera M, Cisneros A, García H. Retos de la focalización del Programa de Pago por los Servicios Ambientales en México. Rev Esp Estud Agrosociales Pesq. 2011; 228: 87-113.
24. FRA. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010,Country Report,Mexico [Internet]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2010. Report No.: FRA2010/132. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al567S/al567S.pdf
25. Alix-Garcia J, Sims KR, Yañez-Pagans P. Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico's payments for ecosystem services program. Work Pap Univ Wis Madison. 2014; Available: https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/One%2520Tree%2520Manuscript%2520Revised%25207-24-2014.pdf
26. Blackman A. Evaluating forest conservation policies in developing countries using remote sensing data: An introduction and practical guide. For Policy Econ. 2013; 34: 1-16.
27. Alix-Garcia JM, Shapiro EN, Sims KRE. Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico's National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Land Econ. 2012; 88: 613-638.
28. Robalino J, Pfaff A. Ecopayments and deforestation in Costa Rica: A nationwide analysis of PSA's initial years. Land Econ. 2013; 89: 432-448.
29. Honey-Rosés J, Baylis K, Ramírez MI. A Spatially Explicit Estimate of Avoided Forest Loss: Spatial Estimate of Avoided Forest Loss. Conserv Biol. 2011; 25: 1032-1043. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01729.x PMID: 21902720
30. Arriagada RA, Ferraro PJ, Sills EO, Pattanayak S, Cordero-Sancho S. Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Economics; 2012.
31. Sims KRE, Alix-Garcia J, Shapiro-Garza E, Fine L, Radeloff V, Aronson G, et al. Adaptive Management in Mexico's Payments for Hydrological Services Program Improves Targeting for Environmental and Social Goals. Conserv Biol. 2014;
32. Greenstone M, Gayer T. Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics. J Environ Econ Manag. 2009; 57: 21-44.
33. Holland PW. Statistics and Causal Inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1986; 81: 945-960.
34. Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM. Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation. J Econ Lit. 2009; 47: 5-86.
35. Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S. How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates? Q J Econ. 2004; 119: 249-275.
36. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Polit Anal. 2007; 15: 199-236.
37. Carabias J, Meli P, Hernández G. Evaluación de los impactos de proyectos de desarrollo sustentable sobre la reducción del cambio de uso de suelo en ejidos de Marqués de Comillas, Chiapas. [Internet]. INECC; 2012. Available: http://www.inecc.gob.mx/descargas/cclimatico/2012-eval-impac-proy-sust-ejidos.pdf.
38. Carabias J, Meli P, Landa R, Hernández M, Hernández Cárdenas G, Bravo M. Análisis socio-ambiental del deterioro y la percepción de las poblaciones locales de la vulnerabilidad y el riesgo frente al cambio climático, en Marqués de Comillas, Chiapas [Internet]. INECC; 2009. Available: http://www.inecc.gob.mx/descargas/cclimatico/2009-estudio-cc-va7.pdf
39. García-Gil JG, Lugo Hupb J. Las formas del relieve y los tipos de vegetación en la Selva Lacandona. Reserva de la Biosfera Montes Azules, Selva Lacandona: Investigación para su conservación. Vásquez-Sánchez M. A. and Ramos M. A. Mexico: Centro de Estudios para la Conservación de los Recursos Naturales (Mexico); 1992. pp. 39-49.
40. Alix-Garcia J. A spatial analysis of common property deforestation. J Environ Econ Manag. 2007; 53: 141-157.
41. Abadie A, Imbens GW. Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects. Econometrica. 2006; 74: 235-267.
42. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score. Am Stat. 1985; 39: 33.
43. Kosoy N, Corbera E, Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: Case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum. 2008; 39: 2073-2083.