An institutional analysis of Payment for Environmental Services on collectively managed lands in Ecuador

Ecological Economics

Volumn 118, Issue , 2015, Pages 81-89

  Hayes, Tanya ^a,b   Murtinho, Felipe ^a   Wolff, Hendrik ^c  

^a SEATTLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Collective action; Common property; Ecosystem services; Latin America; P ramo

Indexed keywords

COLLECTIVE ACTION; COMMON PROPERTY RESOURCE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; LAND MANAGEMENT; LAND SURFACE; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; UPLAND REGION;

ECUADOR;

EID: 84938099459     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.017     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Andersson K., Ostrom E. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy. Sci. 2008, 41:71-93.
2. Andersson K., Benavides J.P., León R. Institutional diversity and local forest governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 36:61-72.
3. Berkes F., Turner N. Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience. Hum. Ecol. 2006, 34:479-494.
4. Berkes F., Colding J., Folke C. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
5. Bremer L.L., Farley K.A., Lopez-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.
6. Bremer L.L., Farley K.A., Lopez-Carr D., Romero J. Conservation and Livelihood Outcomes of Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What Is the Potential for 'Win-Win'? Ecosystem Services 2014.
7. Buytaert W., De Bièvre B. Water for cities: the impact of climate change and demographic growth in the tropical Andes. Water Resour. Res. 2012, 48:W08503.
8. Buytaert W., Celleri R., De Bievre B., Cisneros F., Wyseure G., Deckers J., Hofstede R. Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean páramos. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2006, 79:53-72.
9. Cash D.W., Adger W.N., Berkes F., Garden P., Lebel L., Olsson P., Pritchard L., Young O. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11.
10. Cerutti P.O., Tacconi L. Forests, illegality, and livelihoods: the case of Cameroon. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2008, 21:845-853.
11. Clements T., John A., Nielsen K., An D., Tan S., Milner-Gulland E. Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1283-1291.
12. Coleman E.A., Steed B.C. Monitoring and sanctioning in the commons: an application to forestry. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:2106-2113.
13. Corbera E., Brown K., Adger W.N. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev. Change 2007, 38:587-613.
14. 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-Hum. Policy Dimens. 2007, 17:365-380.
15. Crawford S., Ostrom E. A grammar of institutions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1995, 89:582-600.
16. Crespo P., Célleri R., Buytaert W., Feyen J., Iñiguez V., Borja P., de Bièvre B. Land use change impacts on the hydrology of wet Andean páramo ecosystems. Status and Perspectives of Hydrology in Small Basins. IAHS Publ 336 2010.
17. 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. Policy 2011, 14:531-542.
18. Dietz T., Ostrom E., Stern P. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 2003, 302:1907-1912.
19. 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. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012, 367:3178-3190.
20. Echeverría H., Suárez S. Tutela judicial efectiva en materia ambiental: el caso ecuatoriano 2013, Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental, Quito.
21. 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.
22. Esty D., Porter M.E. Ranking national environmental regulation and performance: a leading indicator of future competitiveness?. The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002 2001, Oxford University Press, New York. M.E. Porter, J.D. Sachs, P.K. Cornelius, J.W. McArthur, K. Schwab (Eds.).
23. Farley K., Kelly E., Hofstede R.M. Soil organic carbon and water retention after conversion of grasslands to pine plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes. Ecosystems 2004, 7:729-739.
24. Farley K.A., Anderson W.G., Bremer L.L., Harden C.P. Compensation for ecosystem services: an evaluation of efforts to achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian páramo grasslands. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 38:393-405.
25. Fisher B., Christopher T. Poverty and biodiversity: measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62:93-101.
26. Folke C., Hahn T., Olsson P., Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30:441-473.
27. Gibson C.C., McKean M.A., Ostrom E. Explaining deforestation: the role of local institutions. People and Forests 2000, 1-26. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. C.C. Gibson, M.A. McKean, E. Ostrom (Eds.).
28. Gibson C., Williams J., Ostrom E. Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev. 2005, 33:273-284.
29. 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.
30. Hayes T.M. Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environ. Conserv. 2012, 39:144-153.
31. Hayes T., Persha L. Nesting local forestry initiatives: Revisiting community forest management in a REDD+ world. For. Policy Econ. 2010, 12:545-553.
32. Kanninen M., Murdiyarso D., Seymour F., Angelsen A., Wunder S., German L. Do Trees Grow on Money? The Implications of Deforestation Research for Policies to Promote REDD 2007, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
33. Karsenty A. The architecture of proposed REDD schemes after Bali: facing critical choices. Int. For. Rev. 2008, 10:443-457.
34. Kashwan P., Holahan R. Nested governance for effective REDD+: institutional and political arguments. Int. J. Commons 2014, 8:554-575.
35. Kerr J.M., Vardhan M., Jindal R. Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services. Int. J. Commons 2014, 8:595-616.
36. Korovkin T. Comunidades Indigenas: Economia de mercado y democracia en los Andes Ecuatorianos 2002, Centro de Investigacion de los Movimientos Sociales Ecuador, Quito.
37. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 2008, 39:2073-2083.
38. Kuperan K., Sutinen J.G. Blue water crime: deterrence, legitimacy, and compliance in fisheries. Law Soc. Rev. 1998, 309-338.
39. Lebel L., Anderies J.M., Campbell B., Folke C., Hatfield-Dodds S., Hughes T.P., Wilson J. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11.
40. Madriñan S., Cortes A., Richardson J. Páramo is the world's fastest evolving and coolest biodiversity hotspot. Front. Genet. 2013, 4:1-7.
41. MAE Acuerdo Ministerial Numero 115 2009, Ministerio del Ambiente, Quito.
42. MAE Socio Bosque. El Boletin informativo 2012, 5. Ministerio del Ambiente, Quito, Ecuador.
43. Morales M., Rivadeneira S. El Ecuador requiere de un instrumento legal para promover la conservacion de sus paramos. Paramo: Paisaje estudiado, habitado, manejado e institucionalizado 2011, 301-314. Editorial Universitaria Abya-Yala, Quito. P.M. Vasconez, A. Castillo, S. Flores, R. Hofstede, C. Josse, S. Lasso, G. Medina, N. Ochoa, D. Ortiz (Eds.).
44. Mosquera T. Sistematización de la experiencia de manejo de los recursos naturales de los páramos de Quisapincha, Quito, Ecuador 2010.
45. Muradian R. Payments for ecosystem services as incentives for collective action. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26:1155-1169.
46. Muradian R., Rival L. Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1:93-100.
47. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1202-1208.
48. Muradian R., Arsel M., Pellegrini L., Adaman F., Aguilar B., Agarwal B., Corbera E., Ezzine de Blas D., Farley J., Froger G. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6:274-279.
49. Narloch U., Pascual U., Drucker A.G. Collective action dynamics under external rewards: experimental insights from Andean farming communities. World Dev. 2012, 40:2096-2107.
50. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action 1990, Cambridge University Press, New York.
51. Ostrom E. Understanding Institutional Diversity 2005, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
52. Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422.
53. Ostrom E., Cox M. Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37:451-463.
54. Ostrom E., Nagendra H. Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2006, 103:19224-19231.
55. Pascual U., Muradian R., Rodriguez L.C., Duraiappah A. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1237-1244.
56. Pascual U., Phelps J., Garmendia E., Brown K., Corbera E., Martin A., Gomez-Baggethun E., Muradian R. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 2014, 64:1027-1036.
57. 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.
58. Persha L., Agrawal A., Chhatre A. Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 2011, 331:1606-1608.
59. Podwojewski P., Poulenard J., Zambrana T., Hofstede R. Overgrazing effects on vegetation cover and properties of volcanic ash soil in the páramo of Llangahua and La Esperanza (Tungurahua, Ecuador). Soil Use Manag. 2002, 18:45-55.
60. Ravenel R.M., Granoff I.M. Illegal logging in the tropics: a synthesis of the issues. J. Sustain. For. 2004, 19:351-371.
61. Rico Garcia-Amado L., Ruiz Perez M., Reyes Escutia F., Barrasa Garcia S., Contreras Mejia E. 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.
62. Rodríguez de Francisco J.C., Budds J., Boelens R. Payment for environmental services and unequal resource control in Pimampiro, Ecuador. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26:1217-1233.
63. Schmitt C. Sources of civic engagement in Latin America: empirical evidence from rural Ecuadorian communities. J. Dev. Stud. 2010, 46:1442-1458.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. Tyler T.R. Why People Obey the Law 2006, Princeton University Press.
67. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1245-1252.
68. Vollan B. Socio-ecological explanations for crowding-out effects from economic field experiments in southern Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67:560-573.
69. Wunder S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts 2005, CIFOR, Jakarta.
70. Wunder S. When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6:230-237.
71. 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.