Evaluating payments for environmental services: Methodological challenges

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Le Velly, Gwenolé ^a   Dutilly, Céline ^b  

^a Fondation pour les études et les Recherches sur le Développement International   (France)

^b UMR SELMET   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PROCEDURES;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY;

EID: 84977565222     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149374     Document Type: Review

References (106)

1. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS biology. 2006; 4(4).
2. Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 2010; 4(2):254-274. doi: 10.1093/reep/req006
3. Blackman A. Ex Post Evaluation of Forest Conservation Policies Using Remote Sensing Data. Resources for the Future; 2012. DP 12-13.
4. Miteva DA, Pattanayak SK, Ferraro PJ. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn't? Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 2012; 28(1):69-92.
5. Baylis K, Honey-Rosés J, Börner J, Corbera E, Ezzine-de Blas D, Ferraro P, et al. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conservation Letters. 2015;.
6. Wunder S. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics. 2015; In press.
7. Ravallion M. Evaluating anti-poverty programs. Handbook of development economics. 2007; 4:3787-3846. doi: 10.1016/S1573-4471(07)04059-4
8. Sims KR. Do protected areas reduce forest fragmentation? A microlandscapes approach. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2014; 58(2):303-333. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9707-2
9. Rueda X, Thomas NE, Lambin EF. Eco-certification and coffee cultivation enhance tree cover and forest connectivity in the Colombian coffee landscapes. Regional Environmental Change. 2015; 15 (1):25-33. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0607-y
10. Jack BK, Kousky C, Sims KR. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008; 105(28):9465-9470. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705503104
11. Karsenty A, Ezzine de Blas D. Du mésusage des métaphores-Les paiements pour services environnementaux sont-ils des instruments de marchandisation de la nature? In: Halpern P Lascoumes PLG, editor. L'instrumentation de l'action publique-Controverses, résistances, effets. Presses de Sciences Po; 2014. p. 161-189.
12. Ahmadia GN, Glew L, Provost M, Gill D, Hidayat NI, Mangubhai S, et al. Integrating impact evaluation in the design and implementation of monitoring marine protected areas. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015; 370(1681):20140275. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0275 PMID: 26460128
13. Miteva DA, Murray BC, Pattanayak SK. Do protected areas reduce blue carbon emissions? A quasiexperimental evaluation of mangroves in Indonesia. Ecological Economics. 2015; 119:127-135.
14. Sims KR, Alix-Garcia JM, Shapiro-Garza E, Fine L, Radeloff VC, Aronson G, et al. Improving Environmental and Social Targeting through Adaptive Management in Mexico's Payments for Hydrological Services Program. Conservation Biology. 2015; 28:1151-1159. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12318
15. Alix-Garcia J, Sims KR, Yanez-Pagans P, Radeloff VC, Shapiro E. Only One Tree from Each Seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in programs of payments for ecosystem services. American Economic Journal-Economic Policy. 2015; 7(4):1-40.
16. Caplow S, Jagger P, Lawlor K, Sills E. Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy. 2011; 14(2):152-167. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.003
17. Sauer J, Walsh J, Zilberman D. The Identification and Measurement of Behavioural Effects From Agri-Environmental Policies-An Empirical Analysis; 2012.
18. Clements T, Suon S, Wilkie DS, Milner-Gulland E. Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods in Cambodia. World Development. 2014; 64:S125-S134. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.008
19. Yanez-Pagans P. Cash for cooperation? Payments for Ecosystem Services and common property management in Mexico. In: 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, DC. 151295. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association; 2013.
20. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Robalino JA. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008; 105(42):16089-16094. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800437105
21. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Sims KR, Healy A, Holland MB. Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010; 107(22):9996-10001. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914177107
22. Darling ES. Assessing the Effect of Marine Reserves on Household Food Security in Kenyan Coral Reef Fishing Communities. PLoS ONE. 2014 11; 9(11):e113614. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113614 PMID: 25422888
23. Miranda JJ, Corral L, Blackman A, Asner G, Lima E. Effects of Protected Areas on Forest Cover Change and Local Communities: Evidence from the Peruvian Amazon. World Development. 2016; 78:288-307. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.026
24. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Herrera D, Sandoval C. Protected areas' impacts on Brazilian Amazon deforestation: examining conservation-development interactions to inform planning. PloS one. 2015; 10(7): e0129460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129460 PMID: 26225922
25. Robalino J, Sandoval C, Villalobos L, Alpizar F. Local effects of payments for environmental services on poverty. Environment for Development; 2014. dp-14-12-efd.
26. Chabé-Ferret S, Subervie J. How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2013; 65:12-27.
27. Bauch SC, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK. Have we managed to integrate conservation and development? ICDP impacts in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development. 2014; 64:S135-S148.
28. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM. Through what mechanisms do protected areas affect environmental and social outcomes? Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015; 370(1681):20140267. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0267 PMID: 26460122
29. Bruggeman D, Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF. Production forests as a conservation tool: Effectiveness of Cameroon's land use zoning policy. Land Use Policy. 2015; 42:151-164. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol. 2014.07.012
30. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Lima E, Sandoval C, Herrera LD. Governance, location and avoided deforestation from protected areas: Greater restrictions can have lower impact, due to differences in location. World Development. 2014; 55:7-20. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.011
31. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Sandoval C, Herrera D. Protected area types, strategies and impacts in Brazil's Amazon: public protected area strategies do not yield a consistent ranking of protected area types by impact. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015; 370(1681):20140273. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0273 PMID: 26460126
32. Rasolofoson RA, Ferraro PJ, Jenkins CN, Jones JP. Effectiveness of Community Forest Management at reducing deforestation in Madagascar. Biological Conservation. 2015; 184:271-277. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.027
33. Ferraro PJ. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics. 2008; 65(4):810-821. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.029
34. Persson UM, Alpízar F. Conditional cash transfers and payments for environmental services-a conceptual framework for explaining and judging differences in outcomes. World Development. 2013; 43:124-137. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.10.006
35. 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.
36. Rode J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Krause T. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics. 2015; 117(0):270-282. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914003668. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2014.11.019
37. Brimont L, Ezzine-de Blas D, Karsenty A, Toulon A. Achieving Conservation and Equity amidst Extreme Poverty and Climate Risk: The Makira REDD+ Project in Madagascar. Forests. 2015; 6 (3):748-768. doi: 10.3390/f6030748
38. Desbureaux S, Brimont L. Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar. Ecological Economics. 2015; 118:10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.002
39. Pfaff A, Santiago-Avila F, Carnovale M, Joppa L. Protected Areas' Impacts Upon Land Cover Within Mexico: the need to add politics and dynamics to static landuse economics. In: 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 177195. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association; 2014.
40. Gertler PJ, Martinez S, Premand P, Rawlings LB, Vermeersch CM. Impact evaluation in practice. World Bank Publications; 2011.
41. Ferraro PJ, Miranda JJ. Heterogeneous treatment effects and mechanisms in information-based environmental policies: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Resource and Energy Economics. 2013; 35(3):356-379. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.04.001
42. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Sanchez-Azofeifa G, Andam K, Ferraro P. Park location affects forest protection: Land characteristics cause differences in park impacts across Costa Rica. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy. 2009; 9(2):5.
43. Sims KR. Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2010; 60(2):94-114. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.003
44. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM, Sims KR. Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011; 108(34):13913-13918. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011529108
45. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM, Miteva DA, Canavire-Bacarreza GJ, Pattanayak SK, Sims KR. More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand. Environmental Research Letters. 2013; 8(2):025011. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025011
46. Hanauer MM, Canavire-Bacarreza G. Implications of heterogeneous impacts of protected areas on deforestation and poverty. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015; 370(1681):20140272. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014. 0272 PMID: 26460125
47. Pfaff A, Robalino JA, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA. Payments for environmental services: empirical analysis for Costa Rica. Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 2008;.
48. Robalino J, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofefia GA, Alpízar F, León C, Rodriguez CM. Deforestation impacts of environmental services payments: Costa Rica's PSA program 2000-2005. Environment for Development; 2008. dp-08-24-efd.
49. Alix-Garcia JM, Shapiro EN, Sims KR. Forest conservation and slippage: Evidence from Mexico's national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Economics. 2012; 88(4):613-638. doi: 10.3368/le.88.4.613
50. Corbera E, González Soberanis C, Brown K. Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics. 2009; 68(3):743-761. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800908002632. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.008
51. Ferraro PJ. The future of payments for environmental services. Conservation Biology. 2011; 25 (6):1134-1138. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01791.x PMID: 22070269
52. Schmook B, Vance C. Agricultural policy, market barriers, and deforestation: the case of Mexico's southern Yucatán. World Development. 2009; 37(5):1015-1025. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.09. 006
53. Alix-Garcia J, McIntosh C, Sims KR, Welch JR. The ecological footprint of poverty alleviation: evidence from Mexico's Oportunidades program. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2013; 95(2):417-435. doi: 10.1162/REST-a-00349
54. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P, Rueda X, Blackman A, Börner J, Cerutti PO, et al. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Global Environmental Change. 2014; 28:129-140. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.007
55. Clements T, Milner-Gulland E. Impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia. Conservation Biology. 2015; 29 (1):78-87. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12423 PMID: 25492724
56. Robalino J, Sandoval C, Barton DN, Chacon A, Pfaff A. Evaluating Interactions of Forest Conservation Policies on Avoided Deforestation. PLoS ONE. 2015 04; 10(4):e0124910. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0124910. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124910 PMID: 25909323
57. Robalino J, Pfaff A. Ecopayments and deforestation in Costa Rica: A nationwide analysis of PSA's initial years. Land Economics. 2013; 89(3):432-448. doi: 10.3368/le.89.3.432
58. Honey-roses J, Baylis K, Ramirez MI. A spatially explicit estimate of avoided forest loss. Conservation Biology. 2011; 25(5):1032-1043. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01729.x PMID: 21902720
59. Costedoat S, Corbera E, Ezzine-de Blas D, Honey-Rosés J, Baylis K, Castillo-Santiago M. How effective are biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico? PloS one. 2015; 10(3):e0119881. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119881 PMID: 25807118
60. Arriagada RA, Ferraro PJ, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK, Cordero-Sancho S. Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Economics. 2012; 88(2):382-399. Available from: http://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v88y2012ii1p382-399.html.
61. Nelson A, Chomitz KM. Protected area effectiveness in reducing tropical deforestation: a global analysis of the impact of protection status. Evaluation Brief. 2009; 7:31.
62. Joppa LN, Pfaff A. Global protected area impacts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 2010;p. rspb20101713.
63. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova S, Tyukavina A, et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. science. 2013; 342(6160):850-853. doi: 10.1126/science.1244693 PMID: 24233722
64. Arriagada RA. Private provision of public goods: applying matching methods to evaluate payments for ecosystem services in Costa Rica. ProQuest; 2008.
65. Alix-Garcia J. A spatial analysis of common property deforestation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2007; 53(2):141-157. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2006.09.004
66. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political analysis. 2007; 15(3):199-236. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpl013
67. Heckman J, Navarro-Lozano S. Using Matching, Instrumental Variables, and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2004 08; 86(1):30-57. Available from: http://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v86y2004i1p30-57.html. doi: 10.1162/003465304323023660
68. Pirard R, Billé R, Sembrés T. Questioning the theory of Payments for Ecosystem Services in light of emerging experience and plausible developments. IDDRI Analyses 4/10; 2010.
69. Karsenty A. Combining conservation incentives with investment. Perspective, Environmental Policies. 2011; 7.
70. Jayachandran S. Liquidity Constraints and Deforestation: The Limitations of Payments for Ecosystem Services. American Economic Review. 2013; 103(3):309-13. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.3.309
71. Ferraro PJ. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Directions for Evaluation. 2009; 2009(122)(122):75-84. doi: 10.1002/ev.297
72. Jack BK. Upstream-downstream transactions and watershed externalities: Experimental evidence from Kenya. Ecological economics. 2009; 68(6):1813-1824. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.002
73. Jack BK, Recalde MP. Leadership and the voluntary provision of public goods: Field evidence from Bolivia. Journal of Public Economics. 2015; 122:80-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.10.003
74. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D. Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models. The world bank research observer. 1999; 14(1):73-98. doi: 10.1093/wbro/14.1.73 PMID: 12322119
75. Zhao Z. Using matching to estimate treatment effects: data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2004; 86(1):91-107. doi: 10.1162/003465304323023705
76. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of economic surveys. 2008; 22(1):31-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
77. Cuenca P, Arriagada R, Echeverría C. How much deforestation do protected areas avoid in tropical Andean landscapes? Environmental Science & Policy. 2016; 56:56-66. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015. 10.014
78. Clements T, Rainey H, An D, Rours V, Tan S, Thong S, et al. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a direct payment for biodiversity conservation: the bird nest protection program in the Northern Plains of Cambodia. Biological Conservation. 2013; 157:50-59. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.020
79. Wendland KJ, Baumann M, Lewis DJ, Sieber A, Radeloff VC. Protected Area Effectiveness in European Russia: A Postmatching Panel Data Analysis. Land Economics. 2015; 91(1):149-168. doi: 10.3368/le.91.1.149
80. Le Velly G, Sauquet A, Cortina-Villar S. PES Impact and Leakages over Several Cohorts: The Case of PSA-H in Yucatan, Mexico. CERDI; 2015. 29.
81. Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J. Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California's tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2010; 105(490)(490). doi: 10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746
82. Sills EO, Herrera D, Kirkpatrick AJ, Brandão A Jr, Dickson R, Hall S, et al. Estimating the impacts of local policy innovation: the synthetic control method applied to tropical deforestation. PloS one. 2015; 10(7):e0132590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132590 PMID: 26173108
83. Sunderlin WD, Larson AM, Duchelle A, Sills EO, Luttrell C, Jagger P, et al. Technical guidelines for research on REDD+ project sites with survey instruments and code book. CIFOR; 2010.
84. Naidoo R, Boxall P, Adamowicz WL. Impact evaluation in Canadian agricultural landscapes: scoping the science. Linking Environment and Agriculture Research Network, University of Alberta; 2011.
85. Sharma BP, Pattanayak S, Nepal M, Shyamsundar P, Karky BS. REDD+ Impacts: Evidence from Nepal;. ISSN 1893-1891; WP 95-15.
86. Busch J, Ferretti-Gallon K, Engelmann J, Wright M, Austin KG, Stolle F, et al. Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia's moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112(5):1328-1333. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 1412514112
87. Cisneros E, Zhou SL, Börner J. Naming and Shaming for Conservation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. PloS one. 2015; 10(9):e0136402. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136402 PMID: 26398096
88. Jones KW, Lewis DJ. Estimating the Counterfactual Impact of Conservation Programs on Land Cover Outcomes: The Role of Matching and Panel Regression Techniques. PloS one. 2015; 10(10): e0141380. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141380 PMID: 26501964
89. Miteva DA, Loucks CJ, Pattanayak SK. Social and environmental impacts of forest management certification in Indonesia. PloS one. 2015; 10(7):e0129675. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129675 PMID: 26132491
90. Simonet G, Subervie J, Ezzine-de Blas D, Cromberg M, Duchelle A, et al. Paying smallholders not to cut down the Amazon forest: Impact evaluation of a REDD+ pilot project; 2015. 14.
91. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. Journal of the American statistical association. 1995; 90(430):443-450. doi: 10.2307/2291055
92. Takahashi R, Todo Y. Impact of community-based forest management on forest protection: evidence from an aid-funded project in Ethiopia. Environmental management. 2012; 50(3):396-404. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9887-5 PMID: 22736315
93. Khandker SR, Koolwal GB, Samad HA. Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices. World Bank Publications; 2010.
94. Aukland L, Costa PM, Brown S. A conceptual framework and its application for addressing leakage: the case of avoided deforestation. Climate Policy. 2003; 3(2):123-136. doi: 10.1016/S1469-3062(02) 00065-7
95. Wu J. Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2000; 82(4):979-992. Available from: http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v82y2000i4p979-992.html. doi: 10.1111/0002-9092.00096
96. Aldashev G, Kirchsteiger G, Sebald A. Assignment procedure biases in randomized policy experiments. Economic Journal. 2015;. doi: 10.1111/ecoj.12321
97. Ashenfelter O. Estimating the effect of training programs on earnings. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 1978; 60(1):47-57. doi: 10.2307/1924332
98. Abadie A. Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators. The Review of Economic Studies. 2005; 72(1):1-19. doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00321
99. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American statistical Association. 1996; 91(434):444-455. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1996. 10476902
100. Deaton AS. Instruments of development: Randomization in the tropics, and the search for the elusive keys to economic development. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2009. w14690.
101. Heckman JJ, Urzua S. Comparing IV with structural models: What simple IV can and cannot identify. Journal of Econometrics. 2010; 156(1):27-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.09.006 PMID: 20440375
102. Ravallion M. Evaluation in the Practice of Development. The World Bank Research Observer. 2009; 24(1):29-53.
103. Haruna A, Pfaff A, van den Ende S, Joppa L. Evolving protected-area impacts in Panama: impact shifts show that plans require anticipation. Environmental Research Letters. 2014; 9(3):035007. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/035007
104. White H. Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice. Journal of development effectiveness. 2009; 1(3):271-284. doi: 10.1080/19439340903114628
105. Muradian R, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, Adaman F, Aguilar B, Agarwal B, et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters. 2013; 6(4):274-279. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x
106. Craigie ID, Barnes MD, Geldmann J, Woodley S. International funding agencies: potential leaders of impact evaluation in protected areas? Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015; 370(1681):20140283. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0283 PMID: 26460135