Additionality is in detail: Farmers' choices regarding payment for ecosystem services programs in the Atlantic forest, Brazil

Journal of Rural Studies

Volumn 54, Issue , 2017, Pages 177-186

  Alarcon, Gisele Garcia ^a   Fantini, Alfredo Celso ^b   Salvador, Carlos H ^c   Farley, Joshua ^d  

^a Green Economy Center   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

^c FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^d Gund Institute University of Vermonth   (United States)

Author keywords

Additionality; Forest conservation; Forest restoration; Mata Atl ntica

Indexed keywords

COMPENSATION SYSTEM; CONSERVATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; FARMERS ATTITUDE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ANALYSIS; RESTORATION ECOLOGY;

ATLANTIC FOREST; BRAZIL; MATA ATLANTICA BIOSPHERE RESERVE;

EID: 85021944145     PISSN: 07430167     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Agueda, W.L., Martinelli, M., Soares, P.V., Cruz, L.A. da, Produtor de Água de Guaratinguetá. Pagiola, S., Glehn, H.C., Von, Taffarello, D., (eds.) 2009. Experiências de Pagamentos Por Serviços Ambientais No Brasil. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2013.
2. Alarcon, G.G., Da-ré, M.A., Rampinelli, L.Z., Fragmentação da Floresta com Araucária e ecossistemas associados no Corredor Ecológico Chapecó. St. Catarina. Biotemas 24 (2011), 25–38.
3. Alpízar, F., Norden, A., Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Unintended consequences of targeting forest conservation payments: behavioral insights into payment design. Eur. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. Conf. Pap. Tolouse, 2013 Available at: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/32759/1/gupea_2077_32759_1.pdf, Unpublished manuscript.
4. Amigues, J., Boulatoff, C., Desaigues, B., Gauthier, C., Keith, J.E., The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation : a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecol. Econ. 43 (2002), 17–31.
5. Arriagada, R. a., Sills, E.O., Pattanayak, S.K., Ferraro, P.J., Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate participation in Costa Rica's program of payments for environmental services. J. Sustain. 28 (2009), 343–367.
6. Banks-Leite, C., Pardini, R., Tambosi, L.R., Pearse, W.D., Bueno, A.A., Bruscagin, R.T., Condez, T.H., Dixo, M., Igari, A.T., Martensen, A.C., Metzger, J.P., Using ecological tresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot. Science 345 (2014), 1041–1045.
7. Barton, K., Multi-model Inference. R Package Version 1.15.6. 2016.
8. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1.1-9. 2015.
9. Blackmore, L., Doole, G.J., Drivers of landholder participation in tender programs for Australian biodiversity conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy 33 (2013), 143–153.
10. Bornschein, M.R., Relatório do Diagnóstico de Fauna (Relatório Temático): AVES., 2009, FATMA, Florianópolis Technical Report.
11. Brancalion, P.H.S., Viani, R.A.G., Calmon, M., Carrascosa, H., Rodrigues, R.R., How to organize a large-scale ecological restoration Program ? The framework developed by the Atlantic forest restoration Pact in Brazil. J. Sustain. 32 (2013), 37–41.
12. Brasil, Intended nationally determined contribution. Available at: http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php, 2015.
13. Brasil, Lei no 12.651, de 25 de maio de 2012. 2012 Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm.
14. Brasil, Lei no 11.428 de 2006. 2006 Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11428.htm.
15. Brasil, Lei no 11.326, de 24 de julho de 2006. 2006 Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/lei/l11326.htm.
16. 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 36 (2014), 122–133.
17. Buckley, C., Hynes, S., Mechan, S., Supply of an ecosystem service-Farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environ. Sci. Policy 24 (2012), 101–109.
18. Burnham, K., Anderson, D., Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-theoretic Approach. 2002, Springer-Verlag, New York.
19. Calmon, M., Brancalion, P.H.S., Paese, A., Aronson, J., Castro, P., Silva, S.C., Rodrigues, R.R., Emerging threats and opportunities for large-scale ecological restoration in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Restor. Ecol. 19 (2011), 154–158.
20. Corbera, E., Kosoy, N., Martínez Tuna, M., Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Glob. Environ. Chang. 17 (2007), 365–380.
21. Coudel, E., Ferreira, J., Hercowitz, M., Mattos, L., May, P., Muradian, R., Piketty, G., Toni, F., The rise of PES in Brazil : from pilot projects to public policies. Martinez-Allier, J., Muradian, R., (eds.) 2015. Handbook of Ecological Economics, 2015.
22. Cunha, A.A., Guedes, F.B., Mapeamentos para a conservação e recuperação da biodiversidade na Mata Atlântica : em busca de uma estratégia. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília. 2013.
23. Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., Runge, F., Trestini, S., Factors affecting farmers ' participation in Agri-environmental Measures : evidence from a case study. Conference Paper, Food, Agriculture and the Environment, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy, Duluth, 2006.
24. Dworak, T., Berglund, M., Grandmougin, B., Mattheiss, V., Holen, S., International Review on Payment Schemes for Wet Buffer Strips and Other Types of Wet Zones along Privately Owned Land. Tecnhical Report, Ecologic, Berlin/Viena., 2009.
25. Dworak, T., Bradshaw, B., Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32 (2007), 25–48.
26. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008), 663–674.
27. Fisher, J., No pay, no care? A case study exploring motivations for participation in payments for ecosystem services in Uganda. Oryx 46 (2012), 45–54.
28. Fukahori, S.T.I., Alarcon, G.G., Sistema de Créditos de Conservação para os Corredores Ecológicos Chapeco e Timbó. Pagliola, S., Glehn, H.C., Von, Taffarello, D., (eds.) Experiências de Pagamentos Por Serviços Ambientais No Brasil, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente, São Paulo - SP, 2013.
29. Fundação do Meio Ambiente, Implementação dos Corredores Ecológicos Chapecó e Timbó., 2009 FATMA Technical Report, Florianópolis.
30. Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, INPE, Atlas dos Remanescentes Florestais da Mata Atlântica: período 2013-2014. Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica, INPE, Technical Report, São Paulo., 2015.
31. Garcia, L., Couto, S.J., Matsumoto, M., Silva, T.S.F., Padovezi, A., Sparovek, G., Hobbs, R.J., Restoration challenges and opportunities for increasing landscape connectivity under the New Brazilian Forest Act. Brazilian Journal of Nature Conservation 11 (2013), 181–185.
32. Gelman, A., Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat. Med. 27 (2008), 4817–4834.
33. Gelman, A., Hill, J., Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/hierarchical Models. 2007, Cambridge University Press, New York.
34. Guedes, F.B., Seehusen, S.E., Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais na Mata Atlântica. 2011, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília.
35. Hübel, M., Mello, R., De, Bollmann, M., Programa de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais “Produtor de Água do Rio Vermelho” em São Bento do Sul - Santa Catarina. Conference Paper, XIX Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos, Maceió, 2012.
36. IBGE (Instituto brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística), Censo agropecuário. Available at:, 2006 http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/agropecuaria/censoagro/2006/.
37. Kabii, T., Horwitz, P., A review of landholder motivations and determinants for participation in conservation covenanting programmes. Environ. Conserv. 33 (2006), 11–20.
38. Kauneckis, D., York, A.M., An empirical evaluation of private landowner participation in voluntary forest conservation programs. Environ. Manage 44 (2009), 468–484.
39. Klapproth, J.C., Johnson, J.E., Understanding the Science behind Riparian Forest Buffers: Factors Influencing Adoption. Virginia Cooperative Extension. 2009 Available at: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420-154/420-154.html.
40. Klemz, C., Dacol, K.C., Zimmerman, P., Nayara, J., Veiga, F., Diederischen, A., Produtor de Água do Rio Camboriú. Pagiola, S., Glehn, H.C., Von, Taffarello, D., (eds.) 2013. Experiências de Pagamentos Por Serviços Ambientais No Brasil. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2013.
41. Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32 (2007), 25–48.
42. Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., Brown, K., Participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Case Studies from the Lacandon Rainforest, Mexico, vol. 39, 2008, Geoforum, 2073–2083.
43. Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Muradian, R., Martinez-Alier, J., Payments for environmental services in watersheds: insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecol. Econ. 61 (2007), 446–455.
44. Lavratti, P., Tejeiro, G., Stanton, M., Sistemas Estaduais de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais., 2014, Instituto O Direito por um Planeta Verde, São Paulo Technical Report.
45. Maia, A.G., Romeiro, A.R., Reydon, B.P., Valoração de recursos ambientais – metodologias e recomendações. Conference Paper, 2004, UNICAMP, Campinas.
46. Matzdorf, B., Biedermann, C., Meyer, C., Nicolaus, K., Sattler, C., Schomers, S., Paying for Green? Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Civiland, Technical Report, Berlin., 2014.
47. Matzdorf, B., Sattler, C., Engel, S., Institutional frameworks and governance structures of PES schemes. For. Policy Econ 37 (2013), 57–64.
48. Mazerolle, M.J., AICcmodavg: Model Selection and Multimodel Inference Based on (Q)AIC(c). 2013 Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/AICcmodavg/AICcmodavg.pdf.
49. Mazzoli, M., Diagnóstico da Mastofauna do Corredor Ecológico Chapeco, SC. FATMA, Technical Report, Florianópolis., 2008.
50. McKenney, B.A., Kiesecker, J.M., Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ. Manage 45 (2010), 165–176.
51. Melo, F.P.L., Pinto, S.R.R., Brancalion, P.H.S., Castro, P.S., Rodrigues, R.R., Aronson, J., Tabarelli, M., Priority setting for scaling-up tropical forest restoration projects: early lessons from the Atlantic Forest restoration pact. Environ. Sci. Policy 33 (2013), 395–404.
52. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Sistematização de desafios e melhores práticas dos projetos-pilotos de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Technical Report, Brasília., 2013.
53. Mittermeier, R.A., Robles-Gil, P., Mittermeier, C.G., Megadiversity. Earth's Biologically Wealthiest Nations. 1997, CEMEX/Agrupacion Sierra Madre, México.
54. Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J.M., Braña, J., Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008), 725–736, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.031.
55. 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. 69 (2010), 1202–1208.
56. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G. a, Kent, J., Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature vol. 403 (2000), 853–888.
57. Nasi, R., Wunder, S., Campos, J.J., Forest Ecosystem Services: Can They Pay Our Way to Deforestation?., 2002, CIFOR Technical Report, Bogor.
58. Overbeck, G., Muller, S., Fidelis, Pfadenhauer, a, Pillar, J., Blanco, V., Boldrini, C., Both, I., Forneck, E, R., Brazil's neglected biome: the South Brazilian Campos. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 9 (2007), 101–116.
59. Overbeck, G.E., Müller, S.C., Fidelis, A., Pfadenhauer, J., Pillar, V.D., Blanco, C., Boldrini, I.I., Both, R., Forneck, E.D., Os Campos Sulinos: um bioma negligenciado. Pillar, V.o De P., Müller, S.C., Castilhos, Z.M., de, S., Jacques, A.V.Á., (eds.) 2009. Campos Sulinos: Conservação E Uso Sustentável Da Biodiversidade. Ministério Do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, 2009.
60. Padovezi, A., Augusto, R., Viani, G., Kubota, U., Taffarello, D., Faria, M., Bracale, H., Ferrari, V., Carvalho, F.H. de, Produtor de Água na Bacia do Piracicaba/Capivarí/Jundiaí. Pagliola, S., Glehn, H.C., Von, Taffarello, D., (eds.) 2013. Experiências de Pagamentos Por Serviços Ambientais No Brasil. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2013.
61. Page, G., Bellotti, B., Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes?. Sci. Total Environ., 2015, 12–19 515–516.
62. Pagiola, S., Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008), 712–724.
63. Pagiola, S., Glehn, H.C., Von, Taffarello, D., Experiências de Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais no Brasil. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo. 2013.
64. Pagiola, S., Glehn, H.C., Von, Taffarello, D., Experiências de pagamentos por serviços ambientais no Brasil. Pagiola, S., Glehn, H.C., Von, Taffarello, D., (eds.) Experiências de Pagamentos Por Serviços Ambientais No Brasil. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, 2013.
65. Pardini, R., Bueno, A.D.A., Gardner, T.A., Prado, P.I., Metzger, J.P., Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS One, 5, 2010, e1366.
66. Pattanayak, S.K., Wunder, S., Ferraro, P.J., Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4 (2010), 254–274.
67. Pinheiro, J.C., Bates, D.M., Mixed-effects Models in S and S-plus. 2000, Springer-Verlag, Murray Hill.
68. Plumb, S.T., Nielsen, E.A., Kim, Y.-S., Challenges of opportunity cost analysis in planning REDD+: a honduran case study of social and cultural values associated with indigenous forest uses. Forests 3 (2012), 244–264.
69. Porras, I., Grieg-gran, M., Neves, N., All that Glitters. A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries., 2008, CIFOR, Londres. Technical Report.
70. R Core Team, R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2015, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
71. Rhodes, H.M., Leland, L.S., Niven, B.E., Farmers, streams, information, and money: does informing farmers about riparian management have any effect?. Environ. Manage 30 (2002), 665–677.
72. Ribeiro, M.C., Metzger, J.P., Martensen, A.C., Ponzoni, F.J., Hirota, M.M., The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 142 (2009), 1141–1153.
73. Richards, R.C., Rerolle, J., Aronson, J., Henrique, P., Gonçalves, H., Brancalion, P.H.S., Governing a pioneer program on payment for watershed services: stakeholder involvement, legal frameworks and early lessons from the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Ecosyst. Serv. 16 (2015), 23–32.
74. Ryan, R.L., Erickson, D.L., Young, R. de, Farmers motivation for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in Mid-western agricultural watershed. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 46 (2003), 19–37.
75. Santos, D.G., dos, Melo, V.G., de, Carvalho, F.H. de, Programa Produtor de Água. Pagiola, S., Glehn, H.C., Von, Taffarello, D., (eds.) 2013. Experiecnicas de Pagamento Por Serviços Ambientais No Brasil. Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2013.
76. Santos, R.F., dos, Vivan, J.L., Pagamento por Serviços Ecossistêmicos em perspectiva comparrada: recomendações para tomada de decisão. Projeto Apoio aos Diálogos Setoriais UE-Brasil, Brasília. 2012.
77. Seroa da Motta, R., Manual para valoração econômica de recursos ambientais. 1997, IPEA/MMA/PNUD/CNPq, Rio de Janeiro.
78. Smith, M., Groot, D., de, Bergkamp, G., Establishing Payments for Watershed Services. 2006, IUCN, Gland.
79. Soares-filho, B., Rajão, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., Rodrigues, H., Alencar, A., Cracking Brazil ' s forest code. Science 344 (2014), 363–364.
80. Sommerville, M.M., Jones, J.P.G., Milner-Gulland, E.J., A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental. Ecol. Soc., 14, 2009, e34.
81. Sparovek, G., Giaroli, A., Pereira, D.O., The revision of the Brazilian Forest Act : increased deforestation or a historic step towards balancing agricultural development and nature conservation?. Environ. Sci. Policy 16 (2011), 65–72.
82. Tejeiro, G., Stanton, M., Sistema Estaduais de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais: diagnóstico, lições aprendidas e desafios para a futura legislação. 2014, Instituto O Direito por um Planeta Verde, São Paulo.
83. Torres, A.B., Macmillan, D.C., Skutsch, M., Lovett, J.C., Payments for ecosystem services and rural development: landowner's preferences and potential participation in western Mexico. Ecosyst. Serv. 64 (2013), 49–67.
84. Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: do market-based approaches work?. Dev. Change 41 (2010), 421–444.
85. Villarroya, A., Barros, A.C., Kiesecker, J.M., Policy development for environmental licensing and biodiversity offsets in Latin America. PLoS ONE, 9, 2014, e107144.
86. White, D., Minang, Peter, Estimating the Opportunity Costs of REDD+. A Training Manual. 2011, The World Bank, Washington.
87. Whittington, D., Pagiola, S., Using contingent valuation in the design of payments for environmental services mechanisms: a review and assessment. World Bank. Res. Obs. 27 (2011), 261–287.
88. Wilson, G.A., Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. J. Environ. Manage 50 (1997), 67–93.
89. Wunder, S., Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 117 (2015), 234–243.
90. Wunder, S., Pagos por servicios ambientales: Principios básicos esenciales. 2005, CIFOR, Jakarta.
91. Wunder, S., Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 65 (2008), 834–852.
92. Young, C.E.F., Estudos e produção de subsídios para a construção de uma Política. 2016, Nacional de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais, Rio de Janeiro.
93. Young, C.E.F., Mac-Knight, V., Meireles, A.L., Desmatamento e custo de oportunidade da terra: o caso do Mato Grosso. Conference Paper, VII Encontro Nacional Da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia Ecológica, Fortaleza. 2007.
94. Yu, J., Belcher, K., An economic analysis of landowners' willingness to adopt wetland and riparian conservation management. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 59 (2011), 207–222.
95. Zanella, M.A., Why Do Farmers Join Payments for Environmental Services Shemes? an Assessment of PES Water Project Participatin in Brazil. 2011, University of Humbolt (Master Thesis), Berlin.
96. Zanella, M.A., Schleyer, C., Speelman, S., Why do farmers join Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes? An assessment of PES Water scheme participation in Brazil. Ecol. Econ. 105 (2014), 166–176.