in

In defence of simplified PES designs

  • 1.

    Wunder, S. et al. From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat. Sustain. 1, 145–150 (2018).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 2.

    Pascual, U. et al. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64, 1027–1036 (2014).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 3.

    Fisher, J. A., Cavanagh, C. J., Sikor, T. & Mwayafu, D. M. Linking notions of justice and project effectiveness in carbon offset forestry projects: Insights from a comparative study in Uganda. Land Use Policy 73, 259–268 (2018).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 4.

    Kolinjivadi, V., Gamboa, G., Adamowski, J. & Kosoy, N. Capabilities as justice: analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’. Ecol. Econ. 118, 99–113 (2015).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 5.

    Börner, J. et al. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev. 96, 359–374 (2017).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 6.

    Keane, A., Jones, J. P., Edwards‐Jones, G. & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation. Anim. Conserv. 11, 75–82 (2008).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 7.

    Ruiz-De-Oña-Plaza, C., Soto-Pinto, L., Paladino, S., Morales, F. & Esquivel, E. in Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems (eds Kumar, B. M. & Nair, P. R.) 247–262 (Springer, 2011).

  • 8.

    Peskett, L., Schreckenberg, K. & Brown, J. Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the forest sector: learning lessons for REDD+ from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 216–229 (2011).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 9.

    Lundberg, L., Persson, U. M., Alpizar, F. & Lindgren, K. Context matters: exploring the cost-effectiveness of fixed payments and procurement auctions for PES. Ecol. Econ. 146, 347–358 (2018).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 10.

    Hou, Y., Burkhard, B. & Müller, F. Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 127, S117–S131 (2013).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 11.

    Berry, N. J. & Ryan, C. M. Overcoming the risk of inaction from emissions uncertainty in smallholder agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 011003 (2013).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 12.

    Milder, J., Scherr, S. & Bracer, C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol. Soc. 15, 4 (2010).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 13.

    Wells, G., Fisher, J. A., Porras, I., Staddon, S. & Ryan, C. Rethinking monitoring in smallholder carbon payments for ecosystem service schemes: devolve monitoring, understand accuracy and identify co-benefits. Ecol. Econ. 139, 115–127 (2017).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 14.

    Huber-Stearns, H. R. et al. Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 22, 18 (2017).

    • Article
    • Google Scholar
  • 15.

    Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Wunder, S., Ruiz-Pérez, M. & del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, R. Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS ONE 11, e0149847 (2016).


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Machine learning helps map global ocean communities

    Lighting the way to better battery technology