1. Alix-Garcia, J.M. et al. (2012). Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Land Econ. 88, 613–638. doi:10.3368/le.88.4.613

  2. Arriagada, R.A. et al. (2012). Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Econ. 88, 382–399. doi:10.3368/le.88.2.382

  3. Arriagada, R.A. et al. (2015). Do Payments Pay Off? Evidence from Participation in Costa Rica’s PES Program. PLoS One DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131544. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131544

  4. Asquith, N.M. et al. (2002). Can forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado climate action project, Bolivia. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 7, 323–337. doi:10.1023/A:1024712424319

  5. Asquith, N.M. et al. (2008). Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecol. Econ. 65, 675–684. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.014

  6. Börner, J. et al. (2013). Promoting Forest Stewardship in the Bolsa Floresta Programme: Local Livelihood Strategies and Preliminary Impacts Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Manaus, Brazil: Fundação Amazonas Sustentável(FAS). Bonn, Germany: Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF), University of Bonn.

  7. Brimont, L. et al. (2015). Achieving Conservation and Equity amidst Extreme Poverty and Climate Risk: The Makira REDD+ Project in Madagascar. Forests 6, 748–768. doi:10.3390/f6030748

  8. Clements, T. et al. (2010). Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1283–1291. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.010

  9. Corbera, E. et al. (2007). Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Glob. Environ. Chang. 17, 365–380. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.12.005

  10. Corbera, E. et al. (2007). The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services. Dev. Change 38, 587–613. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.x

  11. Corbera, E. et al. (2009). Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 68, 743–761. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.008

  12. Costedoat, S. et al. (2015). How Effective Are Biodiversity Conservation Payments in Mexico? PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119881

  13. Koning, F. De et al. (2011). Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 531–542. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007

  14. Grieg-Gran, M. et al. (2005). How Can Market Mechanisms for Forest Environmental Services Help the Poor? Preliminary Lessons from Latin America. World Dev. 33, 1511–1527. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.05.002

  15. Gross-Camp, N.D. et al. (2012). Payments for ecosystem services in an African protected area: exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and effectiveness. Oryx 46, 24–33. doi:10.1017/S0030605311001372

  16. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, L. et al. (2016). China’s conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects. Environ. Evid. 5, 21. doi:10.3390/f5092345

  17. Hayes, T.M. (2012). Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environ. Conserv. 39, 144–153. doi:10.1017/S0376892912000045

  18. Hegde, R. and Bull, G.Q. (2011). Performance of an agro-forestry based Payments-for-Environmental-Services project in Mozambique: A household level analysis. Ecol. Econ. 71, 122–130. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.014

  19. Honey-Rosés, J. et al. (2011). A Spatially Explicit Estimate of Avoided Forest Loss. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1032–1043.
  20. Hua, F. et al. (2016). Opportunities for biodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation programme. Nat. Commun. 7, 12717. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01729.x

  21. Jayachandran, S. et al. (2017). Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science, 357(6348), 267-273. doi:10.1126/science.aan0568

  22. Jindal, R. et al. (2012). Reducing Poverty Through Carbon Forestry? Impacts of the N’hambita Community Carbon Project in Mozambique. World Dev. 40, 2123–2135. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.003

  23. Khalumba, M. et al. (2014). Combining Auctions and Performance-Based Payments in a Forest Enrichment Field Trial in Western Kenya. Conserv. Biol. 28(3), 861–866. doi:10.1111/cobi.12278

  24. Kosoy, N. et al. (2006). Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecol. Econ. 61, 446–455. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.016

  25. Krause, T. et al. (2013). Evaluating Safeguards in a Conservation Incentive Program: Participation, Consent, and Benefit Sharing in Indigenous Communities of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ecol. Soc. 18. doi:10.5751/ES-05733-180401

  26. Leimona, B. et al. (2015). Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 16–28. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.012

  27. Locatelli, B. et al. (2008). Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica: A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis. For. Policy Econ. 10, 275–285. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2007.11.007

  28. Lopa, D. et al. (2011). Towards operational payments for water ecosystem services in Tanzania: a case study from the Uluguru Mountains. Oryx 46, 34–44. doi:10.1017/S0030605311001335

  29. Newton, P. et al. (2012). Consequences of actor level livelihood heterogeneity for additionality in a tropical forest payment for environmental services programme with an undifferentiated reward structure. Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 127–136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.006

  30. Pagiola, S. and Rica, C. (2008). Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 65, 712–724. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.033

  31. García-Amado, L.R. et al. (2011). Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecol. Econ. 70, 2361–2368. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.016

  32. Robalino, J. and Pfaff, A. (2013). Ecopayments and Deforestation in Costa Rica: A Nationwide Analysis of PSA’s Initial Years. Land Econ. 89, 432–448. doi:10.3368/le.89.3.432

  33. Samii, C. et al. (2014). Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) on Deforestation and Poverty in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 11, 95.

  34. Scullion, J. et al. (2011). Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec ( Mexico ) using remote sensing and on-site interviews. Environ. Conserv. 38, 426–434. doi:10.1017/S037689291100052X

  35. Sierra, R. and Russman, E. (2006). On the efficiency of environmental service payments: A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 59, 131–141. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.10.010

  36. To, P.X. et al. (2012). The Prospects for payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Vietnam: A Look at three payment schemes. Hum. Ecol. 40, 237–249. doi:10.1007/s10745-012-9480-9

  37. Tuanmu, M.N. et al. (2016). Effects of payments for ecosystem services on wildlife habitat recovery. Conserv. Biol. 30, 827–835. doi:10.1111/cobi.12669

  38. Wunder, S. and Albán, M. (2008). Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecol. Econ. 65, 685–698. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.004

News and Inspiration from Nature's Frontline.

Giant Rats: Wildlife crime's unexpected weapon | Wild Targets
Videos
Articles
Podcasts