The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries
Open accessAbstract
Payments for environmental services (PES) are an innovative approach to conservation that has been applied increasingly often in both developed and developing countries. To date, however, few efforts have been made to systematically compare PES experiences. Drawing on the wealth of case studies in this Special Issue, we synthesize the information presented, according to case characteristics with respect to design, costs, environmental effectiveness, and other outcomes. PES programs often differ substantially one from the other. Some of the differences reflect adaptation of the basic concept to very different ecological, socioeconomic, or institutional conditions; others reflect poor design, due either to mistakes or to the need to accommodate political pressures. We find significant differences between user-financed PES programs, in which funding comes from the users of the ES being provided, and government-financed programs, in which funding comes from a third party. The user-financed programs in our sample were better targeted, more closely tailored to local conditions and needs, had better monitoring and a greater willingness to enforce conditionality, and had far fewer confounding side objectives than government-financed programs. We finish by outlining some perspectives on how both user- and government-financed PES programs could be made more effective and cost-efficient.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011 · Cited by 2,466
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- Alix-García, 2004, Payments for Environmental Services: to whom, for what, and how much?, Working Paper. 30: University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
- Asquith, 2008, Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia, Ecological Economics, 65, 676, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.014 · DOI · Paper page
- Batlis, 2008, Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison, Ecological Economics, 65, 754
- Bennet, 2008, China's sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual?, Ecological Economics, 65, 700, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.017 · DOI · Paper page
- Bruijnzeel, 2004, Hydrological functions of moist tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environments, 104, 185, 10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.015 · DOI · Paper page
- Cacho, 2005, Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries, Environment and Development Economics, 10, 597, 10.1017/S1355770X05002056 · DOI
- Chomitz, 1998, The domestic benefits of tropical forests: a critical review, World Bank Research Observer, 13, 13, 10.1093/wbro/13.1.13 · DOI
- Claassen, 2008, Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice, Ecological Economics, 65, 738, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.032 · DOI · Paper page
- Dobbs, 2008, Case study of agri-environmental payments: the United Kingdom, Ecological Economics, 65, 766, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.030 · DOI · Paper page
- Engel, 2008, Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia, Ecological Economics, 65, 800, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.028 · DOI
- Ferraro, 2008, Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services, Ecological Economics, 65, 811, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.029 · DOI · Paper page
- Ferraro, 2002, Direct payments to conserve biodiversity, Science, 298, 1718, 10.1126/science.1078104 · DOI · Paper page
- Ferraro, 2006, Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments, PLoS Biology, 4, e105, 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105 · DOI · Paper page
- Ferraro, 2002, The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments, Land Economics, 78, 339, 10.2307/3146894 · DOI · Paper page
- Ferraro, 2005, Protecting forests and biodiversity: are investments in eco-friendly production activities the best way to protect endangered ecosystems and enhance rural livelihoods?, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 15, 167, 10.1080/14728028.2005.9752518 · doi:10.1080/14728028.2005.9752518
- Frost, 2008, The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services, Ecological Economics, 65, 777, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.018 · DOI · Paper page
- Grieg-Gran, 2005, How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America, World Development, 33, 1511, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Holden, 2006, Food-for-work for poverty reduction and the promotion of sustainable land use: can it work?, Environment and Development Economics, 11, 15, 10.1017/S1355770X05002676 · DOI
- Kerr, 2002, Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India, World Development, 30, 1387, 10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00042-6 · DOI
- Kosoy, 2006, Payments for environmental services in watersheds: insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America, Ecological Economics, 61, 446
- Muñoz-Piña, 2008, Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results, Ecological Economics, 65, 726, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.031 · DOI · Paper page
- Murray, B., in press. Leakage from an avoided deforestation compensation policy: concepts, empirical evidence and corrective policy options. Forthcoming in Palmer, C., S. Engel (Eds.): Avoided Deforestation: Prospects for Mitigating Climate Change, London, Routledge.
- Pagiola, 2008, Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica, Ecological Economics, 65, 713, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.033 · DOI
- Pagiola, 2005, Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America, World Development, 33, 237, 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011 · DOI · Paper page
- Pagiola, 2007, Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua, Special Issue on Ecosystem Services and Agriculture, Ecological Economics, 64, 374
- Sánchez-Azofeifa, 2007, Costa Rica's Payment for Environmental Services Program: intention, implementation, and impact, Conservation Biology, 21, 1165, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00751.x · DOI · Paper page
- Swart, 2003, Will direct payments help biodiversity?, Science, 299, 1981, 10.1126/science.299.5615.1981b · DOI
- Turpie, 2008, The Working for Water Programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa, Ecological Economics, 65, 789, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.024 · DOI · Paper page
- Wu, 2000, Slippage effects of the Conservation Reserve Program, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82, 979, 10.1111/0002-9092.00096 · DOI · Paper page
- Wunder, 2008, Payments for environmental services and poor: concepts and preliminary evidence, Environment and Development Economics, 13, 10.1017/S1355770X08004282 · DOI · Paper page
- Wunder, 2008, Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador, Ecological Economics, 65, 686, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.004 · DOI
- Wünscher, 2008, Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits, Ecological Economics, 65, 823, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.014 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011 · Cited by 2,466
Self-citationEcosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies
Power, A. G. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0143 · Cited by 2,334
Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom
Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe, A., Day, B. H., Dugdale, S., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1234379 · Cited by 1,031
A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes
Piñeiro, V., Arias, J., Dürr, J., Elverdin, P., Ibáñez, A. M., Kinengyere, A., Opazo, C. M., Owoo, N., Page, J. R., Prager, S. D., et al. (2020) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y · Cited by 747
Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation
Jayachandran, S., de Laat, J., Lambin, E. F., Stanton, C. Y., Audy, R., & Thomas, N. E. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan0568 · Cited by 544
Metadata
- Authors
- Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S.
- Venue
- Ecological Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 834-852
- ISSN
- 0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2085303201
- Cited by
- 1,175
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 65.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.010
- The paper
- Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.