Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America

By S. Pagiola, A. Arcenas, G. Platais. 2005

1,140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Ocean Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/19c7ee20ae66dc7d599eef2d271d991a221b0ad9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Ocean Engineering

Citations in the corpus

Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica : A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis (2008, background): “The impact on local development depends on the composition of the set of beneficiaries (Pagiola et al., 2005).”
The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “Constraints to resource-extractive activities may lead to lower local production, price increases, and market dependency (Pagiola et al., 2005; Wunder, 2008).”
Enhancing the sustainability of commodity supply chains in tropical forest and agricultural landscapes (2013, background): “Poorer households in South America were less likely to enjoy secure land tenure, to possess a formal land title, or to be able to afford the opportunity or transaction costs, all of which acted as obstacles to participation in payments for environmental services programs (Pagiola et al., 2005).”
What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo program (2014, background): “Some have pointed o tradeoffs between environmental efficiency and social equity n regards to whether programs target few large or many small andowners (Pagiola et al., 2005; Zbinden and Lee, 2005; Wunder t al., 2008).”
Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mexico: Nature, Neoliberalism, Social Movements, and the State (2010, background): “solely on the basis of the poor being able to undertake them” ( Pagiola, Arcena, and Platais 2005,”
When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? (2008, methodology): “An emerging literature is available on these issues in the context of poverty and PES, and insights from this work can be used in developing extensions of the present work (c.f. Cacho and Lipper, 2006; Pagiola et al., 2005; Lipper and Cavatassi, 2004; Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002).”
Research, part of a Special Feature on Do we need new management paradigms to achieve sustainability in tropical forests? Are Direct Payments for Environmental Services Spelling Doom for Sustainable Forest Management in the Tropics? (2006, background): “Two recent overview assessments of the preliminary evidence also conclude that poor PES recipients generally become better off as a result of PES participation (GriegGran et al. 2005, Pagiola et al. 2005).”
The Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity: Towards Integration (2009, background): “For instance, Costa Rica and Mexico have reduced forest loss by the use of payments for environmental services (PES) to landowners and communities (Pagiola & Platais 2002; Pagiola et al. 2005; Zbinden & Lee 2005).”
Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services (2010, background): “…PES conceptualization is its distinctive separation between efficiency and equity considerations, which suggests that PES must be considered primarily as instruments for improving the efficiency of natural resource management and not necessarily for alleviating poverty (Pagiola et al., 2005, 239).”
Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, background): “This hinders the adoption of sustainable silvopastoral practices even though private on-site benefits and profitability increase over the long run (Pagiola et al., 2005a).”
Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America (2007, background): “Hence, PES schemes are also expected to contribute to wealth redistribution and poverty alleviation (Pagiola et al., 2002b; Pagiola, 2005).”
Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico (2017, neutral): “PES are voluntary, so barring substantial informational asymmetries or surprise events related to the costs of participation, they should result in either zero or positive poverty alleviation impacts (Pagiola et al. 2005, Jack et al. 2008, Alix-Garcia et al. 2015).”