Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services

By Roy Brouwer, A. Tesfaye, P. Pauw. Environmental Conservation, 2011

155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “This observation accords with those made previously by Brouwer et al. (2011).”
Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability (2017, background): “Learning across contexts has been challenging due to the wide range of sectors, sizes and types of projects (see Brouwer et al., 2011; Engel et al., 2008).”
Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services (2012, background): “Actually, most payments schemes for ecosystem services in watersheds lack rigorous information about the eco-hydrological effects of the proposed land used changes (Brouwer et al., 2011) and many are based on assumptions that contradict the empirical hydro-ecological evidence, for instance about the”
The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services (2016, background): “In a meta-analysis of payments for water services, Brouwer et al. (2011) found that schemes were more effective if the contract was made with the entire community rather than individual ES providers.”