An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services

By A. Vatn. 2010

780 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b466e3b3fdb4f11d47812fbb786fe1eefccfbeb

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 Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why? (2013, background): “, 2008); 3) The nature of the institutional environment: the formal and informal legal, social and political rules that determine the context within which economic activity takes place (Buitelaar, 2007; Easter and McCann, 2010; North, 1991; Vatn, 2010; Williamson, 2000); and 4) The nature of the ins”
Notions of Justice in Payments for Ecosystem Services:Insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province (2015, background): “In addition, the designers and implementers of such schemes need to consider the notions of distributive justice held by the actors involved, just as they have been encouraged to consider how PES schemes fit the existing values that people attribute to ecosystems (Vatn, 2010; Shapiro-Garza, 2013).”
Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services (2011, background): “Following Vatn (2010), our selection was not limited to voluntary transactions only and also included schemes where participation is mandatory.”
The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services (2016, background): “When payment is based on group performance, the group faces a commons dilemma: every group member benefits from the payment, but incurs a private cost in contributing to performance, implying incentives to free ride (Vatn, 2010; Zabel et al., 2014).”
Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach (2010, background): “We expect this will bring theory of PES schemes closer to practice, especially in developing countries where they tend to be part of broader rural development interventions (Vatn, 2010-this issue).”
When payments for environmental services will work for conservation (2013, background): “Ecological economists have thus strongly suspected for years that PES could crowd out intrinsic conservation motives (Farley & Costanza 2010; Kosoy & Corbera 2010; Vatn 2010; Muradian et al., this issue).”
Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions:Comparison of three programs from Cambodia? (2010, positive): “Externally-imposed rules and incentives may even ‘crowd-out’ locally-developed rules and social norms (Bowles, 2008; Cardenas et al., 2000; Vatn, 2010-this issue), or lead to perceptions that incentives are unfair (Fehr and Falk, 2002), as may have occurred in the bird nests case.”
Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism (2010, background): “The attribution of property rights over ecosystem services plays a critical role in influencingwho can claim ownership andwho can trade in PES (Brown and Corbera, 2003; Turner et al., 2003; Corbera et al., 2007; Vatn, 2010-this issue).”
Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability (2017, background): “Much has been written describing this motivational “crowding out” in the context of PES (Vatn, 2010; Luck et al., 2012; ).”
Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability (2020, background): “…resource extraction and material production (incidentally promoting inefficiencies and environmental impacts) to encouraging stewardship and avoiding perverse effects in terms of behaviours, norms and values (Chan, Anderson, et al., 2017; Sumaila, Lam, Le Manach, Swartz, & Pauly, 2016; Vatn, 2010).”
Effects of Monetary Versus Environmental Information Framing: Implications for Long-Term Pro-Environmental Behavior and Intrinsic Motivation (2018, neutral): “Other studies show that monetary incentives may undermine long-term efforts regarding ecosystem conservation (Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, 2011; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Muradian et al., 2013; Vatn, 2010).”
Protected areas, conservation and tourism – financing the sustainable dream (2014, background): “According to its critics, the economic and commodity-based views of nature inherent in market environmentalist ideology favour those who can afford to purchase the rights to access highly valued ecosystems (B€orner et al., 2010; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Pascual et al., 2010; Vatn, 2010).”