Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries.

By J. Milder, S. Scherr, C. Bracer. 2010

285 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a market-based approach to environmental management that compensates land stewards for ecosystem conservation and restoration. Because lowincome households and communities control much of the ecologically sensitive land in developing countries, they potentially stand to gain from PES, as environmentally responsible stewardship is assigned a value by various actors in society. To date, however, instances of PES benefiting the poor have been limited mainly to specific localities, small-scale projects, and a handful of broader government programs. We analyze the size, characteristics, and trends of PES to evaluate its future potential to benefit low-income land stewards in developing countries. We estimate that by the year 2030, markets for biodiversity conservation could benefit 10–15 million low-income households in developing countries, carbon markets could benefit 25–50 million, markets for watershed protection could benefit 80–100 million, and markets for landscape beauty and recreation could benefit 5–8 million. If payments and markets reach these potentials, they could provide a non-negligible contribution to poverty alleviation at the global level.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1ccaff9a5b5448467d29a31d098dd3ab263aad20

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services (2015, background): “material products verified to have been produced bundled with environmental benefits (Milder et al., 2010).”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “The results have been mixed, although marginal benefits have been identified at the household and community level (Milder et al., 2010).”
Targeted poverty alleviation and land policy innovation: Some practice and policy implications from China (2018, background): “Therefore, institutional innovations play an important role in promoting poverty alleviation (Milder et al., 2010; Pamuk et al., 2015; Yan, 2015; Liu et al., 2016).”
A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services (2017, background): “…PES schemes have been developed from the bottom-up in collaboration with local communities, particularly in international development contexts (e.g. Milder et al., 2010), it is common for PES schemes to be developed from the top-down by Governments, conservation agencies and NGOs, or developed…”
In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in ecosystem services governance (2015, background): “Research by Milder et al. (2010) about global trends inmarkets and payments for ecosystem ser-”
Assessing the Relationship Between Human Well-being and Ecosystem Services: A Review of Frameworks (2014, background): “While such interventions aim to promote economic efficiency, little is known about how they affect well-being, particularly for vulnerable human populations (Milder et al. 2010; Schreckenberg et al. 2010; Corbera 2012; Clements and Milner-Gulland 2014).”
The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation (2017, result): “Induction from these and other cases increasingly confirmed this as a more general pattern (Milder et al. 2010; Vatn 2010).”