Evidence of Payments for Ecosystem Services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods

By J. Ingram, D. Wilkie, T. Clements, R. McNab, F. Nelson, Erick H. Baur, H. Sachedina, D. Peterson, C. Foley. 2014

151 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.

Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico (2017, unknown): “A recent review of cases from Guatemala, Cambodia and Tanzania (Ingram et al. 2014) also provides positive evidence for PES as a way to conserve biodiversity and support local livelihoods.”
The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “Synergies and trade-offs between, and within, livelihood and environmental dimensions should be clear when negotiating PES, enabling transparent mechanisms that distribute PES benefits equitably (Ingram et al., 2014).”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “…et al., 2013); ensuring programmes provide adequate socio-economic contributions to livelihood development by focusing on the poorest sectors (e.g., Ingram et al., 2014); and developing appropriate property rights regimes and building institutional capacity and institutions that are robust,…”