Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global

By J. Farley, Robert Costanza. 2010

751 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1df00527357e8b4dd437203259bf40298f9ace81

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

Citations in the corpus

The future of agri‐environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery? (2011, background): “Payments for ecosystem services are increasingly common around the world (e.g. Farley & Costanza 2010).”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “This signals an underlying shift in national and international natural resource use policy (Farley and Costanza, 2010; Pokorny et al., 2012).”
Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico (2011, background): “The challenge is to find mechanisms that reinforce synergies between intrinsic values and monetary incentives (Farley and Constanza, 2010).”
Beyond carbon: Conceptualizing payments for ecosystem services in blue forests on carbon and other marine and coastal ecosystem services (2013, methodology): “Bundling would recognize the complexity of these systems and allow for payments for services that are not clearly defined but are generated from the whole ecosystem (Farley and Costanza, 2010; Kosoy and Corbera, 2010).”
Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services (2015, background): “Hence, this is yet another example where a definition including intended ‘good’ impacts comes to look politically correct — as it did to Farley and Costanza (2010) — but in fact complicates our task of framing a phenomenon with the needed conceptual clarity.”
Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, background): “However, both, a national policy for the conceptualization of ES and a national PES Program are currently under discussion (Farley and Costanza, 2010).”
Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services (2011, background): “This includes, among others, special issues in the journals Ecological Economics (Engel et al. 2008; Farley & Costanza 2010), Environment and Development Economics (Bulte et al. 2008), and the Journal of Sustainable Forestry (Rebelo 2009).”
The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services (2016, background): “On the other hand, some authors have pointed to a risk that the introduction of cash payments reduces (‘crowd out’) pro-social behavior (Farley and Costanza, 2010; Vatn, 2010).”
Estimating population size of a nocturnal burrow-nesting seabird using acoustic monitoring and habitat mapping (2014, background): “In different circumstances different institutional arrangements seem to work (Farley and Costanza 2010).”
Natural capital and ecosystem services, developing an appropriate soils framework as a basis for valuation (2013, methodology): “Fisher et al. (2009) provide a recent overview of how ecosystem services are defined, indicating that the literature has no commonly accepted consistent definition; the MEA (2005) definition is perhaps the most familiar: “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems.”