Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua
By S. Pagiola, A. Rios, A. Arcenas. Environment and Development Economics, 2008
175 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1e0fdf6887f075c26eb772af79c1bb8f3c820ed9
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
- Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “Other development-oriented researchers and practitioners have looked to PES programs as opportunities to promote social goods and pro-poor development (Bulte et al., 2008; Neef and Thomas, 2009; Pagiola et al., 2008; Wunder, 2008).”
- Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua (2007, background): “While most participants receive both payments and TA, a randomly selected subgroup of 30 households do not receive TA. A test of factors affecting the adoption of silvopastoral practices in the project’s first year found TA not to be significant ( Pagiola et al., forthcoming ).”
- Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. (2010, background): “However, when such requirements are absent, the poor have been able to participate in PES across a variety of settings, even when they are not targeted preferentially (Uchida et al. 2007, Wunder and Albán 2007, Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008, Pagiola et al. 2008a).”
- Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services (2010, background): “For instance, Pagiola et al. (2008) note that poorer landholders have been able to participate as providers of environmental services derived from silvopastoral biodiversity practices in Nicaragua thus benefiting from the scheme.”
- What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo program (2014, background): “While land-use requirements related to páramo management under SP do not require specialized technical capacity, as would be required in forestry PES programs (Zbinden and Lee, 2005; Pagiola et al., 2008), documentation, including a property map, a bank account, and an investment plan, can be an obs”
- Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice (2012, background): “Many projects that aim to conserve or enhance the provision of ecosystem services, among other conservation benefits, employ what is generally referred to as payments for ecosystem services (PES; Landell-Mills & Porras, 2002; Porras et al., 2008).”
- Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues (2008, background): “Pagiola et al. (2007b, 2008) examine the extent to which poorer households are able to participate in a pilot PES program in Colombia and Nicaragua, and find either no statistical difference between the degree of participation of poorer and better-off households or that poorer households actually…”