Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: Lessons from seven PES schemes

165 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.

Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services (2012, background): “access to organizations and networks), levels of trust, and existing values attached to forests are critical factors influencing local farmers and communities’ ability and willingness to participate in PES design and implementation [39,71].”
The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “Disbursement of payments only in the first years of PES scheme operation can affect income stability in the long term (Mahanty et al., 2013; Tacconi et al., 2013).”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “The socially transformative capacity of PES is linked to scheme access, which is underpinned by eligibility and participation (Mahanty et al., 2013).”