The social impacts of the Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Scheme in Costa Rica: A quantitative field survey and analysis of the Virilla watershed

By Miriam Miranda, I. Porras, M. L. Moreno. 2003

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2d50ea7763dcd9fe65faec071645445545c33c53

How researchers see this paper

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

1. Sven Wunder
2. S. Engel
3. E. Corbera
4. U. Pascual
5. S. Pagiola
6. R. Muradian
7. A. Hejnowicz
8. Nicolás Kosoy

Citations in the corpus

• Consequences of Environmental Service Payments for Forest Retention and Recruitment in a Costa Rican Biological Corridor (2009, methodology): “Program participants were expected to be different from nonparticipants in the region (Miranda et al. 2003, Zbinden and Lee 2005), and a livelihoods analysis was used to examine differences between these groups (DFID 2003).”
• Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America (2005, background): “15 A smaller sample survey in the Virilla watershed found that PES payments averaged about 16% of family income (Miranda et al., 2003).”
• Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica (2008, background): “Ortiz Malavasi et al. (2002) and Miranda et al. (2003) both found that many PSA participants stated they would have protected their forest even in the absence of the PSA Program.”
• Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica (2012, background): “Previous studies of PSA participation (Ortiz, Sage, and Borge 2003; Miranda, Porras, and Moreno 2003; Zbinden and Lee 2005; Arriagada et al. 2009; Morse et al. 2009) have consistently found that PSA participants differ from nonparticipants in important farm-level characteristics that directly…”
• Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services (2010, background): “For instance, in the PES scheme for forest conservation in Costa Rica, possibly the most well known PES scheme in Latin America, most environmental service providers are relatively well-off landholders (Miranda et al., 2003; Zbinden and Lee, 2005; Kosoy et al., 2007).”
• Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua (2008, result): “Worries that poorer households may not be able to participate in PES programs have been heightened by recent case studies in Costa Rica indicating that many participants in that country’s PES program are relatively well-off (Ortiz Malavasi et al., 2002; Miranda et al., 2003; Zbinden and Lee, 2005)”
• Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Evaluate Participation in Costa Rica's Program of Payments for Environmental Services (2009, methodology): “Qualitative interviewing techniques such as the prototypical case-study approach draw on the results of small-sample surveys (Miranda et al., 2003, 2006; Ortiz et al., 2003) and explore key elements of program participation.”
• Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America (2007, background): “Miranda et al. (2003) also found that themain beneficiaries of PES schemes in the Virilla watershed are wealthy landholders, as in other cases in Costa Rica (Zbinden and Lee, 2005).”
• Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues (2008, background): “As these costs are usually unobserved, however, the few studies that have attempted to quantify benefits generally use indicators such as PES received as a share of income (e.g., Miranda et al., 2003).”
• Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services (2008, background): “Research in Costa Rica, for example, suggests that many of the PES contract recipients are absentee landlords who are neither poor nor likely to use the land in the absence of the PES program ( Miranda et al., 2003 ).”
• Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “At the other extreme, Costa Rica's PSA generally benefitted wealthier landowners because larger farms acquired proportionally more money (Miranda et al., 2003).”
• How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor?: preliminary Lessons from Latin America (2005, background): “Moreover, in this watershed, financial contributions from water users—a brewery and two utility companies—complement the funding from the gasoline tax (Miranda et al., 2003).”