The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments

By Paul J. Ferraro, R. Simpson. Land Economics, 2002

426 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6c75896c26055a0e09b7aa7f26a185e8d7479b56

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

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues (2008, background): “ICDPs mostly aim at absorbing local labor in alternative, environmentally-benign activities, such as tourism, product processing and value added (Ferraro and Simpson, 2002).”
Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services (2015, background): “Where on this multidimensional tradeoff curve is PES currently positioned? Indeed, it is an area of interdisciplinarity, yet also with a dominant theoretical basis in economics (Simpson and Sedjo, 1996; Ferraro, 2001; Ferraro and Simpson, 2002).”
A qualitative meta-synthesis of the benefits of eco-labeling in developing countries (2016, background): “…stewardship’ to consumers who may be willing to pay a higher price in order to incentivize the joint production of sustainably-harvested commodities, like timber or fish, and ecosystem services (Ferraro & Kiss, 2002; Ferraro & Simpson, 2002; Groom & Palmer, 2010; Groom & Palmer, 2014).”
Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence (2008, background): “This narrow yet simple definition draws on the theoretical PES literature (Simpson and Sedjo, 1996; Ferraro and Kiss, 2002; Ferraro and Simpson, 2002).”
Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica (2012, background): “Thus, despite theoretical arguments that PES programs can be cost-effective (Ferraro and Simpson 2002), their effectiveness is ultimately an empirical question (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006).”
Can carbon sequestration markets benefit low-income producers in semi-arid Africa? Potentials and challenges (2007, background): “This may contribute to reducing rural poverty by providing payments to low-income resource managers who adopt C sequestration technologies (Smith and Scherr, 2002), along the lines of payments for environmental services (Ferraro, 2001; Pagiola et al., 2004, 2005).”
Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes (2012, background): “By pointing out the weaknesses of indirect environmental interventions, such as integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPs), others (67) argued that PES can create a direct incentive scheme between ES sellers and buyers and thus might better achieve both conservation and development obj”
How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor?: preliminary Lessons from Latin America (2005, background): “In the recent literature, schemes with conditional payments, made directly from the service user to its provider, with prices determined by negotiation, have been promoted with strong theoretical arguments (e.g., Ferraro & Kiss, 2002; Ferraro & Simpson, 2002; Hardner & Rice, 2002).”
The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services (2017, neutral): “By directly compensating environmental service providers for the opportunity costs of conservation, PES was originally conceived as a theoretically cost-effective 2 instrument for maximizing the impact of scarce conservation funds (Ferraro & Kiss, 2002; Ferraro & Simpson, 2002).”
When payments for environmental services will work for conservation (2013, background): “…conservation and development projects (ICDP) incarnated this belief, implying that strategically conservation interventions had to be indirect by first changing the logic of local production, improve alternative incomes, and then achieve “conservation by distraction” (Ferraro & Simpson 2002, 2005).”
Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources (2011, background): “Direct payments may prove to be most effective in co serving that which benefits wider society (Ferraro, 2001; Ferraro and Simpson, 2002).”
Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program (2012, background): “…the context of reducing deforestation or forest degradation, the goal of PES programs is to induce additional forest conservation (“additionality” or “avoided deforestation”) by raising the returns to forested land (see, e.g., Ferraro and Simpson 2002; Bond et al. 2009; Pagiola and Zhang 2010).”
Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach (2010, background): “), the PES efficiency effect ought to be evaluated relative to the cost of achieving the same outcomes by any alternative policy means (Ferraro and Simpson, 2002).”