Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications
By J. Börner, Sven Wunder, S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, M. R. Tito, L. Pereira, N. Nascimento. 2010
284 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Soil Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7524d0e9d26ce22f7ce84e679407553ec0cbfb0b
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 Soil Science
Citations in the corpus
- Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico (2011, background): “Among them, a classical efficiency versus equity dilemma has been discussed (Börner et al., 2010; Muradian et al., 2010; Pascual et al., 2010).”
- Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “…Engel and Palmer, 2008; Zhang and Pagiola, 2011); managing trade-offs arising from the need to balance efficiency, effectiveness and equity (e.g., Bor̈ner et al., 2010; Pascual et al., 2010, Narloch et al., 2011); institutional embeddedness and propensity to cooperate (e.g. Muradian et al.,…”
- What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo program (2014, result): “Paricipation among rural communities and farmers is higher than eported in assessments of Costa Rica’s national PES program and in rojections of PES outcomes in Brazil (Miranda et al., 2003; Zbinden nd Lee, 2005; Borner et al., 2010) and corroborates research uggesting that PES can be attractive and”
- Protected areas, conservation and tourism – financing the sustainable dream (2014, background): “According to its critics, the economic and commodity-based views of nature inherent in market environmentalist ideology favour those who can afford to purchase the rights to access highly valued ecosystems (B€orner et al., 2010; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Pascual et al., 2010; Vatn, 2010).”
- Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits (2013, background): “…Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (Gong et al., 2010), the United Nations’ Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation scheme (Börner et al., 2010; Hoang, forthcoming) and many agri-environmental programs run under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (Courtney,…”
- When payments for environmental services will work for conservation (2013, background): “For Brazil, Börner et al. (2010) estimated that only about one-fourth of threatened Amazon forestland would have tenure conditions that immediately lend themselves to PES imple- mentation.”
- Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, background): “Furthermore auctions are discussed and recommended for carbon payment schemes in the Amazon (Boerner et al., 2010; Wertz-Kanounnikoff et al., 2008) and to be implemented in Mexico’s national PES program (Alix-Garcia et al.”
- Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions:Comparison of three programs from Cambodia? (2010, unknown): “Firstly, direct payments require strong institutional frameworks that support contracting, particularly enforcementofproperty rights (Börner et al., 2010-this issue; Muradian et al., 2010-this issue; Vatn, 2010-this issue).”