Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision

By Robin J. Kemkes, J. Farley, Christopher J. Koliba. 2010

236 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7700f73d19016563b62580624fe05cf9d56d3573

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 ecosystem services: From local to global (2010, background): “Excludability is in some cases a dynamic policy variable, but some ecosystem services are inherently non-excludable as an immutable physical characteristic (Daly and Farley, 2010; Kemkes et al., 2010-this issue).”
Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: a test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands. (2015, methodology): “Themodelled ESwere alsomapped separately for serviceswith a public and private character, using rivalry and excludability as criteria (Costanza, 2008; Kemkes et al., 2010).”
Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification (2014, background): “The degree of rivalry indicates how much the use of one service by an individual or a user group impacts the quality or quantity of that service available to other users (Schröter et al. 2014; Kemkes et al. 2010).”
Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability (2017, background): “Broadbrush arguments can impede progress, because appropriateness of program designs depends on various dimensions of context (Wunder et al., 2008; Corbera et al., 2009; Kemkes et al., 2010; Brooks et al., 2012; Muradian et al., 2013).”
Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico (2011, methodology): “On one hand PES have been frequently used as a poverty alleviation tool, mainly when governments stand as service buyers (Kemkes et al., 2010; Pagiola, 2005; Wunder et al., 2008).”
Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services (2011, background): “Kemkes et al. (2010) emphasized the importance of carefully selecting existing intermediaries, but not the number of intermediaries.”
Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, methodology): “Kemkes et al. (2010) presented a framework to determine how the characteristics of ES – in particular rivalry and excludability – affect the shaping of the respective governance structures and how and where PES can be an effective tool for ES provision.”
Managing private and public adaptation to climate change (2012, background): “While payments for ecosystem services are designed to harness the best aspects of market incentives for public ends, typically the institutional arrangements entail the involvement of an intermediary – a government or non-governmental agency – to negotiate prices and purchases from resource managers”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “…of practical obstacles may also hinder PES implementation: scheme design and payment structure (e.g., Engel et al., 2008; Kelsey Jack et al., 2008; Kemkes et al., 2010; Adhikari and Boag, 2012); modes of implementation (e.g., Engel and Palmer, 2008; Zhang and Pagiola, 2011); managing trade-offs…”