Redefining payments for environmental services

By L. Tacconi. 2012

274 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/826715bca027cbcace919808f0e2643beaaa31bc

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

Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, methodology): “Nonetheless, the MBI model has been applied in many developing countries in the form of payment for ecosystem services (PES) programmes (Shelley, 2011; van Noordwijk et al., 2012; Tacconi, 2012; Derissen and Latacz-Lohmann, 2013) as a policy tool intended to address a spectrum of land management cha”
Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services (2015, methodology): “Here we start with the ones closest to my own, inwhat Luca Tacconi called “the environmental economics school” (Tacconi, 2012).”
The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services (2016, background): “Considerable debate has centered on the definition of PES (Tacconi, 2012; Wunder, 2015).”
Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services programs: Four sites of articulation and hybridization (2013, methodology): “, 2007a,b, 2011), the utilitarian focus and short-sightedness of the economic models employed to determine the ‘‘value’’ of ecosystem services (Costanza, 2000; Kumar and Kumar, 2008; Norgaard, 2010; Tacconi, 2012), and PES as a neoliberal policy destined to disenfranchise the poor and the global sou”
Beyond carbon: Conceptualizing payments for ecosystem services in blue forests on carbon and other marine and coastal ecosystem services (2013, background): “Because Taconni’s definition is broad enough to apply to real-world cases, offers specific design elements for guidance, and is the easiest of the three definitions to operationalize, this paper will adopt Taconni’s definition for designing a framework for piloting and testing PES in blue forests ec”
Payments for Environmental Services and Motivation Crowding: Towards a Conceptual Framework (2019, background): “…that landowners and rural communities will voluntarily participate in PES if the incentives received up-front or ex-post are direct and cover the opportunity costs and hence result sufficiently attractive to undertake the required activities for the provision of ecosystem services (Tacconi, 2012).”
Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services (2013, unknown): “This has been the guiding logic for the efficacy of PES in conserving ecosystem services for the least cost (Tacconi, 2011).”
The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “Other mainstreamed definitions rely on the incremental provision of environmental services (Sommerville et al., 2009; Tacconi, 2012) or on incentives to align individual/collective land-use decisions and social interest by transferring resources between social actors (Muradian et al.”
When payments for environmental services will work for conservation (2013, background): “They do so from a PES-skeptical angle, in what Tacconi (2012) recently called the “ecological economics perspective” on PES, although their thinking arguably contains also positivist, institutional economics angles.”