On the efficiency of environmental service payments: A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica

By R. Sierra, E. Russman. 2006

283 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9b006f7175288af8ff4babd6729e471cfa7618c3

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

1. Sven Wunder
2. S. Engel
3. B. Matzdorf
4. Sarah Schomers
5. E. Corbera
6. R. Fletcher
7. G. Hecken
8. R. Muradian

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Sven Wunder
2. S. Engel
3. E. Corbera
4. R. Fletcher
5. B. Matzdorf
6. Sarah Schomers
7. A. Vatn
8. J. Farley

Citations in the corpus

• Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? (2010, methodology): “Parcel-Level Analyses We start with two analyses of landowner parcels in the Osa Peninsula (Sierra and Russman 2006) and Sarapiqui region (Sills et al. 2008).”
• Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica (2008, background): “Likewise, Sierra and Russman (2006), found that PSA recipients in the Osa Peninsula had over 92% of their farm under forest or bush, compared to 72% for non-recipients.”
• Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions (2013, background): “…that national PES scheme in Costa Rica hold a low degree of environmental additionality, that is, it targets areas with low deforestation risk (Sierra and Russman 2006; Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2007), and tends to enroll areas with low opportunity costs, relatively large farms, and private…”
• Ecosystem services: The economics debate (2012, background): “A third is whether PES schemes actually achieve their goals (Muradian et al., 2010; Porras et al., 2008; Sierra and Russman, 2006; Vatn, 2010; Wunder et al., 2008).”
• Consequences of Environmental Service Payments for Forest Retention and Recruitment in a Costa Rican Biological Corridor (2009, background): “Charral typically persists on abandoned land for a short period of time ( 10 yr) before a tree canopy develops, but the 1996 Forestry Law’s legal definition of forest provides a perverse incentive for landowners to inhibit the development of secondary forest (Sierra and Russman 2006).”
• Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica (2012, background): “Recently, greater effort has sought to empirically assess the program’s overall efficacy at both regional (e.g., Sierra and Russman, 2006; Morse et al., 2009) and national (Sánchez-Azofeifa et al., 2007; Pfaff et al., 2008) levels.”
• Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, background): “Targeting payments to areas where they are most needed (Sierra and Russman, 2006) increases environmental effectiveness.”
• Beyond exclusion: alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics (2010, background): “They may not even be efficient unless careful targeting is done [49].”
• Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “Some have questioned if PES payments will actually be more lucrative than money that could be acquired from more destructive uses like logging, and how PES payments should be designed to encourage conservation-minded land uses (Sierra and Russman, 2006; Ibarra Gené, 2007).”
• Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Evaluate Participation in Costa Rica's Program of Payments for Environmental Services (2009, unknown): “Studies have generally found that the land enrolled in the program has more forest cover that nonenrolled land (e.g., Ortiz, Sage, & Borge, 2003; Zbinden & Lee, 2005; Sierra & Russman, 2006); but these results are not conclusive, as they may be due to sample selection bias (Sills et al., 2006).”
• Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn't? (2012, background): “For example, Somanathan et al. (2009) observe that state-controlled forest plots had more forest cover at the baseline, were located on north-facing slopes away from roads and villages, and had large nearby forest stocks and low population density.”
• Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services (2012, background): “…for ecosystem services implemented at the national level in Costa Rica, arguably the world’s best known PES scheme, has been reported to render a low level of environmental additionality, namely a little effect on preventing deforestation (Sierra and Russman, 2006; Sanchez-Azofeifa et al., 2007).”
• Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica's PES: Are we asking the right questions? (2010, background): “In agreement with these findings in the Osa Peninsula, Morse et al. (2009) found that PES played a role in forest expansion in the north Caribbean plain.”