Silver bullet or fools' gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor.

By N. Landell-Mills, I. Porras. 2002

829 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9d17bf1fbcd60a010520d770bd4fe80562f2721b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Payments for Ecosystem Services in Nicaragua: Do Market-based Approaches Work? (2010, background): “…parcels, provide mankind with marketed goods and additional ‘services’ such as carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity protection, watershed protection and scenic beauty, which are provided at local, regional and global levels (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; MEA, 2005; Wunder, 2005).”
The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “Few studies have explored or proved the synergies between PES and livelihood outcomes (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Pagiola et al., 2005; Wunder, 2008; Tallis et al., 2008).”
Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence (2008, background): “Regarding tenure, one global review had feared that PES could induce more powerful groups to crowd out smallholders from their land whenever insecure property rights existed (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002).”
Direct payments for biodiversity conservation in developing countries: practical insights for design and implementation (2009, background): “In this way, direct payment initiatives respond to numerous calls for the use of market-based mechanisms in conservation to pay for biodiversity services that were previously provided in kind by often poor resource users (Balmford et al., 2002; Landell-Mills & Porras, 2002; Pagiola et al., 2002).”
Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries (2008, background): “There is a growing literature on the links between PES and poverty (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Kerr, 2002; Pagiola et al., 2005; Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; Wunder, 2008), although the quantitative-empirical basis for assessing results often remains quite limited (see Engel et al., this issue).”
Using return‐on‐investment to guide restoration: a case study from Hawaii (2008, background): “…continue to focus on developing revenue streams (e.g., payments for ecosystem services) that allow landowners to capture privately a portion of the benefits that accrue more broadly to society from conservation (Davis 2005; Landell-Mills & Porras 2002; Pagiola et al. 2002; Schuyt et al. 2007).”
An agglomeration payment for cost-effective biodiversity conservation in spatially structured landscapes (2010, background): “Increasingly, payment schemes for conservation measures are also applied in developing countries (e.g. Landell-Mills and Porras 2002).”
Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests (2014, background): “As is mentioned above, PES face considerable pressure to support both environmental protection and poverty alleviation goals (e.g., Landell-Mills & Porras 2002, Turpie et al. 2008, Lipper et al. 2009).”
The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation (2007, background): “There are many incipient PES initiatives (Landell-Mills & Porras 2002; Pagiola et al. 2002), but for PES schemes with some experience and with money conditionally changing hands, one is typically referred only to Costa Rica and a couple of dozen other pioneer experiences, mostly in Latin America.”
Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua (2007, background): “Although PES can contribute to poverty reduction by making payments to poor farmers, there has been concern over the ability of poorer households to participate (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Pagiola et al., 2005).”
Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources (2011, background): “Although PES have been hailed as a promising solution for conservation dilemmas in many different contexts, they have mostly been applied to conserve forests and their associated ecosystems (e.g., Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Engel et al., 2008; Wunder et al., 2008; and Muradian et al., 2010).”