Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: The case of Indonesia ☆

By S. Engel, C. Palmer. 2008

137 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9dfc4f26249db48fa7eaaa09a7181a54ad9ee801

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. L. Tacconi
2. P. McElwee
3. E. Milner‐Gulland
4. Matthew Sommerville
5. D. Raffaelli
6. Julia P. G. Jones
7. S. Lockie

In Economics and Econometrics

1. L. Tacconi
2. D. Raffaelli
3. Piran C. L. White
4. M. Rudd
5. A. Hejnowicz
6. S. Lockie
7. P. McElwee
8. E. Milner‐Gulland

In Global and Planetary Change

1. L. Tacconi
2. Piran C. L. White
3. D. Raffaelli
4. A. Hejnowicz
5. M. Rudd
6. S. Lockie
7. P. McElwee
8. E. Milner‐Gulland

Citations in the corpus

• A Revised Conceptual Framework for Payments for Environmental Services (2009, methodology): “There is wide acknowledgement that because of the variety of local institutional contexts surrounding natural-resource management, pure PES approaches fulfilling all of the criteria may not always be possible, or even preferable (Wunder 2005, Corbera et al. 2007, Engel and Palmer 2008).”
• Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “…can be high, and that PES may not be able to mitigate this.7 In other parts of the world, PES payments have had problems competing with other lucrative land uses, like logging, and projects have had difficulties in designing payments that encourage conservation outcomes (Engel and Palmer, 2008).”
• Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “…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 arising from the need to balance efficiency, effectiveness and equity (e.g.,…”
• Redefining payments for environmental services (2012, background): “Trade-offs between efficiency, defined as the cost-effectiveness of the scheme in the provision of ES, and equity may be present (e.g. Engel and Palmer, 2008; Pagiola et al., 2005).”
• Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits (2013, background): “Where existing degradation or exploitation is related to a lack of clarity over who holds rights to access or manage a resource, or to a lack of equity in resource access, this may prove difficult (Engel et al., 2008; Engel and Palmer, 2008; Gong et al., 2010).”