Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services

By R. Muradian, E. Corbera, U. Pascual, Nicolás Kosoy, P. May. 2010

1,118 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c05e72197ff0180ccb5cc30e46b006adce93fd64

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. L. Tacconi
2. Sven Wunder
3. B. Matzdorf
4. Sarah Schomers
5. S. Engel
6. E. Corbera
7. R. Fletcher
8. Bram Büscher

In Global and Planetary Change

1. L. Tacconi
2. Sven Wunder
3. E. Corbera
4. B. Matzdorf
5. Sarah Schomers
6. Bram Büscher
7. S. Engel
8. R. Fletcher

Citations in the corpus

• Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism (2010, background): “This is a consequence of the application of the ‘ecosystem service concept’ to several policy contexts and in many initiatives worldwide (Fisher and Turner, 2008; Muradian et al., 2010-this issue).”
• Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions:Comparison of three programs from Cambodia? (2010, positive): “Firstly, direct payments require strong institutional frameworks that support contracting, particularly enforcementofproperty rights (Börner et al., 2010-this issue; Muradian et al., 2010-this issue; Vatn, 2010-this issue).”
• Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, methodology): “Therefore, it may be convenient to define PES as a transfer of resources between social actors, which aims to create incentives to align individual and/or collective land use decisions with the social interest in the management of natural resources’’ (Muradian et al., 2010: 1205).”
• Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability (2017, background): “In this article, we address a broad basket of incentive-driven programs and projects intended to protect or provide sustainable flows of ecosystem services, commonly referred to as PES (Wunder, 2005, 2013; Muradian et al., 2010; Barrett et al., 2013), but also including a variety of related programs”
• Payments for ecosystem services as neoliberal conservation: (Reinterpreting) evidence from the Maloti-Drakensberg, South Africa (2012, background): “This directs attention to another point which is only alluded to in the PES literature (f.i. Muradian et al. 2010), i.e., that the evidence built up in scientific constructions of PES depends on it being validated and taken up by particular epistemic communities “of experts sharing a belief in a…”
• Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder (2010, background): “Other scholars (Daily et al., 2000;Muradian et al., 2010—this issue; Pascual, et al, 2010— this issue; Vatn, 2010—this issue) have noted the contextuality of ecosystem service projects, and how each must be, and to some extent are, designed on their own terms.”
• Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions (2013, background): “Most PES schemes do not fulfill the strict criteria that define markets (high commoditization; high conditionality; voluntariness), mainly due to the inherent complexities of socioecological systems and significant transaction costs (Muradian et al. 2010).”
• Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view (2010, background): “Kosoy and Corbera (2010), as well as Lohmann (2010) and Norgaard (2010), draw attention to problems and limitations that come with the commodification of ESs, as this process dangerously oversimplifies the complex underlying social, political and biophysical relationships between humans and the…”