Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results

By Carlos Muñoz-Piña, Alejandro Guevara, J. M. Torres, Jose D. Brana. 2008

604 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management Science and Operations Research, Ocean Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c3da34ce4bd8e9b3e2e30260994640d40061660c

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Ocean Engineering

Citations in the corpus

Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues (2008, background): “The PSAH program aims to preserve water supplies and is financed from a portion of the revenue generated from water use fees (Muñoz-Piña et al., 2008-this issue).”
Ethical Considerations in On-Ground Applications of the Ecosystem Services Concept (2012, background): “…is to identify institutional designs for motivational structures in which intrinsic and utilitarian values complement each other and to identify situations in which the use of utility-based rationales (e.g., financial incentives) may undermine the moral sentiments for conservation (Bowles 2008).”
Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services § (2010, background): “Norgaard (2009) warns that the step from value as a metaphor to economic pricing as key valuation method leads to a neglect of other ways of understanding ecosystems developed in ecosystem science, and thus obscures current and potential future knowledge.”
Only One Tree from Each Seed? Environmental Effectiveness and Poverty Alleviation in Mexico's Payments for Ecosystem Services Program (2015, methodology): “Satellite image analysis and/or ground visits are used to randomly verify forest cover on enrolled parcels (Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008, Wunder, Engel, and Pagiola 2008).2 If CONAFOR finds deforestation due to intentional changes such as logging or conversion to agriculture or pasture, these parcels are…”
Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism (2010, background): “…and runoffs (Ayward, 2005), these may also be influenced by other factors such as topography, the upstream forest type or land-use and preventive infrastructure, which may fall beyond the control of those who manage the watershed (Muñoz-Piña et al., 2008; Kosoy et al., 2007; Grip et al., 2005).”
Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions:Comparison of three programs from Cambodia? (2010, neutral): “, 2008), including the Costa Rican payments for environmental services program (Pagiola 2008; Zbinden and Lee, 2004) and Mexico's payments for hydrological environmental services program (Muñoz-Piña et al., 2008).”
Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar (2010, background): “For example, it has been recognized that including information on the level of threat to service provision (Alix-Garcia et al., 2005; Muñoz-Piña et al., 2005; Wünscher et al., 2008) and the opportunity costs of the land (Wunder, 2005, 2007;”
Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services (2011, background): “Most of these schemes were also included in previously published overviews (see Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008; Huang et al. 2009; Southgate & Wunder 2009; 382 R. Brouwer, A. Tesfaye and P. Pauw Daniels et al. 2010).”
Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, background): “The public good character of water prompted the Mexican government to ‘‘opt for a system in which it would act as an intermediary between service providers and users, instead of creating a framework for private transactions between them’’ (Munoz-Pina et al., 2008: 734).”
Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services (2010, background): “Seemingly, environmental additionality is probably low (Muñoz-Piña et al., 2008) since indigenous communities will likely conserve the forests independently of the payment, and therefore we assume that the importance of the economic incentive is relatively small.”
Beyond carbon: Conceptualizing payments for ecosystem services in blue forests on carbon and other marine and coastal ecosystem services (2013, background): “In Mexico, mangrove fringe and associated habitats in the Gulf of California are estimated to generate US $37,500 per hectare annually in fisheries production, an amount greater than all previous estimates for all services combined in mangroves, suggesting that the values of mangroves worldwide are ”
Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions (2013, background): “Similarly, the payment program for ecosystem services in Mexico is also reported to hold a low degree of environmental additionality (Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008), again probably reflecting the high influence of some social groups.”
Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico (2017, neutral): “The federal PES program offers annual payments under five-year contracts to landowners in exchange for maintaining existing forest or other vegetative land cover on enrolled parcels (Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008, Alix-Garcia et al. 2015).”