Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view

By G. Hecken, J. Bastiaensen. 2010

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c6d798f70fc52d015bb94de6ad3d5bcc95fd09c6

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

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Ecosystem services (2011, unknown): “Van Hecken and Bastiaensen (2010) have, however, looked at the political economy aspects of PES schemes, and noted that in recent debates the market efficiency aspects of such schemes have often overshadowed discussion of the distributional implications.”
The political ecology of ecosystem services (2015, unknown): “From a strategic perspective, some see the concept as too broad, easily confused with others (Lamarque et al., 2011), while others critique its political efficacy (Van Hecken, 2010).”
Redefining payments for environmental services (2012, background): “7 The categorization of externalities is a political decision depending on historical and socio-institutional entitlements (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010).”
Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits (2013, background): “Nor does it resolve what are fundamentally moral and political questions over the internalization of costs that do not directly support production (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010).”
Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “…‘‘it is unsustainable, inefficient and possibly unfair from a social welfare point of view to place the burden of conservation entirely upon local land users by ‘expropriating’ or ‘attenuating’ part of their property rights’’, even if compensation is paid (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010).”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “There are also doubts over the ability of MBIs to adequately secure the provision of public goods and common pool resources (Muradian and Rival, 2012; Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010; Kinzig et al., 2011; Lockie, 2013) whilst providing cost-effective policy (Kemkes et al., 2010).”
Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, methodology): “…adoption of integrated silvopastoral farming systems in degraded pasture lands; and (2) the resulting improvements in ecosystems functioning, global environmental benefits, and local socio-economic gains resulting from the provision of said services’’ (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010b: 426).”