Global Habitat Protection: Limitations of Development Interventions and a Role for Conservation Performance Payments

By Paul J. Ferraro. 2001

398 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d27b3a0c26797f3b3b1580474899aa9cb0d68726

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

Citations in the corpus

The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar (2002, background): “Although the conservation funds that were invested in the Ranomafana region in 1990s ($3.92 million) did not mitigate the local opportunity costs from the park’s establishment, my analysis suggests that those funds could have indeed encouraged local conservation support were they spent differently (”
When payments for environmental services will work for conservation (2013, background): “claim? In fact, PES were more than a decade ago conceptualized as a direct alternative to ICDPs, by remunerating people for conserving rather than investing in their alternative livelihoods (Simpson & Sedjo 1996; Ferraro 2001; Ferraro & Kiss 2002).”
The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments (2002, neutral): “There are a variety of such programs already in existence (Ferraro 2001).”
Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? (2010, background): “been articulated in a series of papers (Ferraro 2001; Ferraro and Kiss 2002; Ferraro and Simpson 2002; Simpson and Sedjo 1996).”
The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar☆ (2010, background): “…regulatorybased fences and fines paradigm and towards approaches that focus on positive incentives, such as Payment for Environmental Services (PES) (Ferraro, 2001; Wunder et al., 2008a), consideration of factors influencing individual choice becomes increasingly important (Adams and Hulme, 2001).”
Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and development: a conceptual framework (2007, background): “Ferraro (2001), Kiss (2004b), and others suggest that payments for environmental services (PES) are the most cost-effective means of improving the welfare of communities and of maintaining biodiversity, because they represent a simple trade based on measurable outputs, with payment being provided…”
Paying for Biodiversity Conservation Services in Agricultural Landscapes (2004, background): “A further approach, which has received increasing attention in recent years, is to provide direct payments for the provision of biodiversity services (Pagiola and Platais, forthcoming; Pagiola and others, 2002; Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Ferraro, 2001: Ferraro and Kiss, 2002).”
Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia (2012, background): “The need for voluntary agreements is fundamental to PES, which relies on a willing buyer–willing seller economic model (Ferraro, 2001).”
Local financial benefits of rain forests. Comparative evidence from Amerindian societies in Bolivia and Honduras (2002, background): “Transfers could take other forms, such as a subsidy to improve the training of teachers or village leaders, or a direct payment to parents to send their children to school; it could also come as a payment without restrictions to protect the forest (Ferraro, 2001; Godoy et al., 2000; Godoy et al., 20”
Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world (2003, background): “Global concerns over the effects of private land use on the supply of environmental amenities have led to increasing reliance on conservation contracting initiatives (Ferraro, 2001).”
Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources (2011, background): “Direct payments may prove to be most effective in co serving that which benefits wider society (Ferraro, 2001; Ferraro and Simpson, 2002).”
Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua (2007, background): “An approach that has received increasing attention is to pay farmers directly to provide ecosystem services ( Ferraro, 2001; Pagiola and Platais,”
Direct payments for biodiversity conservation in developing countries: practical insights for design and implementation (2009, background): “The synergy between sustainable financing mechanisms and conservation contracting approaches has been noted (Ferraro, 2001; Kiss, 2004).”
The role of social capital in encouraging residents' pro-environmental behaviors in community-based ecotourism (2014, background): “The increased income from ecotourism alone is often not enough for conservation (Stronza & Gordillo, 2008) or can even foster more rapid resource extraction (Barrett, Brandon, Gibson, & Gjertsen, 2001; Ferraro, 2001).”
The Role of Incentive Programs in Conserving the Snow Leopard (2003, background): “In a recent review, Ferraro (2001) makes a distinction between incentive programs involving “development interventions” and those paying the local communities directly for conservation.”