Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions:Comparison of three programs from Cambodia?

By T. Clements, Ashish John, K. Nielsen, Dara An, Shuai Tan, E. Milner‐Gulland. 2010

300 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d7b8af0c3060171780ffbddaa0caafde80c342a1

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. B. Matzdorf
2. Sarah Schomers
3. E. Corbera
4. S. Lockie
5. Nicolás Kosoy
6. U. Pascual
7. R. Muradian
8. P. McElwee

In Global and Planetary Change

1. E. Corbera
2. B. Matzdorf
3. Sarah Schomers
4. S. Lockie
5. R. Muradian
6. P. McElwee
7. Nicolás Kosoy
8. U. Pascual

In Sociology and Political Science

1. P. McElwee
2. R. Muradian
3. U. Pascual
4. S. Lockie
5. E. Corbera
6. Nicolás Kosoy
7. Sven Wunder

Citations in the corpus

• Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, background): “Villagers are paid for ceasing to hunt birds (Clements et al., 2010).”
• Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services (2014, background): “Combined, these findings support the approaches presented by Clements et al. (2010), Conservation International (2007), Milne and Niesten (2009), and Van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) that use a combination of direct and indirect, cash and non-cash reward types that encourage institution building,…”
• What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo program (2014, background): “Social capital in the form of networks and community organization has been found to be important in sustainable development in the Andes, broadly (Bebbington, 1997) as well as in PES programs in other parts of the world (Zbinden and Lee, 2005; Jack et al., 2008; Muñoz-Pina et al., 2008; Corbera et a”
• Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services (2010, background): “In some circumstances, economic incentives may ‘crowd-out’ local rules and social norms, affecting ‘intrinsic motivations’ for environmental protection behavior (Clements et al., 2010-this issue).”
• Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits (2013, background): “…in these circumstances, fixed payments may need to approach the full short-term opportunity cost of service provision or, alternatively, be accompanied by additional policy measures either compelling resource users to act or providing additional non-monetary assistance (Clements et al., 2010).”
• The importance of local forest benefits: Economic valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania (2014, unknown): “Further recognition of local individual and/or community rights to the ecosystem services provided by forest, and development of the legal system to secure these rights, will be necessary for the poor to benefit from such payments (Clements et al., 2010).”
• Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “While some early PES schemes have shown some promising conservation outcomes (Asquith et al., 2008; Morse et al., 2009; Clements et al., 2010), these have not been without costs or concerns about equity.”