Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions

By Roldan Muradian, M. Arsel, Lorenzo Pellegrini, Fikret Adaman, B. Aguilar, B. Agarwal, E. Corbera, D. Blas, Joshua Farley, G. Froger and 23 more. 2013

510 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/dcd2b5afb1d6fef0766fcfb3d7b85296ac812c4f

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

Effects of Monetary Versus Environmental Information Framing: Implications for Long-Term Pro-Environmental Behavior and Intrinsic Motivation (2018, unknown): “Other studies show that monetary incentives may undermine long-term efforts regarding ecosystem conservation (Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, 2011; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Muradian et al., 2013; Vatn, 2010).”
The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services (2017, unknown): “Given the sustained interest in PES, much has been written about the potential benefits and pitfalls of payment-based approaches in environmental governance (Muradian et al., 2013; Wunder, 2013).”
Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice (2014, background): “However, experience with environmental instruments marketed as win–win solutions suggests that there are likely to be tensions and trade-offs between the different potential benefits (Muradian et al., 2013).”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “…a plurality of ‘hybrid governance’ instruments that conflate conceptually different philosophies and mechanisms (i.e., rewards, incentives, markets), often addressing social–environmental problems not externalities arising from market failures (Muradian and Gómez-Baggethun, 2013; Muradian, 2013).”
The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation (2017, background): “Some suggest introducing a distinction between programmes intended to provide a payment to incentivize preservation of ES that might not otherwise occur and those intended merely to ‘compensate’ providers for the services they already deliver anyway (CES rather than PES) (McAfee and Shapiro 2010; va”
When payments for environmental services will work for conservation (2013, methodology): “Another frequently applied misconception is that economic valuation is a prerequisite for PES (e.g. McCauley 2006; Muradian et al. 2013: “PES is . . . valuing and paying for services”).”
Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia (2015, background): “Nevertheless, recent literature shows that the Coasean and pure market approach that dominate the conceptualisation of PES cannot be easily generalised or implemented in practice (Muradian et al., 2013, 2010).”
Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence (2015, background): “…may, under certain conditions, undermine long term conservation efforts (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010; Vatn, 2010; Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez, 2011; Muradian et al., 2013). lecon.2014.09.029. nmental Research – UFZ, Dept. zig, Germany. for the sake of brevitywe often and ecosystem…”
Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services (2014, background): “2011, Corbera and Pascual 2012, Muradian et al 2013, Wunder 2013).”