Direct Payments to Conserve Biodiversity

By Paul J. Ferraro, A. Kiss. Science, 2002

1,005 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/df4e99a064b65d18736251948b7db264b7da0319

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

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability (2020, background): “Whereas incentives and capacity building are often seen as alternatives (Ferraro & Kiss, 2002), here we treat them as inseparable, both because effective incentive programmes can have a substantial capacity-building element (Wilcove & Lee, 2004) or depend on sufficient pre-existing capacity.”
From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services (2018, background): “But the empirical evidence also points to three specific stylized design and implementation recommendations4,5,9,22–25: (1) spatial targeting, (2) payment differentiation and (3) enforced conditionality.”
Managing Increasing Environmental Risks Through Agro-Biodiversity and Agri-Environmental Policies (2010, neutral): “…at large in terms of positively inﬂuencing the 1 A third strategy, which is not explicitly considered here, is the use of risk-reducing inputs into the agricultural production process, such as e.g. irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, or enhanced (through breeding or genetic modiﬁcation) varieties.”
Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts (2005, background): “The concept of payments for environmental services (PES) is at the centre of calls for more direct conservation approaches (Hardner and Rice 2002; Niesten and Rice 2004; Scherr, White, and Khare 2004; Ferraro and Kiss 2002).”
An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation (2008, background): “, enforcement of existing legislation, capacity-building, and the establishment of cooperative governance structures), and valuebased instruments (education and recognition) (28, 29, 38, 52, 82, 83).”
Poverty and biodiversity: Measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots (2007, positive): “Ferraro and Kiss (2002) argue that direct payments for conserving biodiversity benefit poor by “improving cash flows, providing a fungible store of wealth and diversifying sources of household income”.”
Consequences of Environmental Service Payments for Forest Retention and Recruitment in a Costa Rican Biological Corridor (2009, background): “Direct payments to landowners to plant or protect forests are promoted as an effective mechanism for providing environmental services (Ferraro and Kiss 2002) consistent with the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: Theory and narrative (2007, background): “Fjeldstad (2003) finds that theoretical studies present reasons explaining how decentralization can both lead to increased or decreased corruption.”
Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil (2014, background): “As discussed in the growing body of literature on Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES), in the last two decades such schemes have become a popular and attractive policy instrument for many rural developers, environmental managers, and other practitioners, as well as a fashionable concept for academ”