Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives

By Erwin H. Bulte, Leslie Lipper, R. Stringer, David Zilberman. Environment and Development Economics, 2008

241 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Urban Studies

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e05001335862ca951bc48773676a4c4518601cf0

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 Urban Studies

Citations in the corpus

Only One Tree from Each Seed? Environmental Effectiveness and Poverty Alleviation in Mexico's Payments for Ecosystem Services Program (2015, background): “…greatest risk is not owned by the poorest households (Pagiola, Arcenas, and Platais 2005, Pfaff et al. 2007, Alix-Garcia, De Janvry, Sadoulet 2008, Bulte et al. 2008, Jack, Kousky, and Sims 2008, Zilberman, Lipper, and McCarthy 2008, Leimona and Joshi 2009, Pattanayak, Wunder, and Ferraro 2010,…”
Redefining payments for environmental services (2012, background): “, 2010) and one issue of Environment and Development Economics (Bulte et al., 2008).”
Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being (2011, background): “For example, managing for ecosystem services, and creating payment systems for the maintenance of those services are approaches that have received substantial interest as a way of conserving natural resources and addressing livelihood issues for the rural poor (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005;”
Integrating Ecology and Economics in the Study of Ecosystem Services: Some Lessons Learned (2009, background): “…for conservation (see, for example, Claassen et al. 2008), the recent interest in creating markets for ecosystem services has given the notion of payments for ecosystem services a new appeal and prominence in policy debates (Bulte et al. 2008, Daily & Ellison 1999, Heal 2000, Jack et al. 2008).”
The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “For example, reward-based conceptualizations include pro-poor or fairness objectives as part of the PES definition criteria (Bulte et al., 2008; Iftikhar et al., 2007; Van Noordwijk et al., 2007).”
Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “to promote social goods and pro-poor development (Bulte et al., 2008; Neef and Thomas, 2009; Pagiola et al., 2008; Wunder, 2008).”
Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests (2014, background): “Bulte et al. (2008), Lipper et al. (2009), and Palmer & Engel (2009) nicely review much of this work.”
Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services (2011, background): “Bulte et al. (2008) focused on PES both as a mechanism for environmental protection and poverty reduction, and showed that tying PES and poverty reduction may result in lower efficiency in meeting either objective, thus it may be better to focus programmes that concentrate on one or the other…”
Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? (2010, background): “We direct interested readers to special issues of World Development (Pagiola, Arcenas, and Platais 2005), Environmental and Development Economics (Bulte et al. 2008), Ecological Economics (Engel, Pagiola, and Wunder 2008), International Journal of the Commons (Neef and Thomas 2009), and Journal of S”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “Poverty alleviation, surprisingly, was mentioned in only 27% of cases as a key driver of PES development despite the increasingly pro-poor rationale for PES and the recognition of the effects that poverty can have on natural capital (Bulte et al., 2008).”
Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty (2013, background): “…reason policy instruments such as payments for environmental or ecosystem services (PES) have been advocated to create incentives similar to those that would be provided by market prices, if markets for environmental services would exist (e.g. Bulte et al. 2008, Corbera et al. 2007, Vatn 2009).”
Economic Factors Affecting Diversified Farming Systems (2013, background): “Finally, the transactions costs for farmers to enter into existing PES schemes as well as for private or public entities to develop new PES schemes are often quite high (Bulte et al. 2008, Engel et al. 2008).”