The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services

By E. Corbera, K. Brown, W. Adger. 2007

412 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e3cb9e7af87727c7f7097018dfe889d244945d2b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

A Revised Conceptual Framework for Payments for Environmental Services (2009, background): “There is wide acknowledgement that because of the variety of local institutional contexts surrounding natural-resource management, pure PES approaches fulfilling all of the criteria may not always be possible, or even preferable (Wunder 2005, Corbera et al. 2007, Engel and Palmer 2008).”
Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach (2010, background): “We therefore do not deal with the dimension of procedural justice in terms of the design and implementation of PES (see Corbera et al., 2007 for an exposition and application of these terms).”
The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals (2012, background): “This process results in an important mechanism of accumulation, driven by new values for carbon, wildlife, ecosystem services and landscapes more broadly (Corbera et al. 2007).”
Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services (2012, background): “Several studies reveal that PES – including emerging carbon and REDD+ pilot projects – enhance inequalities in income and access to resources, particularly when pro-poor management measures are not adopted [58 ,72,73], as well as create economic enclosures through territorialization for biodiversity”
The importance of local forest benefits: Economic valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania (2014, positive): “However, by combining PES with other instruments aimed at socio-economic objectives (Wunder et al., 2008), the legitimacy (Corbera et al., 2007) and ultimately the efficiency and equity outcomes of PES may be improved (OECD, 2007; Pagiola and Platais, 2007; Engel et al., 2008).”
Rights to Land, Forests and Carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica (2011, background): “Evidence from carbon forestry projects, for example, suggests that collective ownership can result in carbon revenues being distributed in favor of those households with more available capital, disposable labor and more active participation in project activities, and against actors who lack resource”
An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services (2010, methodology): “Corbera et al. (2007a) use this aspect to make a distinction between PES andMES.”
The political ecology of ecosystem services (2015, neutral): “Finally, from a social perspective, scholars critique the way in which the concept avoids consideration of crucial social, political and contextual factors (Corbera et al., 2007; Daw et al., 2011; Fairhead et al., 2012).”
Notions of Justice in Payments for Ecosystem Services:Insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province (2015, background): “Once researchers recognize the significance of actors’ own notions of justice they will be in a better position to explain people’s reactions to the introduction of PES schemes such as the resistance that some have encountered in Latin America (Blackman and Woodward, 2010) and c”
Commodity conservation: The restructuring of community conservation in South Africa and the Philippines (2012, background): “Resonating with wider trends in conservation (Corbera et al., 2007), the concept of ‘payments for environmental services’ became an influential devolved governance strategy in the MDTP.”