Building Institutions to Trade Ecosystem Services: Marketing Forest Carbon in Mexico

By E. Corbera, K. Brown. 2008

128 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eb64907b491cccd568ac587664487ee5ea3cfc79

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. Elizabeth Shapiro‐Garza
2. E. Corbera
3. Jennifer Alix-García
4. Nicolás Kosoy
5. Katharine R. E. Sims
6. U. Pascual
7. K. Brown
8. R. Muradian

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Elizabeth Shapiro‐Garza
2. E. Corbera
3. Jennifer Alix-García
4. Nicolás Kosoy
5. Katharine R. E. Sims
6. R. Muradian
7. U. Pascual
8. K. Brown

Citations in the corpus

• Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development (2014, background): “Local institutions crucially influence the ability of communities to adapt and benefit from adaptation and mitigation programs in rural and urban settings (Corbera and Brown, 2008; Chhartre and Agrawal, 2009; Agrawal, 2010).”
• Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach (2010, background): “In this case, the application of this criterion is facilitatedby the communal nature of the landandbecause the fundsare not distributed by the government to individuals directly but to the communities (Corbera and Brown, 2008).”
• Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program (2012, background): “…and Babcock 2001; Chomitz 2002; Lichtenberg 2004; Wear and Murray 2004; Murray, McCarl, and Lee 2004; Murray, Sohngen, and Ross 2007; Fraser and Waschik 2005; Roberts and Bucholtz 2005, 2006; Gan and McCarl 2007; Robalino 2007; Plantinga and Richards 2008; Lichtenberg and Smith-Ramirez 2011).”
• Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services programs: Four sites of articulation and hybridization (2013, background): “For these and other reasons, between 2005 and 2008 only 71 projects were funded for the 2-year design phase of the carbon program and none ever reached the stage of ‘‘selling’’ their tons to CONAFOR (Corbera and Brown, 2008).”
• Reforming the CDM for sustainable development: lessons learned and policy futures. (2009, background): “This can be the case because project developers may be biased in selecting participants for stakeholder consultations, thus under-representing critical views in project reports (Sutter, 2003; Cole, 2007; Corbera and Brown, 2008).”
• Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism (2010, background): “Some PES schemes function as policy instruments through which it is possible to subsidise environmental stewardship (Corbera et al., 2009; Corbera and Brown, 2008) while others are actual markets which are dependent on other existing commodities.”