Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability (2017, background): “Others have offered important guidance for selecting among a broader set of economic tools, in recognition of the limitations of PES (e.g., Lockie 2013; Rode et al. 2016), given existing understandings of rights and responsibilities.”
In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in ecosystem services governance (2015, background): “2002), and more likely to foster technological innovation (Ackerman and Stewart, 1985; Lockie, 2012).”
Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “Other challenges include potential misapplication of MBIs (Lockie, 2013); the propensity to commoditize nature (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010), which could lead to reductions in ecological complexity and a ‘commodity fiction’ (Gomez-Baggethun and Ruíz-Perez, 2011; Muradian and Rival, 2012; Robertson, 2012”