Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services

By U. Pascual, J. Phelps, E. Garmendia, K. Brown, E. Corbera, Adrián Martín, E. Gómez‐Baggethun, R. Muradian. 2014

592 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/f8f9bb8311ba1f2c20d03241fde62257f533e9da

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

The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services (2016, background): “As Pascual et al. (2014) point out, it is possible that social equity impacts are not only important per se as side objectives of PES, but that they also affect environmental effectiveness.”
The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “, 2009), equity considerations (Pascual et al., 2014), and non-material and non-economic benefits (Chan et al.”
Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management (2016, background): “A sense of injustice or inequity—in either net social costs versus benefits to a collective or in the distribution of costs and benefits between subgroups—can go a long way in determining support for conservation (Klain et al. 2014; Pascual et al. 2014).”
In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in ecosystem services governance (2015, background): “Equity considerations and right-based perspectives are critically important in shaping the boundaries of policy instruments in environmental governance (Pascual et al., 2014).”
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services (2016, unknown): “…problematic in the presence of large income asymmetries, which can lead to an underestimation of ecosystem services that are essential to the wellbeing of less affluent groups such as indigenous people (Wegner and Pascual 2011; Sandel 2012; Pascual et al. 2014 ; Gómez-Baggethun and Muradian 2015).”
Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability (2017, background): “…externalities can be solved via the clarification of property rights, which would allow affected parties (the impacted and the impacting) to negotiate with one another in a free market system (Coase, 1960; Tietenberg, 2003; Harris, 2002; Russell, 2001; Hanley et al., 2001; Perman et al., 2003).”