Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador
By Sven Wunder, M. Albán. 2008
380 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Ocean Engineering
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f9d786dfb7d0207c348811ab9e002caa153b6481
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 Ocean Engineering
Citations in the corpus
- Research, part of a Special Feature on Compensation and Reward for Environmental Services in the Tropics Principles for Fairness and Efficiency in Enhancing Environmental Services in Asia: Payments, Compensation, or Co-Investment? (2010, methodology): “…global PES schemes, such as the Proambiante program in Brazil (Southgate and Wunder 2009), the Pimampiro case in Ecuador (Echavarria et al. 2003, Wunder and Alban 2008), and Costa Rica's Pagos de Servicios Ambientales (PES) program and related ES payment schemes for (assumed) watershed…”
- What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador's SocioPáramo program (2014, result): “This finding supports other studies that have found substantial participation among marginalized rural farmers and communities in other PES programs in Latin America, demonstrating that PES can be accessible and desirable to rural smaller landowners and communities (Muñoz-Pina et al., 2008; Wunder a”
- Paying for Avoided Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: from Cost Assessment to Scheme Design (2008, background): “Turning to South America, in two Ecuadorian PES cases of Pimampiro (watershed protection) and PROFAFOR (carbon sequestration), start-up costs were US$76/ha and US$184/ha, respectively, while recurrent annual per-hectare transaction costs in the operational phase were only US$7 and US$3 (Wunder and A”
- The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes (2010, background): “Leading instruments within this logic are Markets for Ecosystem Services (hereafter MES) (Bayon, 2004) and Payment for Ecosystem Services (hereafter PES) schemes (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Wunder et al., 2008) (Table 2).”
- Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua (2007, methodology): “…has been particularly receptive to the approach, with PES programs in operation in Colombia (Echevarría, 2002), Costa Rica (Pagiola, 2005), Ecuador (Albán and Wunder, 2005), El Salvador (Díaz et al., 2002), and Mexico (Muñoz et al., 2006), at various scales, and under preparation or study in other…”
- Offsetting Benefits? Analyzing Access to Forest Carbon (2010, background): “In contrast, two other studies (Albän and Argu« ello, 2004; Wunder and Albän, 2008) analyze another five communities and indicate that only a few people, in one of these communities, were opposed because they had lost their grazing grounds.”
- Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision (2010, background): “In Ecuador a watershed conservation program in Cuenca and Quito provides clean drinking water and a Forests Absorbing Carbon-dioxide Emissions Forestation Program has established carbon fixing plantations in the highland region (Wunder and Albán, 2008).”
- Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services § (2010, background): “Such incentives can be money transfers, to be paid by individual beneficiaries (Pagiola, 2008) or, if they are reluctant to pay, by communities (Wunder and Albán, 2008; Frost and Bond, 2008), or public authorities on their behalf (Bennett, 2008; MuñosPiña et al., 2008).”
- Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions:Comparison of three programs from Cambodia? (2010, neutral): “In addition, there are a growing number of user-financed programs, such as payments for watershed services between downstream users and upstream forest owners in Ecuador (Wunder and Albán, 2008) and Bolivia (Asquith et al.”
- Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests (2014, background): “…is an extension of the Forests Absorbing Carbon Dioxide Emissions consortium (which is in turn financed by Dutch energy companies) and signs contracts for afforestation and reforestation, accounting for almost half of all Ecuadorian reforestation since its inception in 1993 (Wunder & Albán 2008).”
- An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services (2010, methodology): “…to undertake certain acts/stop certain activities to increasewater quality— e.g., Grieg-Gran et al. (2005); Corbera et al. (2007a); Kosoy et al. (2007) Wunder and Alban (2008); Muradian et al. (2008) — c) consider payments for biodiversity preservation— e.g.,Wunder (2006); Claassen et al.…”
- Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes (2012, background): “PES literature often highlights a potential compatibility between environmental conservation and poverty reduction, especially when poor households are contracted to receive payments in return for their conservation efforts (21, 137).”