Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes

By U. Pascual, Charles Perrings. 2007

213 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/fd0e5095415ae36ceb476f79fd6eef27b6db176e

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. B. Matzdorf
2. Sarah Schomers
3. E. Corbera
4. Nicolás Kosoy
5. U. Pascual
6. U. Narloch
7. B. Campbell
8. Leslie Lipper

In Global and Planetary Change

1. B. Matzdorf
2. Sarah Schomers
3. E. Corbera
4. Nicolás Kosoy
5. U. Pascual
6. U. Narloch
7. B. Campbell
8. R. Cullen

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. B. Matzdorf
2. Sarah Schomers
3. E. Corbera
4. U. Pascual
5. Nicolás Kosoy

Citations in the corpus

• Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture (2010, background): “Improvement, adaptation or re-design of existing agricultural landscapes would be in order with a focus on crop, livestock and landscape diversification instead of the specialization implied by the first approach [19 ]; on extensive instead of intensive production [20]; on the multifunctionality of ”
• Economics and adoption of conservation biological control (2008, background): “…incentives to individual landholders are insufficient to persuade them to adopt an innovation, perhaps in part due to a market failure of some type, there may be a case for financial incentives and market based instruments (MBI) to enhance adoption rate and level (Pascual and Perrings, 2007).”
• Landscape effects on the complex of Bactrocera oleae parasitoids and implications for conservation biological control (2009, background): “…rise to a number of other agroecosystem services, along with public goods and directly marketable outputs (Altieri and Nicholls 2001; Jackson et al. 2007), the forces at play at the microeconomic or meso-economic level often discourage farmers from investing in them (Pascual and Perrings 2007).”
• Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources (2011, background): “…values (including non-market benefits and costs), so that the socially optimal rep acement point may well be to the right of I*(0) resulting in the provision of agrobiodiversity conservation services at a level that is less than socially optimal (Heisey et al., 1997; Pascual and Perrings, 2007).”
• Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism (2010, background): “These insights also suggest that further interdisciplinary research is needed to understand ecosystem services' flows and their systemic interactions, as well as to investigate the resilience of ecosystem services in different socio-ecological contexts (Carpenter and Folke, 2006; Pascual and Perring”
• Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries (2013, methodology): “The cost-revelation mechanism allows for cost savings for the ES buyer as payments are minimized (Pascual and Perrings, 2007; Ferraro, 2008).”