Communal Participation in Payment for Environmental Services (PES): Unpacking the Collective Decision to Enroll

Adhikari B, Agrawal A (2013) Understanding the social and ecological outcomes of PES projects: a review and an analysis. Conserv Soc 11:359

Agrawal A (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 29:1649–1672

Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27:629–649

Arriagada R, Sills E, Pattanayak S, Ferraro P (2009) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate participation in Costa Rica’s program of payment for environmental services. J Sustain Forestry 28:343–367

Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Bracer C, Scherr S, Molnar A, Sekher M, Ochieng BO, Sriskanthan G (2016) Organization and governance for fostering pro-poor compensation for environmental services. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi

Bremer LL, Farley KA, Lopez-Carr D (2014) What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy 36:122–133

Buytaert W, De Bièvre B (2012) Water for cities: The impact of climate change and demographic growth in the tropical Andes. Water Resour Res 48:1–13

Chowdhury RR (2006) Driving forces of tropical deforestation: the role of remote sensing and spatial models. Singap J Trop Geogr 27:82–101

Clements T, John A, Nielsen K, An D, Tan S, Milner-Gulland E (2010) Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol Econom 69:1283–1291

Colpari O (2013) Territorios de páramo: Territorios en crisis. Rimisp, Ecuador

Corbera E, Brown K, Adger WN (2007a) The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev Change 38:587–613

Corbera E, Kosoy N, Tuna MM (2007b) Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environ Chang 17:365–380

Dagang ABK, Nair PKR (2003) Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agroforest Syst 59:149–155

DeCaro D, Stokes M (2008) Social‐psychological principles of community‐based conservation and conservancy motivation: attaining goals within an autonomy‐supportive environment. Conserv Biol 22:1443–1451

DeCaro DA, Stokes MK (2013) Public participation and institutional fit: a social–psychological perspective. Ecol Soc 18:40

De Koning F, Aguiñaga M, Bravo M, Chiu M, Lascano M, Lozada T, Suarez L (2011) Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian socio bosque program. Environ Sci Policy 14:531–542

Dougill AJ, Stringer LC, Leventon J, Riddell M, Rueff H, Spracklen DV, Butt E (2012) Lessons from community-based payment for ecosystem service schemes: from forests to rangelands. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:3178–3190

Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econom 65:663–674

Farley KA, Anderson WG, Bremer LL, Harden CP (2011) Compensation for ecosystem services: an evaluation of efforts to achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian paramo grasslands. Environ Conserv 38:393–405

Farley KA, Bremer LL, Harden CP, Hartsig J (2013) Changes in carbon storage under alternative land uses in biodiverse Andean grasslands: implications for payment for ecosystem services. Conserv Lett 6:21–27

Farley K, Kelly E, Hofstede RM (2004) Soil organic carbon and water retention after conversion of grasslands to pine plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes. Ecosyst 7:729–739

Ferraro PJ (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol Econom 65:810–821

Ferraro PJ (2011) The future of payments for environmental services. Conserv Biol 25:1134–1138

Fisher J (2012) No pay, no care? A case study exploring motivations for participation in payments for ecosystem services in Uganda. Oryx 46:45–54

Frey BS, Benz M, Stutzer A (2004) Introducing procedural utility: not only what, but also how matters. J Inst Theoretical Econ 160:377–401

García-Amado LR, Pérez MR, Escutia FR, García SB, Mejía EC (2011) Efficiency of payments for environmental services: equity and additionality in a case study from a biosphere reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecol Econom 70:2361–2368

Grieg-Gran M, Porras I, Wunder S (2005) How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Dev 33:1511–1527

Hayes T, Murtinho F, Wolff H (2015) An institutional analysis of payment for environmental services on collectively managed lands in Ecuador. Ecol Econom 118:81–89

Hayes T, Murtinho F, Wolff H (2017) The impact of payments for environmental services on communal lands: an analysis of the factors driving household land-use behavior in Ecuador. World Dev doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.003

Hendrickson CY, Corbera E (2015) Participation dynamics and institutional change in the Scolel Te carbon forestry project, Chiapas, Mexico. Geoforum 59:63–72

Hofstede R, Calles J, Lopex V, Polanco R, Torres F, Ulloa J, Vasquez A, Cerra M (2014) Los páramos Andinos, Que sabemos? Estado de conocimiento sobre el impacto del cabio climático en el ecosistema páramo. IUCN, Quito

Igoe J, Brockington D (2007) Neoliberal conservation: A brief introduction. Conserv and Soc 5:432-439

Kerr JM, Vardhan M, Jindal R (2014) Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services. Int J Comm 8:595–616

Kiptot E, Hebinck P, Franzel S, Richards P (2007) Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agric Syst 94:509–519

Khurana R (2002) Market triads: A theoretical and empirical analysis of market intermediation. J Theor Soc Behav 32:239–262

Korovkin T (2002) Comunidades Indígenas: Economía de mercado y democracia en los Andes Ecuatorianos. Centro de Investigación de los Movimientos Sociales Ecuador, Quito

Kosoy N, Corbera E, Brown K (2008) Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39:2073–2083

Krause T, Loft L (2013) Benefit distribution and equity in Ecuador’s socio bosque program. Soc Nat Resour 26:1170–1184

Kuperan K, Sutinen JG (1998) Blue water crime: deterrence, legitimacy, and compliance in fisheries. Law Soc Rev 32:309–338

Landell-Mills N, Porras IT (2002) Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. IIED, London, pp 111–152. Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series

Langpap C (2004) Conservation incentives programs for endangered species: An analysis of landowner participation. Land Econ 80:375–388

Lapeyre R, Pirard R, Leimona B (2015) Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: what if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy 46:283–291

Leimona B, Lee E (2008) Pro-poor payment for environmental services: some considerations RUPES-RECOFTC Brief (contributions from Sango Mahanty and Yurdi Yasmi), RUPES-RECOTFTC

Liverman D (2004) Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance, and the commodification of nature. An Assoc Am Geogr 94:734–738

Lopez S, Sierra R (2010) Agricultural change in the Pastaza River Basin: a spatially explicit model of native Amazonian cultivation. Appl Geogr 30:355–369

MAE (2009) Acuerdo Ministerial Número 115. Ministerio del Ambiente, Quito

MAE (2012) Socio Bosque. El Boletín informativo. Ministerio del Ambiente, Quito, p 5

McAfee K, Shapiro EN (2010) Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mexico: Nature, Neoliberalism, Social Movements, and the State. An Assoc Am Geogr 100:579–599

McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy 33:416–427

McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19:12

Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agroforest Syst 61:311–328

Milder JC, Scherr SJ, Bracer C (2010) Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol Soc 15(2):4 

Mitsuda Y, Ito S (2011) A review of spatial-explicit factors determining spatial distribution of land use/land-use change. Landsc Ecol Eng 7:117–125

Muradian R (2013) Payments for ecosystem services as incentives for collective action. Soc Nat Resour 26:1155–1169

Muradian R, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, Adaman F, Aguilar B, Agarwal B, Corbera E, Ezzine de Blas D, Farley J, Froger G (2013) Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions. Conserv Lett 6:274–279

Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May P (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econom 69:1202–1208

Naeem S et al. (2015) Get the science right when paying for nature’s services. Science 347:1206–1207

Nielsen JR (2003) An analytical framework for studying: compliance and legitimacy in fisheries management. Mar Pol 27:425–432

Neitzel KC, Caro-Borrero AP, Revollo-Fernandez D, Aguilar-Ibarra A, Ramos A, Almeida-Lenero L (2014) Paying for environmental services: determining recognized participation under common property in a pen-urban context. Forest Policy Econ 38:46–55

Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15181–15187

Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33:237–253

Pagiola S, Rios AR, Arcenas A (2008) Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral project in Nicaragua. Environ Dev Econ 13:299

Pagiola S, Rios AR, Arcenas A (2010) Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindio, Colombia Environmental & Resource Economics 47:371–394

Pascual U, Muradian R, Rodriguez LC, Duraiappah A (2010) Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol Econom 69:1237–1244

Pascual U et al. (2014) Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64:1027–1036

Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries. REEP 4:254–274

Petheram L, Campbell BM (2010) Listening to locals on payments for environmental services. J Environ Manage 91:1139–1149

Pham TT, Campbell BM, Garnett S, Aslin H, Hoang MH (2010) Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environ Conserv 37:64–72

Poteete A, Ostrom E (2004) Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Change 35:435–461

Raphael K (1987) Recall bias: a proposal for assessment and control. Int J Epidemiol 16:4

Reed P (2011) REDD+ and the indigenous question: a case study from Ecuador. Forests 2:525–549

Schaeffer NC, Presser S (2003) The science of asking questions. Annu Rev Sociol 29:65–88

Schmitt C (2010) Sources of Civic Engagement in Latin America: Empirical evidence from rural Ecuadorian communities. J Dev Stud 46:1442–1458

Sommerville M, Jones JPG, Rahajaharison M, Milner-Gulland EJ (2010) The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecol Econom 69:1262–1271

Taylor M, Singleton S (1993) The communal resources: transaction costs and the solution of collective action problems. Polit Soc 21:195–214

Tyler TR (2006) Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J (2010) Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: do market-based approaches work? Dev Change 41:421–444

Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Kongphan-Apirak M (2009) Emerging REDD+: a preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

Wunder S (2005) Payments for Environmental Services: Some nuts and bolts, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. CIFOR, Jakarta, Indonesia

Wunder S (2013) When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conserv Lett 6:230–237

Zbinden S, Lee DR (2005) Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA program. World Dev 33:255–272