Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Conservation Contracts Co-exist with Change? Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Context of Adaptive Decision-Making and Sustainability

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the ability of payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs to operate in the context of dynamic and complex social–ecological systems. Drawing on the experiences of two different PES programs in Latin America, we examine how PES institutions fit with the tenets of adaptive decision-making for sustainable resource management. We identify how the program goals and the connection to the market influence the incentive structure, information gathering, learning and feedback processes, and the structure of decision-making rights, specifically the ability to make and modify resource-use rules. Although limited in their generalizability, findings from the two case studies suggest a tension between the contractual model of PES and adaptive decision-making in natural resource systems. PES programs are not inherently decentralized, flexible management tools, as PES contracts tend to restrict decision-making rights and offer minimal flexibility mechanisms to change resource-use practices over the duration of the contract period. Furthermore, PES design and flexibility is heavily dependent on the goals and mission of the buyer and the respective market. If PES is to facilitate sustainable resource management, greater attention is needed to assess how the institutional design of the PES contracts influence the motivation and capacity of participants and program officers alike to adaptively manage the respective resource systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Specifically Ostrom’s (1990): Principle 2 Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions, Principal 3 Collective-choice arrangements, and Principal 7 Minimal recognition of rights.

  2. In addition, Luis Mario Cárdenas Camacho previously worked for FN and helped coordinate parts of the silvopastoral project.

References

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Albán M, Argüello M (2004) Un análisis de los impactos sociales y económicos de los proyectos de fijación de carbono en el Ecuador. El caso de PROFAFOR-FACE, vol 7. IIED, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ Manag 35(6):703–715

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC, Johnson DS, Marschke M (2008) Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7(2):95–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby JA, Sperling L (1995) Institutionalizing participatory, client driven research and technology development in agriculture. Dev Chang 26(4):753–770

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Jolly D (2001) Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conserv Ecol 5(2):18. http://www.consecol.org/vol15/iss12/art18. Accessed 24 Sept 2014

  • Berkes F, Turner N (2006) Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience. Hum Ecol 34(4):479–494

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun AR (2000) Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: complementary platforms for integrated decision-making in sustainable agriculture. ODI, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley D (ed) (1992) Making the commons work: theory, practice and policy. ICS Press, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley DW, Cernea MM (1989) The management of common property natural resources: some conceptual and operational fallacies, vol 57. World Bank Publications, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26(10):541–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch R (1982) Two ears of corn: a guide to people centered agricultural improvement. World Neighbors, Oklahoma

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch R (1999) Reasons for non-adoption of soil conservation technologies and how to overcome them. Mt Res Dev 19(3):213–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Buytaert W, Iniguez V, Bièvre BD (2007) The effects of afforestation and cultivation on water yield in the Andean páramo. For Ecol Manag 251(1):22–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Calle A, Montagnini F, Felipe Zuluaga A (2009) Farmer’s perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindio, Colombia. Bois Et Forets Des Tropiques 300:79–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardenas JC, Stranlund J, Willis C (2000) Local environmental control and institutional crowding out. World Dev 28(10):1719–1733

    Google Scholar 

  • Celleri R, Feyen J (2009) The hydrology of tropical Andean Ecosystems: importance, knowledge status, and perspectives. Mt Res Dev 29:350–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers R, Pacey A, Thrupp LA (1989) Farmer first: farmer innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Econ 69(6):1283–1291

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbera E, Brown K, Adger WN (2007a) The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev Chang 38(4):587–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbera E, Kosoy N, Tuna MM (2007b) Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Glob Environ Chang Hum Policy Dimens 17(3–4):365–380. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.12.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo P, Célleri R, Buytaert W, Feyen J, Iñiguez V, Borja P, de Bièvre B (2010) Land use change impacts on the hydrology of wet Andean páramo ecoystems. Status and perspectives of hydrology in small basins. IAHS Publ 336

  • Crespo P, Feyen J, Buytaert W, Bücker A, Breuer L, Frede HG, Ramírez M (2011) Identifying controls of the hydrological response of small catchments in the tropical Andes (Ecuador). J. Hydrol 407:164–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagang AB, Nair P (2003) Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agrofor Syst 59(2):149–155

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(5):531–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Derissen S, Quaas MF (2013) Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty. Ecol Econ 85:77–84. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern P (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 B 367(1606):3178–3190. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0418

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65(4):663–674. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley KA, Kelly EF, Hofstede RG (2004) Soil organic carbon and water retention after conversion of grasslands to pine plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes. Ecosystems 7(7):729–739

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(4):393–405. doi:10.1017/s037689291100049x

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro PJ (2011) The future of payments for environmental services. Conserv Biol 25(6):1134–1138. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01791.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change 16:253–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey BS, Jegen R (2001) Motivation crowding theory. J Econ Surv 15(5):589–611

    Google Scholar 

  • German L, Charamila S, Tolera T (2006) Managing trade-offs in agroforestry: from conflict to collaboration in natural resource management. Transformations in agroforestry systems. Berghahn Books, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons JM, Nicholson E, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG (2011) Should payments for biodiversity conservation be based on action or results? J Appl Ecol 48(5):1218–1226. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02022.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E (2000) People and forests: communities, institutions, and governance. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C, Williams J, Ostrom E (2005) Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev 33(2):273–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Giger M (1999) Avoiding the shortcut: moving beyond the use of direct incentives. Dev Environ Rep (17). Center for Development & Environment, Inst of Geography, Berne

  • Giraldo C, Diaz F, Gomez RL (eds) (2012) Ganadería sostenible de trópico de altura en el corredor de conservación de robles. Fundación Natura, Fundación CIPAV, Cali

    Google Scholar 

  • Godtland EM, Sadoulet E, Janvry A, Murgai R, Ortiz O (2004) The impact of farmer field schools on knowledge and productivity: a study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Econ Dev Cult Chang 53(1):63–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon J, Vincent D, Haberkorn G, MacGregor C, Stafford-Smith M, Breckwoldt R (2001) Indicators within a Decision Framework: Social, economic and institutional indicators for sustainable management of the rangelands. National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiner R, Stanley O (2013) More than money for conservation: exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31:4–10. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.012

    Google Scholar 

  • Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Chang 15:199–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagmann J, Chuma E (2002) Enhancing the adaptive capacity of the resource users in natural resource management. Agric Syst 73(1):23–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes TM (2012) Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environ Conserv 39(02):144–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes TM, Ostrom E (2005) Conserving the world’s forests: are protected areas the only way? Indiana Law Rev 38(595):595–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellin J, Schrader K (2003) The case against direct incentives and the search for alternative approaches to better land management in Central America. Agric Ecosyst Environ 99(1):61–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede RG, Groenendijk JP, Coppus R, Fehse JC, Sevink J (2002) Impact of pine plantations on soils and vegetation in the Ecuadorian high Andes. Mt Res Dev 22(2):159–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt-Gimenez E (2006) Campesino a campesino: voices from Latin America’s farmer to farmer movement for sustainable agriculture. Food First, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Igoe J, Brockington D (2007) Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction. Conserv Soc 5(4):432

    Google Scholar 

  • Jindal R, Kerr JM, Carter S (2012) Reducing poverty through carbon forestry? Impacts of the N’hambita community carbon project in Mozambique. World Dev 40(10):2123–2135. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.003

    Google Scholar 

  • Jobbágy EG, Vasallo M, Farley KA, Piñeiro G, Garbulsky MF, Nosetto MD, Jackson RB, Paruelo JM (2006) Forestación en pastizales: hacia una visión integral de sus oportunidades y costos ecológicos. Agrociencia 10(2):109–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69(6):1228–1236. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosoy N, Corbera E, Brown K (2008) Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandón rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39(6):2073–2083. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.08.007

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF (2005) Conditions for sustainability of human-environment systems: information, motivation, and capacity. Glob Environ Chang 15:177–180

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. International Institute for Environment and Development, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson AM, Corbera E, Cronkleton P, Van Dam C, Bray D, Estrada M, May P, Medina G, Navarro G, Pacheco P (2010) Rights to forests and carbon under REDD+ initiatives in Latin America. CIFOR Infobrief 33:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • León MC, Harvey CA (2006) Live fences and landscape connectivity in a neotropical agricultural landscape. Agrofor Syst 68(1):15–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Liverman D (2004) Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance, and the commodification of nature. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 94(4):734–738

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyster R (2011) REDD+, transparency, participation and resource rights: the role of law. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):118–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahanty S, Suich H, Tacconi L (2013) Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31:38–47. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.009

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinty MM, Swisher ME, Alavalapati J (2008) Agroforestry adoption and maintenance: self-efficacy, attitudes and socio-economic factors. Agrofor Syst 73(2):99–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agrofor Syst 61(1–3):311–328

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne M, Arroyo P (2003) Assessing the livelihood benefits to local communities from the Profafor carbon sequestration project, Ecuador. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia

  • Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May PH (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1202–1208. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(4):274–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Murgueitio E, Calle Z, Uribe F, Calle A, Solorio B (2011) Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. For Ecol Manag 261(10):1654–1663

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair PR (1985) Classification of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 3(2):97–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Narloch U, Pascual U, Drucker AG (2012) Collective action dynamics under external rewards: experimental insights from Andean farming communities. World Dev 40(10):2096–2107. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.014

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2003) How types of goods and property rights jointly affect collective action. J Theor Polit 15(3):239–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2005) Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagdee A, Kim YS, Daugherty PJ (2006) What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Resour 19:33–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S, Agostini P, Gobbi J, de Haan C, Ibrahim M, Murgueitio E, Ramirez E, Rosales M, Ruiz JP (2005) Paying for biodiversity conservation services—experience in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Mt Res Dev 25(3):206–211. doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025[0206:pfbcs]2.0.co;2

  • Pagiola S, Ramirez E, Gobbi J, de Haan C, Ibrahim M, Murgueitio E, Ruiz JP (2007) Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecol Econ 64(2):374–385. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.014

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3):299

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy 4(2):254–274. doi:10.1093/reep/req006

    Google Scholar 

  • Peñaloza L (2012) Percepciones y aportes de la comunidad de la cuenca del rio Guacha para establecer una estrategia de restauración ecológica en sus territorios. Informe de Investigación. Proyecto restauración del paisaje forestal en el Corredor de Conservación Guantiva-La Rusia-Iguaque. Fundación Natura, Bogota

  • Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A (2011) Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331(6024):1606–1608

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Petheram L, Campbell BM (2010) Listening to locals on payments for environmental services. J Environ Manag 91(5):1139–1149. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.002

    Google Scholar 

  • Plan Vivo Standard (2013) http://www.planvivo.org/wp-content/uploads/Plan-Vivo-Standard-2013.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2014

  • Porter-Bolland L, Ellis EA, Guariguata MR, Ruiz-Mallén I, Negrete-Yankelevich S, Reyes-García V (2012) Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. For Ecol Manag 268:6–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Profafor (n.d.) Quienes somos: historia. http://www.profafor.com/portal/index.php/en/quienes-somos/historia. Accessed 1 March 2014

  • Rist L, Campbell B, Frost P (2012) Adaptive management: where are we now? Environ Conserv 40:5–18. doi:10.1017/S0376892912000240

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayer J, Campbell BM (2004) The science of sustainable development: local livelihoods and the global environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarlett L (2013) Collaborative adaptive management: challenges and opportunities. Ecol Soc 18(3):26

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager E, Ostrom E (1992) Property rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Econ 68(3):249–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JC (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • SENPLADES (2010). Plan de Buen Vivir: Propuestas de desarrollo y lineamientos para el ordenamiento territorial. Zona de planificación 6. Quito, Ecuador

  • Smith J, Scherr SJ (2002) Forest carbon and local livelihoods. Assessment of opportunities and policy recommendations. CIFOR, Bogor

    Google Scholar 

  • Solano C, Roa C, Calle Z (2005) Estrategia de Desarrollo Sostenible en Corredor de Conservación. Fundación Natura, Bogota

    Google Scholar 

  • Stickler CM, Nepstad DC, Coe MT, McGrath DG, Rodrigues HO, Walker WS, Soares-Filho BS, Davidson EA (2009) The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and case study from the Amazon region. Glob Chang Biol 15(12):2803–2824

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan S (2009) Green capitalism, and the cultural poverty of constructing nature as service-provider. Radic Anthropol 3:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Tacconi L (2012) Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 73:29–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Tacconi L, Mahanty S, Suich H (2013) The livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+. Soc Nat Resour 26(6):733–744

    Google Scholar 

  • Tendler J (1997) Good government in the tropics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Sand I (2012) Payments for ecosystem services in the context of adaptation to climate change. Ecol Soc 17(1):11. doi:10.5751/es-04561-170111

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Bergh JC, Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Munda G (2000) Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy. Ecol Econ 32(1):43–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J (2010) Payments for Ecosystem Services in Nicaragua: do market-based approaches work? Dev Chang 41(3):421–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatn A (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1245–1252. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.018

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignola R, Koellner T, Scholz RW, McDaniels TL (2010) Decision-making by farmers regarding ecosystem services: factors affecting soil conservation efforts in Costa Rica. Land Use Policy 27(4):1132–1142

    Google Scholar 

  • Visseren-Hamakers IJ, McDermott C, Vijge MJ, Cashore B (2012) Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):646–653

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Carpenter S, Anderies J, Abel N, Cumming G, Janssen M, Lebel L, Norberg J, Peterson GD, Pritchard R (2002) Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv Ecol 6(1):14

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells M (1992) Biodiversity conservation, affluence and poverty: mismatched costs and benefits and efforts to remedy them. Ambio 21:237–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams B, Brown E (2014) Adaptive management: from more talk to real action. Environ Manag 53:465–479. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0205-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts, vol 42. CIFOR, Jakarta

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S (2006) Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics? Ecol Soc 11(2):23

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S (2013) When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conserv Lett 6(4):230–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, Albán M (2008) Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecol Econ 65(4):685–698

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65(4):834–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Zbinden S, Lee DR (2005) Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA program. World Dev 33(2):255–272

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Seattle University for funding support for fieldwork conducted in Ecuador and Colombia, and the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Sciences at the University of Cuenca, who facilitated the coordination of the fieldwork in Ecuador. We would also like to thank PROFAFOR and Fundación Natura for their time and logistical support in this project. Finally, we would like to give special recognition to Jose Alvarez and Johanna Pisco for their fieldwork assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Service, Environmental Studies Program, Seattle University, 901 12th Ave, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA

    Tanya Hayes

  2. International Studies Program, Institute of Public Service, Seattle University, 901 12th Ave, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA

    Felipe Murtinho

  3. Fundación Natura, Calle 25 # 69-51, Torre 5 Apto 203, Bogotá, Colombia

    Luis Mario Cárdenas Camacho

  4. Departamento de Recursos Hídricos y Ciencias Ambientales and Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador

    Patricio Crespo

  5. 1532 23rd Ave, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA

    Sarah McHugh

  6. Seattle University, 901 12th Ave, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA

    David Salmerón

  7. Center for the Study of Institutions, Population and Evironmental Change (CIPEC), Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Tanya Hayes

Authors
  1. Tanya Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felipe Murtinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luis Mario Cárdenas Camacho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patricio Crespo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah McHugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Salmerón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanya Hayes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., Cárdenas Camacho, L.M. et al. Can Conservation Contracts Co-exist with Change? Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Context of Adaptive Decision-Making and Sustainability. Environmental Management 55, 69–85 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation