Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Payments for Environmental Services: Revisiting the Theoretical Baseline Assumptions

  • Chapter
The Sustainable Provision of Environmental Services

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

  • 1313 Accesses

Abstract

The concept of payments for environmental services (PES) has its theoretical roots in neoclassical welfare economics. The concept suggests that the degradation of environmental resources is linked to the fact that these resources are considered to be for free. By assigning a monetary value to environmental services, sufficient incentives for market players would be created to protect, trade and invest in the provision of environmental services. The implicit assumption that once you assign such a value, a market would automatically evolve with buyers and sellers of the environmental service does however hardly work in practice because it is based on a comparative-static rather than a dynamic understanding of sustainability. This chapter illustrates that a flourishing market of environmental goods and services cannot be merely designed and funded by an external agent. It requires instead active local entrepreneurs that generate revenues through innovation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more information see: http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/PES_english.pdf

  2. 2.

    This does not mean that there would be no genuine problems resulting from global change that needed to be urgently addressed and no citizens that really have the public interest at heart. But there is also opportunism in movements of resistance often resulting in unholy alliances between those who benefit from the status quo (e.g., subsidized farmers or a subsidized coal industry) and advocacy groups that need support for their radical opposition to technological and economic change.

  3. 3.

    Often, the purpose of PES goes far beyond the effective and sustainable management of ecosystem services to include many other objectives such as poverty reduction, improved food security, preservation of cultural landscapes, ensuring decentralized settlement and increasing the quality of life of farmers in remote areas.

  4. 4.

    A recent online discussion on the Global Forum on Food Security run by FAO revealed that there is growing discontent among PES practitioners because they feel that the classic PES schemes are not working and that hardly any of the failures have ever been properly evaluated and documented: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/forum/discussions/pes

  5. 5.

    Coase argued that if we lived in a world without transaction costs and clearly defined property rights, people would bargain with one another to produce the most efficient distribution of resources, regardless of the initial allocation. In such a situation externalities will be internalized in the form of side payments that reflect the cost of the perceived externality. Rising transaction costs and uncertain property rights will make it more difficult to internalize the externality in a voluntary agreement between the producer of a negative externality (e.g., polluter) and those affected by it. The consequence would be to resort to the law to discourage the polluter from offloading the social costs of his economic activities on the public at large (e.g., polluter pays principle).

  6. 6.

    E.g. a company downstream that depends on clean water and is forced by regulation to limit the amount of untreated waste water produced may invest in a private wetland or a waste water treatment plant; it thus also becomes a provider of an environmental service.

  7. 7.

    E.g. a farmer upstream may improve the sustainability of his or her agricultural practices and thus provide a particular environmental service to people that depend on clean water further downstream. But this does not change the fact that the farmer is first of all a user of environmental services (and thus should also be regarded as a potential buyer in consideration of the polluter pays principle).

  8. 8.

    In this context, the term ‘innovation’ should not be understood as a mere idea or invention but as the process by which such an idea or invention is translated into a good or service for which people are willing to pay.

References

  • Aerni P (2006) The principal-agent problem in international development assistance and its impact on local entrepreneurship in Africa: time for new approaches. ATDF J 3(2):27–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerni P (2009) What is sustainable agriculture? Empirical evidence of diverging views in Switzerland and New Zealand. Ecol Econ 68(6):1872–1882

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerni P (2011a) Food sovereignty and its discontents. ATDF J 8(1/2):23–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerni P (2011b) Connecting catch-up growth to sustainable development—a new theoretical perspective. ATDF J 8(3/4):29–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerni P, Bernauer T (2006) Stakeholder attitudes toward GMOs in the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa: the issue of public trust. World Dev 34(3):557–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof GA (1970) The market for“ lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84(3):488–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankers P (2001) Imperial ecology. Environmental order in the British empire, 1895–1945. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K et al (2004) Are we consuming too much? J Econ Perspect 18(3):147–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis K, Rausser GC, Simon LK (2005) Including non-trade concerns: the environment in EU and US agricultural policy. Int J Agric Resour Gov Ecol 4(3/4):262–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage Publications, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckerman W (2002) A poverty of reason: sustainable development and economic growth. Independent Institute, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett K (2010) Additionality: the next step for ecosystem service markets. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 20:417–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett G, Carroll N (2014) Gaining depth: state of watershed investment 2014. A report by Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC. Available online at www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/reports/sowi2014

  • Berndt ER, Glennerster R, Kremer MR, Lee J, Levine R, Weizsacker G, Williams H (2005) Advanced purchase commitments for a malaria vaccine: estimating costs and effectiveness. NBER working paper no. 11288

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomquist P (2004) The choice revolution: privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s. Soc Policy Adm 38(2):139–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Boserup E (1976) Environment, population, and technology in primitive societies. Popul Dev Rev 2:21–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JM, Tullock G (1962) The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Viña A, Shortridge A, An L, Liu J (2014) Assessing the effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services: an agent-based modeling approach. Ecol Soc 19(1):7, http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05578-190107

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomitz K, Brenes E, Constantino L (1999) Financing environmental services: the Costa Rica experience and its implications. Sci Total Environ 240:157–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciolos D (2011) Getting ready for agricultural research and innovation. Speech by the EU agriculture commissioner in Brussels on March 7, 2011. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-160_en.htm?locale=en

  • Cleaver F (2002) Moral ecological rationality, institutions and the management of common property resources. Dev Change 31(1):361–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen B, Winn MI (2007) Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 22(2007):29–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbera E (2012) Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):612–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruel J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond J (2012) The world until yesterday. Viking, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 301:1907–1912

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich P, Ehrlich A (2009) The dominant animal: human evolution and the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Farinelli F, Bottini M, Akkoyunlu S, Aerni P (2011) Green entrepreneurship: the missing link towards a greener economy. ATDF J 8(3/4):42–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley J, Costanza R (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol Econ 69(11):2060–2068

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro P (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 65:811–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4(4):e105

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro PJ, Simpson RD (2002) The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Econ 78(3):339–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653

    Google Scholar 

  • FONAFIFO, CONAFOR and Ecuador Ministry of Environment (2012) Lessons learned for REDD+ from PES and conservation incentive programs. Examples from Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador. http://www.profor.info/sites/profor.info/files/docs/Summary%20of%20PES%20Lessons%20for%20REDD%20March%2019.pdf

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2007) The state of food and agriculture: paying farmers for environmental services. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011a) Payments for ecosystem services and food security. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2012) Decent rural employment for food security: a case for action. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaupp P (2013) Nespressos Programm für dauerhafte Qualität. Neue Zuercher Zeitung, 15 January 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert N (2012) African agriculture: dirt poor. Nature 483:525–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilman N (2004) Mandarins of the future: modernization theory in cold war America. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman RL, Thompson BH, Daily GC (2007) Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 64:333–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, Rudolf de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69(6):1209–1218

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Kirkpatrick H, Simpson I, Oglethorpe D (1998) Principles for the provision of public goods from agriculture: modeling moorland conservation in Scotland. Land Econ 74(1):102–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart SL, Christensen C (2002) The great leap: driving innovation from the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 44(1):51–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek F (1988) Fatal conceit. The errors of socialism. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Heal G (1999) New strategies for the provision of global public goods. In: Kaul I, Grunberg I, Stern MA (eds) Global public goods. International cooperation in the 21st century. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander JM (2003) The real environment crisis: why poverty, not affluence, is the environment’s number one enemy. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • IFAD (2011) Stories from the field. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/documents/654016/690745/DLFE-3795.pdf?version=1.0&t=1337680375350

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas H (1985) Imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethic for the technological age. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones CI, Romer PM (2010) The new Kaldor facts: ideas, institutions, population, and human capital. Am Econ J Macroecon 2(1):224–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Juma C (2011) Science meets farming. Science 334:1323

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlen DL, Mausbach MJ, Doran JW, Cline RG, Harris RF, Schuman GE (1997) Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61(1):4–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Karrer-Rueedi E, Trueb D (2011) Empowering micro-entrepreneurs and small businesses through mobile phones in emerging markets and developing countries. ATDF J 8(3/4):13–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig AP, Perrings C, Chapin FS, Polasky S, Smith VK, Tilman D, Turner BL (2011) Paying for ecosystem services—promise and peril. Science 334:603–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodhandaraman B, Daniel J (2010) Knowledge transfer for a horticultural revolution: the lifelong learning for farmers model. In: Proceedings of the 28th international horticultural congress, Lisbon, Portugal. http://www.col.org/resources/speeches/2010presentation/Pages/2010-08-22b.aspx

  • Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69:1228–1236

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft SE, Lant C, Gillman K (1996) WQIP: an assessment of its chances for acceptance by farmers. J Soil Water Conserv 51:494–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurans Y, Lemenager T, Aoubid S (2012) A savoir: payments for environmental services: from theory to practice—what are the prospects for developing countries? Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD), Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrand T, Froger G, Le Coq JF (2013) Institutional performance of payments for environmental services: an analysis of the Costa Rican program. Forest Policy Econ 37:115–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Leimona B, Joshi L, van Noordwijk M (2009) Can rewards for environmental services benefit the poor? Lessons from Asia. Int J Commons 3(1):82–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Lele S, Wilhusen P, Brockington D, Seidler R, Bawa K (2010) Beyond exclusion: alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in developing countries. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:94–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy S (2007) Productividad, Crecimiento y Pobreza en México: Qué Sigue Después de PROGRESA-Oportunidades? Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006) The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockie S (2013) Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land Use Policy 31:90–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnier A, Kalaitzandonakes N, Miller DJ (2010) Product life cycles and innovation in the US seed corn industry. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev 13(3), http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/93557/2/2.pdf

  • Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McAfee K (1999) Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism. Environ Plan D Soc Space 17(2):133–154

    Google Scholar 

  • McAfee K, Shapiro EN (2010) Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements, and the State. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(3):579–599

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill D, Nesheim I, Brouwer F (2012) Land use policies for sustainable development: exploring integrated assessment approaches. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Synthesis report. Island, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda M, Porras IT, Moreno MK (2003) The social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica: a quantitative field survey and analysis of the Virilla watershed. International Institute for Environmental Development, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller J, Albers HJ (2004) Enforcement, payments, and development projects near protected areas: how the market settings determine what works where. Resour Energy Econ 26:185–204

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Najam A, Papa M, Taiyab N (2006) Global environmental governance—a reform agenda. International Institute for Sustainable Development. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/geg.pdf

  • Namirembe S, Leimona B, van Noordwijk M, Bernard F (2013) Co-investment paradigms as alternatives to payments for tree-based ecosystem services in Africa. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:89–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC (2015) Framing, the media and risk communication in policy debates. In: Cho H, Reimer T, McComas K (eds) Sage handbook of risk communication. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, http://climateshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Nisbet_InPress_FramingRiskCommunication_SageHandbookRiskCommunication.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard R (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219–1227

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates W, Baumol W (1975) The instruments for environmental policy. In: Mills ES (ed) Economic analysis of environmental problems. National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington, DC, http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2834.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001) Sustainable development: critical issues. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) Regional development policies in OECD countries. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega JM, Ojea E, Roux C (2013) Payments for water ecosystem services in Latin America: a literature review and conceptual model. Ecosyst Serv 6:122–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S (2007) Guidelines for ‘Pro-Poor’ payments for environmental services. Environment Department, World Bank, Washington, DC, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/Resources/ProPoorPES-2col.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 65(4):712–724

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(2):237–253

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff A, Robalino JA, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA (2008) Paying for environmental services: empirical analysis for Costa Rica. Working paper series SAN 08-05. Terry Sanford Institute for Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirard R (2012a) Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environ Sci Policy 19–20:59–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirard R (2012b) Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in the public policy landscape: ‘Mandatory’ spices in the Indonesian recipe. Forest Policy Econ 18:23–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirard R, Billé R, Sembrés T (2010) Upscaling payments for environmental services (PES): critical issues. Trop Conserv Sci 3(3):249–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollan M (2006) Omnivore’s dilemma. Bloomsbury, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Prager K, Reed M, Scott A (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29(1):244–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins G, Rayner S (2007) Time to ditch Kyoto. Nature 449:973–975

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawlings LB, Rubio GM (2005) Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs. World Bank Res Obs 20(1):29–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik D (2013) The past, present, and future of economic growth. Working paper no. 1. Global Citizen Foundation. http://www.gcf.ch/?page_id=5758

  • Romer PM (1990) Endogenous technological change. J Polit Econ 98:71–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer PM (1994) New goods, old theory, and the welfare costs of trade restrictions. J Dev Econ 43:5–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabau GL (2010) Know, live and let live: towards a redefinition of the knowledge-based economy—sustainable development nexus. Ecol Econ 69(6):1193–1201

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiermeier Q (2012) The Kyoto protocol: hot air. Nature 491:656–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter J (2008) Capitalism, socialism and democracy (first published in 1942). Harper Perennial, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell D, Meijaard E (2010) Purity and prejudice: deluding ourselves about biodiversity conservation. Biotropica 42(5):566–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogren JF, Parkhurst GM, Settle C (2003) Integrating economics and ecology to protect nature on private lands: models, methods, and mindsets. Environ Sci Policy 6:233–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Sills E, Arriagada RA, Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK, Carrasco LE, Ortiz E, Cordero S, Caldwell K, Andam K (2008) Private provision of public goods: evaluating payments for eco system services in Costa Rica. Working paper. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavins RN (2005) Econ Environ. W.W. Norton, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift MJ, Izac A-MN, van Noordwijk M (2004) Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking the right questions? Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1):113–134

    Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2009) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. UNEP-TEEB Office, Geneva, http://www.teebweb.org/teeb-study-and-reports/main-reports/national-and-international-policy-making/

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen J (1952) On the theory of economic policy. North Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran P, Faust M, Shaw R (2010) Catastrophic flood and forest cover change in the Huong river basin, central Viet Nam: a gap between common perceptions and facts. J Environ Manage 91(11):2186–2200

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Pearce D, Bateman I (1994) Environmental economics: an elementary introduction. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice—pattern and process. Springer, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ Sci Policy 13(8):785–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Noordwijk M et al (2012) Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:389–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatn A (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1245–1252

    Google Scholar 

  • Warsh D (2006) Knowledge and the wealth of nations: a story of economic discovery. W. W. Norton, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen C, Siu YL, Hubacek K (2012) Carrot and stick—a novel policy experiment of transboundary watershed protection in China. Environ Sci Technol 46:6451–6452

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters P, Chiodi V (2010) Human capital investment and long-term poverty reduction in rural Mexico. J Int Dev 23(4):515–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Winters P, Davis B (2009) Designing a programme to support smallholder agriculture in Mexico: lessons from PROCAMPO and Oportunidades. Dev Policy Rev 27(5):617–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR occasional paper no. 42. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S (2008) Necessary conditions for ecosystem service payments. Economics and conservation in the tropics: a strategic dialogue, January 31–February 1. http://www.rff.org/documents/08_tropics_conference/tropics_conference_papers/tropics_conference_wunder_pes_markets.pdf

  • 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 65:834–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman D, Lipper L, McCarty N (2008) When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? Environ Dev Econ 13:255–278

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CCRS), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Philipp Aerni

Authors
  1. Philipp Aerni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aerni, P. (2016). Payments for Environmental Services: Revisiting the Theoretical Baseline Assumptions. In: The Sustainable Provision of Environmental Services. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19345-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation