Life on Land

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Amanda Lange Salvia, Tony Wall

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)

Living reference work entry



Ecosystem services (ES), a concept made widely known by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, are usually understood as the benefits people obtain from nature (MEA 2005). As this concept evolved, ES debates emphasized the development and application of different approaches to value and make these benefits visible (Costanza et al. 1997; Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010; TEEB 2010). Within this field of research, Market Based Instruments appeared as a solution to management and conservation of ecosystem services. These instruments include carbon trading, wetland banking, biodiversity offset, and payments for ecosystem services (PES).

Payments for ecosystem services are voluntary mechanisms to preserve ES through transactions between beneficiaries and providers of those services (Wunder 2005). Different definitions can be found in the literature, some more...

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


  1. Alix-Garcia JM, Sims KRE, Yañez-Pagans P (2015) Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico’s payments for ecosystem services program. Am Econ J Econ Pol 7:1–40. Scholar
  2. Alix-Garcia JM, Sims KRE, Orozco-Olvera VH et al (2018) Payments for environmental services supported social capital while increasing land management. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:7016–7021. Scholar
  3. CDKN (2012) Inside stories on climate compatible development – private conservation agreements support climate action: Ecuador’s Socio Bosque programme. Climate and development knowledge network. September 2012. Available at:
  4. Ciccarese L, Mattsson A, Pettenella D (2012) Ecosystem services from forest restoration: thinking ahead. New For 43:543–560. Scholar
  5. Clements T, John A, Nielsen K et al (2010) Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecol Econ 69:1283–1291. Scholar
  6. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. Scholar
  7. Davies BB, Hodge ID (2007) Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: a Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecol Econ 61:323–333. Scholar
  8. Dunford R, Harrison P, Smith A et al (2018) Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: experiences from real world situations. Ecosyst Serv 29:499–514. Scholar
  9. Engel S (2016) The devil in the detail: a practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 9:131–177. Scholar
  10. Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674. Scholar
  11. Fletcher R, Büscher B (2017) The PES conceit: revisiting the relationship between payments for environmental services and neoliberal conservation. Ecol Econ 132:224–231. Scholar
  12. Garcia S, Abildtrup J, Stenger A (2018) How does economic research contribute to the management of forest ecosystem services? Ann For Sci 75.
  13. Gómez-Baggethun (2017) In: Spash C (ed) Ecosystem services in Routledge handbook of ecological economics: Nature and Society, 1st Edition. 552 pages. Routledge International Handbooks. Taylor & Francis Ltd, United Kingdom. Google Scholar
  14. Gómez-Baggethun E, 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 69:1209–1218. Scholar
  15. Gutiérrez Rodríguez L, Hogarth NJ, Zhou W et al (2016) China’s conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects. Environ Evid 5.
  16. Hausknost D, Grima N, Singh SJ (2017) The political dimensions of payments for ecosystem services (PES): cascade or stairway? Ecol Econ 131:109–118. Scholar
  17. Hejnowicz A, Raffaelli D, Russ M, White P (2014) Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework. Ecosyst Serv 9:83–97. Scholar
  18. Huber-Stearns HR, Goldstein JH, Cheng AS, Toombs TP (2015) Institutional analysis of payments for watershed services in the western United States. Ecosyst Serv 16:83–93. Scholar
  19. Huber-Stearns HR, Bennett DE, Posner S et al (2017) Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 22.
  20. Ishihara H, Pascual U, Hodge I (2017) Dancing with storks: the role of power relations in payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 139:45–54. Scholar
  21. Jespersen K, Gallemore C (2018) The institutional work of payments for ecosystem services: why the mundane should matter. Ecol Econ 146:507–519. Scholar
  22. Liu Z, Kontoleon A (2018) Meta-analysis of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services programmes in developing countries. Ecol Econ 149:48–61. Scholar
  23. Lopes R, Videira N (2013) Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem services: an integrated participatory framework. Ocean Coast Manage 84:153–162. Scholar
  24. Lopes R, Videira N (2015) Conceptualizing stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services: a participatory systems mapping approach. Environ Clim Technol 16. Scholar
  25. Lopes R, Videira N (2016) A collaborative approach for scoping ecosystem services with stakeholders: the case of Arrábida Natural Park. Environ Manag 58:323–342. Scholar
  26. Lopes R, Videira N (2017) Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: the role of participatory systems mapping. Ecosyst Serv 28:28–42. Scholar
  27. Lopes R, Videira N (2018) Bringing stakeholders together to articulate multiple value dimensions of ecosystem services. Ocean Coast Manage 165:215–224. Scholar
  28. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C (2014) Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indic 37:220–228. Scholar
  29. Martin-Ortega J, Ojea E, Roux C (2013) Payments for water ecosystem services in Latin America: a literature review and conceptual model. Ecosyst Serv 6:122–132. Scholar
  30. MEA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human Wl-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. MMAB – Ministério do Meio Ambiente do Brasil (2016) Final report on monitoring Bolsa-Verde program base year 2015. Ministry of Environment.
  32. Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U et al (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69:1202–1208. Scholar
  33. Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69:1219–1227. Scholar
  34. 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. World Dev 33:237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perrot-Maître, D. (2006) The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: a “perfect” PES case? International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.Google Scholar
  36. Porras I, Alyward B, Dengel J (2013a) Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries. IIED, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Porras I, Barton DN, Miranda M, Chacón-Cascante A (2013b) Learning from 20 years of payments for ecosystem services in Costa Rica. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Singh NM (2013) PES in India from the bottom-up. In: Healy H, Martinez-Alier J, Temper L, Walter M, Gerber JF (eds) Ecological economics from the ground up. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh NM (2015) Payments for ecosystem services and the gift paradigm: sharing the burden and joy of environmental care. Ecol Econ 117:53–61. Scholar
  40. Sorice MG, Donlan CJ, Boyle KJ et al (2018) Scaling participation in payments for ecosystem services programs. PLoS One 13:e0192211. Scholar
  41. Stanturf JA (2015) Future landscapes: opportunities and challenges. New For 46:615–644. Scholar
  42. TEEB (2010) In: Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations, 8th edn. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. UN (2015) United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. SDG 15 – life on land. United Nations. Available at:
  44. UNDP (2017) Financing solutions for sustainable development. Payments for ecosystem services. United Nations Development Programme. Available at:
  45. Van Hecken G, Kolinjivadi V, Windey C et al (2018) Silencing agency in payments for ecosystem services (PES) by essentializing a neoliberal ‘monster’ into being: a response to Fletcher & Büscher’s ‘PES conceit. Ecol Econ 144:314–318. Scholar
  46. Vatn A (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1245–1252. Scholar
  47. Watershed Agricultural Council (2017) Watershed agricultural council 2017 annual report. Available at:
  48. Waylen KA, Martin-Ortega J (2018) Surveying views on payments for ecosystem services: implications for environmental management and research. Ecosyst Serv 29:23–30. Scholar
  49. Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR occasional paper no. 42. Center for International Forestry Research, BogorGoogle Scholar
  50. Wunder S (2015) Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 117:234–243. Scholar
  51. Yang H, Yang W, Zhang J et al (2018) Revealing pathways from payments for ecosystem services to socioeconomic outcomes. Sci Adv 4:eaao6652. Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CENSE – Center for Environmental and Sustainability ResearchNOVA University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Section editors and affiliations

  • Anabela Marisa Azul
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Neuroscience and Cell BiologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal