IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v89y2013icp92-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motivation for conservation: Assessing integrated conservation and development projects and payments for environmental services in La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas, Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Rico García-Amado, Luis
  • Ruiz Pérez, Manuel
  • Barrasa García, Sara

Abstract

In order to achieve conservation and development, direct strategies, such as Payments for Environmental Services (PES), have been claimed to be potentially more effective than indirect strategies, like Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs). However, PES have raised some concerns on the commodification of nature and the potential replacement of non-chrematistic forms of valuing ecosystems. This article evaluates PES and ICDPs in La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, by analyzing the programs' fund allocation, examining conservation perceptions based on 731 structured interviews and presenting a detailed assessment of ICDP/PES preferences in a community with the longest participation in both schemes. People receiving PES tend to make the future of conservation contingent on monetary and utilitarian reasons, this preference increasing with the number of years receiving PES. These are preferred for their directness and short-term results, although raising concerns about the little social capital they generate. ICDPs are appreciated for arising environmental awareness, being linked with long term conservation, productive capacity and social capital building. Negative perceptions of ICDPs are related to past economic failures. Our results suggest that the real issue is not PES vs. ICDPs but how to combine them to find the proper sequence while reinforcing intrinsic value-based attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Rico García-Amado, Luis & Ruiz Pérez, Manuel & Barrasa García, Sara, 2013. "Motivation for conservation: Assessing integrated conservation and development projects and payments for environmental services in La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas, Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 92-100.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:89:y:2013:i:c:p:92-100
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913000633
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.02.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    2. Muñoz-Piña, Carlos & Guevara, Alejandro & Torres, Juan Manuel & Braña, Josefina, 2008. "Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 725-736, May.
    3. Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
    4. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    5. Belcher, Brian & Ruiz-Perez, Manuel & Achdiawan, Ramadhani, 2005. "Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1435-1452, September.
    6. Douglas J. McCauley, 2006. "Selling out on nature," Nature, Nature, vol. 443(7107), pages 27-28, September.
    7. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    8. Gibson, Clark C. & Marks, Stuart A., 1995. "Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An assessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 941-957, June.
    9. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    10. Winkler, Ralph, 2011. "Why do ICDPs fail?: The relationship between agriculture, hunting and ecotourism in wildlife conservation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 55-78, January.
    11. Sarah Milne & Bill Adams, 2012. "Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 133-158, January.
    12. Christopher B. Barrett & Peter Arcese, 1998. "Wildlife Harvest in Integrated Conservation and Development Projects: Linking Harvest to Household Demand, Agricultural Production, and Environmental Shocks in the Serengeti," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(4), pages 449-465.
    13. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    14. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    15. Frey, Bruno S., 1993. "Motivation as a limit to pricing," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 635-664, December.
    16. Bowles, Samuel & Hwang, Sung-Ha, 2008. "Social preferences and public economics: Mechanism design when social preferences depend on incentives," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1811-1820, August.
    17. De Jong, Ben H. J. & Tipper, Richard & Montoya-Gomez, Guillermo, 2000. "An economic analysis of the potential for carbon sequestration by forests: evidence from southern Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 313-327, May.
    18. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    19. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    20. Simpson, R. David & Sedjo, Roger A., 1996. "Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: a comparison of direct and indirect approaches," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 241-257, May.
    21. Antinori, Camille & Bray, David Barton, 2005. "Community forest enterprises as entrepreneurial Firms: Economic and institutional perspectives from Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    22. Sunderlin, William D. & Angelsen, Arild & Belcher, Brian & Burgers, Paul & Nasi, Robert & Santoso, Levania & Wunder, Sven, 2005. "Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1383-1402, September.
    23. Graciela Chichilnisky & Geoffrey Heal, 1998. "Economic returns from the biosphere," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6668), pages 629-630, February.
    24. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tiesta Thakur & Terrance Hurley, 2023. "Do farmers need to be paid to grow milkweed for monarchs or will they volunteer if it is easy enough?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 1008-1024, June.
    2. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara & Ringhofer, Lisa, 2016. "Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 24-32.
    3. Rode, Julian & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Krause, Torsten, 2013. "Economic incentives for biodiversity conservation: What is the evidence for motivation crowding?," UFZ Discussion Papers 19/2013, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    4. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2015. "Can monetary valuation undermine nature conservation? Evidence from a decision experiment," UFZ Discussion Papers 9/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    5. Kallis, Giorgos & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Zografos, Christos, 2013. "To value or not to value? That is not the question," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 97-105.
    6. Matthew Kotchen & Kathleen Segerson, 2020. "The Use of Group-Level Approaches to Environmental and Natural Resource Policy," NBER Working Papers 27142, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. García-Amado, Luis Rico & Pérez, Manuel Ruiz & Escutia, Felipe Reyes & García, Sara Barrasa & Mejía, Elsa Contreras, 2011. "Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2361-2368.
    2. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    3. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & à vila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    4. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    5. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    6. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    7. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    8. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    9. Rodrigo Muniz & Maria João Cruz, 2015. "Making Nature Valuable, Not Profitable: Are Payments for Ecosystem Services Suitable for Degrowth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-27, August.
    10. Kumar, Pushpam & Kumar, Manasi & Garrett, Lucy, 2014. "Behavioural foundation of response policies for ecosystem management: What can we learn from Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 128-136.
    11. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    12. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    13. Colman, David & Pascual, Unai & Hodge, Ian, 2010. "Evolution of Land Conservation Policy," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188082, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    14. Polishchuk, Yuliana & Rauschmayer, Felix, 2012. "Beyond “benefits”? Looking at ecosystem services through the capability approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 103-111.
    15. Leimona, Beria & van Noordwijk, Meine & de Groot, Rudolf & Leemans, Rik, 2015. "Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 16-28.
    16. Julia Martin-Ortega & Elena Ojea & Camille Roux, 2012. "Payments for Water Ecosystem Services in Latin America: Evidence from Reported Experience," Working Papers 2012-14, BC3.
    17. Leander Raes & Nikolay Aguirre & Marijke D’Haese & Guido Huylenbroeck, 2014. "Analysis of the cost-effectiveness for ecosystem service provision and rural income generation: a comparison of three different programs in Southern Ecuador," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 471-498, June.
    18. Bauchet, Jonathan & Asquith, Nigel & Ma, Zhao & Radel, Claudia & Godoy, Ricardo & Zanotti, Laura & Steele, Diana & Gramig, Benjamin M. & Chong, Andrea Estrella, 2020. "The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    19. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    20. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:89:y:2013:i:c:p:92-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.