Community conservation and a two-stage approach to payments for ecosystem services
Recent revisions to the theory and definition of payments for ecosystem services (PES) challenge the generally accepted dominance of direct incentives provided in a buyer–seller relationship. The revisionist thinking insists indirect incentives and a cooperative, reciprocal relationship are often more appropriate. Those characteristics, however, hark back to the indirect, cooperative interventions that constitute “community conservation”, which PES was originally designed as an improvement over. In that context, this study revisits the criticisms and potential benefits of community conservation. We analyze a case study of community conservation in Peru and find that it supported an uptake of forest-friendly behaviors. We take up the suggestion of a two-stage approach to PES, but refine it based on our results that indicate an important role for cognitive (e.g. education) alongside structural interventions (e.g. provision of alternatives), and a strong role for social consensus to support conservationist behavior. Community conservation can provide these elements in a first-stage of PES to create a social context conducive to conservation. Without creating that context first, PES could destabilize local resource management norms rather than improve on them. With the social context established, however, a market mechanism can be implemented in the second stage to reinforce the new conservationist behavior.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002.
"The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
- Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2007.
"Evolutionary Thinking in Environmental Economics,"
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers
07-018/3, Tinbergen Institute.
- Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
- Pagiola, Stefano, 2008.
"Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica,"
Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
- 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.
- 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.
- Elinor Ostrom, 2000. "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 137-158, Summer.
- Frost, Peter G.H. & Bond, Ivan, 2008. "The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe: Payments for wildlife services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 776-787, May.
- Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
- Frey, Bruno S & Jegen, Reto, 2001. " Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
- Fisher, Brendan & Kulindwa, Kassim & Mwanyoka, Iddi & Turner, R. Kerry & Burgess, Neil D., 2010. "Common pool resource management and PES: Lessons and constraints for water PES in Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1253-1261, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:71:y:2011:i:c:p:89-98. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.