Published Date
Abstract
Two of the main motives for people to be engaged in the Mexican Payment for Environmental Services (PES) programme are forest conservation and the income received from the programme. We explore the socioeconomic conditions that support choosing these motives. We used data from a 2012 nationwide survey, processed through logit models. Significant factors influencing the desire to conserve as a motive were family welfare improvement, land use change intention, and training. Those affecting income as a motive were formal education, indigenous people participation and training. Finally, factors related to both conservation and income, as a motive, were formal education, training, PES influence in water management, and land boundary conflicts. Income and conservation are not mutually exclusive motives for engagement in the programme, given that in developing countries income from PES may reduce the socioeconomic pressures triggering land use change, and has a role in conservation efforts, already present in many rural communities.
References
For further details log on website :
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v22y2016icp36-51.html
Abstract
Two of the main motives for people to be engaged in the Mexican Payment for Environmental Services (PES) programme are forest conservation and the income received from the programme. We explore the socioeconomic conditions that support choosing these motives. We used data from a 2012 nationwide survey, processed through logit models. Significant factors influencing the desire to conserve as a motive were family welfare improvement, land use change intention, and training. Those affecting income as a motive were formal education, indigenous people participation and training. Finally, factors related to both conservation and income, as a motive, were formal education, training, PES influence in water management, and land boundary conflicts. Income and conservation are not mutually exclusive motives for engagement in the programme, given that in developing countries income from PES may reduce the socioeconomic pressures triggering land use change, and has a role in conservation efforts, already present in many rural communities.
References
- Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
- Corbera, Esteve & Soberanis, Carmen González & Brown, Katrina, 2009. "Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 743-761, January.
- Zbinden, Simon & Lee, David R., 2005. "Paying for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Participation in Costa Rica's PSA Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 255-272, February.
- Kosoy, Nicolas & Martinez-Tuna, Miguel & Muradian, Roldan & Martinez-Alier, Joan, 2007. "Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 446-455, March.
- Klooster, Daniel, 2000. "Institutional Choice, Community, and Struggle: A Case Study of Forest Co-Management in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-20, January.
- 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.
- 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.
- Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
- 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.
- Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
- Pascual, Unai & Muradian, Roldan & Rodríguez, Luis C. & Duraiappah, Anantha, 2010. "Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1237-1244, April.
- Singh, Neera M., 2015. "Payments for ecosystem services and the gift paradigm: Sharing the burden and joy of environmental care," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 53-61.
- Kelly, Peter & Huo, Xuexi, 2013. "Do farmers or governments make better land conservation choices? Evidence from China's Sloping Land Conversion Program," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 32-60.
- Neitzel, K. Christoph & Caro-Borrero, Angela Piedad & Revollo-Fernandez, Daniel & Aguilar-Ibarra, Alonso & Ramos, Alya & Almeida-Leñero, Lucia, 2014. "Paying for environmental services: Determining recognized participation under common property in a peri-urban context," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 46-55.
For further details log on website :
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v22y2016icp36-51.html
No comments:
Post a Comment