IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v37y2013icp104-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: An assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-east Spain)

Author

Listed:
  • Prokofieva, Irina
  • Gorriz, Elena

Abstract

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) have recently attracted attention as a means for aligning the interests of landowners and society by remunerating forest owners for the goods and services their forests produce. As PES schemes are being extensively adopted around the world, questions related to their institutional dimensions, as well as the role of different actors and contextual factors in PES initiation, design and implementation, arise.

Suggested Citation

  • Prokofieva, Irina & Gorriz, Elena, 2013. "Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: An assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-east Spain)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 104-114.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:37:y:2013:i:c:p:104-114
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113001809
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.005?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. G. Hodgson, 2007. "What Are Institutions?," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 8.
    2. Lori Bennear & Robert Stavins, 2007. "Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 111-129, May.
    3. Barrett, Christopher B. & Lee, David R. & McPeak, John G., 2005. "Institutional Arrangements for Rural Poverty Reduction and Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 193-197, February.
    4. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2010. "The ‘policy mix’ for innovation: rethinking innovation policy in a multi-level, multi-actor context," MPRA Paper 23567, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Corbera, Esteve & Brown, Katrina, 2008. "Building Institutions to Trade Ecosystem Services: Marketing Forest Carbon in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1956-1979, October.
    8. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    9. 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.
    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. Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Olza Donazar, Luis & Montero Eseverri, Eduardo & Marini Govigli, Valentino, 2019. "The challenges of coordinating forest owners for joint management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 100-109.
    2. Górriz, E. & Mäntymaa, E. & Petucco, C. & Schubert, F. & Vedel, S. E. & Mantau, Udo & Prokofieva, I., 2014. "Explaining participation of private forest owners in," 2014, Number 45, May 22-24, 2014, Uppsala, Sweden, Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, vol. 2014(45), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Tran, Thi Thu Huong & Zeller, Manfred & Suhardiman, Diana, 2016. "Payments for ecosystem services in Hoa Binh province, Vietnam: An institutional analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 83-93.
    4. Huber, P. & Hujala, T. & Kurttila, M. & Wolfslehner, B. & Vacik, H., 2019. "Application of multi criteria analysis methods for a participatory assessment of non-wood forest products in two European case studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 103-111.
    5. Maier, Carolin & Hebermehl, Wiebke & Grossmann, Carol M. & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica, 2021. "Innovations for securing forest ecosystem service provision in Europe – A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    6. Hily, Emeline & Garcia, Serge & Stenger, Anne & Tu, Gengyang, 2015. "Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a biodiversity conservation policy: A bio-econometric analysis of Natura 2000 contracts in forest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 197-208.

    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. 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.
    2. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    3. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    4. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.
    5. Stefano Pagiola & Ana Rios & Agustin Arcenas, 2010. "Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindío, Colombia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 371-394, November.
    6. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara, 2018. "Improving payments for ecosystem services (PES) outcomes through the use of Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and the software OPTamos," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 47-55.
    7. Hayes, Tanya & Murtinho, Felipe & Wolff, Hendrik, 2017. "The Impact of Payments for Environmental Services on Communal Lands: An Analysis of the Factors Driving Household Land-Use Behavior in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 427-446.
    8. 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.
    9. Long, Kaisheng & Omrani, Hichem & Pijanowski, Bryan C., 2020. "Impact of local payments for ecosystem services on land use in a developed area of China: A qualitative analysis based on an integrated conceptual framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Chan, Kai M.A. & Anderson, Emily & Chapman, Mollie & Jespersen, Kristjan & Olmsted, Paige, 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 110-122.
    11. Teo Dang Do & Anchana NaRanong, 2019. "Livelihood and Environmental Impacts of Payments for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-22, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Marissa Bongiovanni Schmitz & Erin Clover Kelly, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Commodification: Lessons from California," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(4), pages 90-110, November.
    14. Huber-Stearns, Heidi R. & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Cheng, Antony S. & Toombs, Theodore P., 2015. "Institutional analysis of payments for watershed services in the western United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 83-93.
    15. Le Coq, Jean-François & Froger, Geraldine & Pesche, Denis & Legrand, Thomas & Saenz, Fernando, 2015. "Understanding the governance of the Payment for Environmental Services Programme in Costa Rica: A policy process perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 253-265.
    16. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    17. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    18. Yin, Runsheng & Zhao, Minjuan, 2012. "Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes—China's experience as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 56-65.
    19. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    20. 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.

    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:forpol:v:37:y:2013:i:c:p:104-114. 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/forpol .

    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.