Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Managing Tropical Forest Ecosystem Services: An Overview of Options

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services

Part of the book series: Studies in Ecological Economics ((SEEC,volume 4))

Abstract

Decision-makers can choose between three broad classes of policy instruments to manage ecosystem services: incentives, disincentives, and enabling measures. This chapter reviews the conceptual and empirical literature on examples from each of these classes in the context of tropical forest ecosystem services management. We propose a conceptual framework for the evaluation of management options that highlights performance measures and potential trade-offs between the environmental and socioeconomic objectives of ecosystem services management. We formulate three interrelated areas of future research needs toward: (1) dealing with uncertain spatiotemporal dynamics of ecosystem services, (2) measuring the costs and benefits of ecosystem services’ provision, and (3) developing rigorous approaches to evaluating ecosystem services management performance for a broad set of measures and implementation settings.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout this chapter, we use the singular (instrument) with the understanding that sets of policy instruments (plural) may have to be deployed to achieve desired objectives; the effects and costs of these policy sets must be considered jointly.

  2. 2.

    We systematically screened over 600 peer-reviewed journal articles, research reports and institutional publications that dealt with the options for and the effects of environmental management. For each policy instrument category, key studies were analysed in more detail. Most publications deal with carbon, plant biodiversity and water-related ES; there were fewer studies of forest products, soil degradation and air pollution; few publications address specific and well-defined ES. We attribute this to the fact that the ES concept has only recently been widely adopted in the scientific literature, and that, with the exception of water, few ES-specific policy instruments are available. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) provides one of the first, broad frameworks for defining and managing ES. A complete list of the reviewed literature can be obtained from the authors.

  3. 3.

    We emphasise the word ‘attempt’ because the intensity and duration with which a given instrument is used will, in part, determine its effect on human behaviour – for example, small price subsidies and short-term punishments may do little to change behaviour in the long term.

  4. 4.

    For a list of reasons why the private sector will not provide the needed goods or services, see technical appendix in Belli et al. (2001).

  5. 5.

    The ‘environmental services’ addressed by most existing PES schemes are equivalent to ecosystem services with public good character, for example, carbon fixation and biodiversity-related benefits, or scenic beauty (Landell-Mills and Porras 2002).

  6. 6.

    For example, the value of surface water during the wet season can be much lower than the value of surface water during the dry season (Torres et al. 2012).

  7. 7.

    More fundamentally, economic efficiency requires identifying specific policy instruments to resolve specific policy problems; it will rarely be the case that an environmental policy instrument is the most efficient way to resolve (say) an economic development problem.

  8. 8.

    www.teebweb.org

References

  • Agrawal, A., & Gupta, K. (2005). Decentralization and participation: The governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development, 33, 1101–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 373–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amend, M. R., Reid, J., & Gascon, C. (2006). Benefícios econômicos locais de áreas protegidas na região de Manaus, Amazonas. Megadiversidade, 2, 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., & Thampapillai, J. (1990). Soil conservation in developing countries: Project and policy intervention. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. L., Locker, L., & Nugent, R. (2002). Microcredit, social capital, and common pool resources. World Development, 30, 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (2001). Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. New York/Oxon: CIFOR/CABI Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., & Mandujano, S. (2006). Forest fragmentation modifies habitat quality for Alouatta palliata. International Journal of Primatology, 27, 1079–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auty, R., & Kiiski, A. (2002). Natural resources, capital accumulation, structural change, and welfare. In R. Auty (Ed.), Resource abundance and economic development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). The theory of environmental policy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bayon, R. (2001). Innovating environmental finance. Santa Monica: Milken Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belli, P., Anderson, J. R., Barnum, H. N., Dixon, J. A., & Tan, J.-P. (2001). Economic analysis of investment operations analytical tools and practical applications. Washington, DC: The World Bank Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börner, J., Mendoza, A., & Vosti, S. A. (2007). Ecosystem services, agriculture, and rural poverty in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon: Interrelationships and policy prescriptions. Ecological Economics, 64, 356–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Tito, M. R., Pereira, L., & Nascimento, N. (2010). Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics, 69, 1272–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Hyman, G., & Nascimento, N. (2011). REDD sticks and carrots in the Brazilian Amazon: Assessing costs and livelihood implications. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Copenhagen, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosquet, B. (2000). Environmental tax reform: Does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics, 34, 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, F., & Lowe, P. (2000). CAP regimes and the European countryside. Wallingford: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, N., & Ellis, G. M. (1993). Environmental taxes and policy for developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, L. L., & Rajan, R. S. (2001). Regional versus multilateral solutions to transboundary environmental problems: Insights from the Southeast Asian Haze. The World Economy, 24, 655–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlier, R. H. (2003). A “sleeper” awakes: Tidal current power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 7, 515–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomitz, K. M., & Thomas, T. S. (2003). Determinants of land use in Amazonia: A fine-scale spatial analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85, 1016–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. H., & Grossman, P. Z. (2002). Toward a total-cost approach to environmental instrument choice. Research in Law and Economics, 20, 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T. H., Salzman, J., & Shallenberger, R. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debinski, D. M., & Holt, R. D. (2000). A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology, 14, 342–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFries, R., & Rosenzweig, C. (2010). Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 19627–19632.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ebeling, J., & Yasué, M. (2009). The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: Forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1145–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, S., & Palmer, C. (2008). Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: The case of Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 65, 799–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside, P. M. (2001). Land-tenure issues as factors in environmental destruction in Brazilian Amazonia: The case of Southern Para. World Development, 29, 1361–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P. J., & Kiss, A. (2002). Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298, 1718–1719.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4, e105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P. J., Uchida, T., & Conrad, J. M. (2005). Price premiums for eco-friendly commodities: Are ‘Green’ markets the best way to protect endangered ecosystems? Environmental and Resource Economics, 32, 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, E., & Donnelly, R. (2003). Recreational scuba diving in Caribbean marine protected areas: Do the users pay? Ambio, 32, 140–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave, J., & Kis-Katos, K. (2010, August 22–25). Economic causes of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: A panel data analysis for 2000s. Paper presented at the International Society of Ecological Economics Conference 2010, Oldenburg and Bremen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. J. C., Browne, A. W., Barret, H. R., & Cadoret, K. (2001). Facilitating the inclusion of the resource-poor in organic production and trade: Opportunities and constraints posed by certification. Department for International Development DfID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazell, P., Pomareda, C., & Valdés, A. (1986). Crop insurance for agricultural development. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotte, L. (2001). Conflicts over property rights and natural-resource exploitation at the frontier. Journal of Development Economics, 66, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles, and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy and Society, 23, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, R. M., Ruitenbeek, J., & Motta, R. S. (1998). Market-based instruments for environmental policymaking in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • IFAD. (2003). Transforming rural institutions in order to reach the millennium development goals. Rome: IFAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, N., & Alavalapati, J. R. R. (1998). The distributional effects of environmental tax reform. IIED Catalogue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. A., & Lichtenfeld, L. L. (2000). Community natural resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 705–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen, C. (2005). Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters, 8, 468–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, T., & Casey, F. (2007). An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecological Economics, 64, 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuyvenhoven, A. (2004). Creating an enabling environment: Policy conditions for less-favoured areas. Food Policy, 29, 407–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landell-Mills, N., & Porras, T. I. (2002). Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurance, W. F., Albernaz, A. K. M., Schroth, G., Fearnside, P. M., Bergen, S., Venticinque, E. M., & Da Costa, C. (2002). Predictors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Biogeography, 29, 737–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D. R., & Barrett, C. B. (Eds.). (2001). Tradeoffs or synergies? Agricultural intensification, economic development and the environment. Wallingford: CAB International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, P., Falconer, K., Hodge, I., Moxey, A., Ward, N., & Whitby, M. (1999). Integrating the environment into CAP reform. Newcastle upon Tyne: Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing, University of Newcastle.

    Google Scholar 

  • MA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: A synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, D., de Castro, F., Futemma, C., de Amaral, B., & Calabria, J. (1993). Fisheries and the evolution of resource management on the lower Amazon floodplain. Human Ecology, 21, 167–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, S., & Niesten, E. (2009). Direct payments for biodiversity conservation in developing countries: Practical insights for design and implementation. Oryx, 43, 530–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nail, E. L., Young, D. L., & Schillinger, W. F. (2007). Government subsidies and crop insurance effects on the economics of conservation cropping systems in eastern Washington. Agronomy Journal, 99, 614–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A., & Chomitz, K. M. (2011). Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: A global analysis using matching methods. PLoS One, 6, e22722.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nepstad, D., Soares-Filho, B. S., Merry, F., Moutinho, P., Rodrigues, H. O., Bowman, M., Schwartzman, S., Almeida, O., & Rivero, S. (2007). The costs and benefits of reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Falmouth: WHRC, IPAM, UFMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, P., & Riyanto, Y. (2001). Policy instruments for creating markets for biodiversity: Certification and ecolabeling (FEEM Working Paper No. 72.2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oenema, O., Janssen, B. H., Smaling, E., & Hoffland, E. (2006). Nutrient management in tropical agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 116, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs, 28, 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (2005). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. In D. J. Penn & I. Mysterud (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on environmental problems. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco, P. (2009). Agrarian reform in the Brazilian Amazon: Its implications for land distribution and deforestation. World Development, 37, 1337–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, 65, 712–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., & Landell Mills, N. (2002). Selling forest environmental services: Market-based incentives for conservation and development. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 from Latin America. World Development, 33, 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., Hart, P., Ho, R. K. P., Ofwono-Orecho, J. K. W., Peries, M., Robottom, I., Tsaliki, E., & Van Staden, C. (1998). An overview of significant influences and formative experiences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in nine countries. Environmental Education Research, 4, 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, S. K., Wunder, S., & Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4, 254–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D. W., & Turner, K. T. (1990). Natural resource and environmental economics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrot-Maitre, D. (2006). The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: A “perfect” PES case. London: IIED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331, 1606–1608.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff, A. S. P. (1999). What drives deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? Evidence from satellite and socioeconomic data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37, 26–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff, A., Kerr, S., Lipper, L., Cavatassi, R., Davis, B., Hendy, J., & Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A. (2007). Will buying tropical forest carbon benefit the poor? Evidence from Costa Rica. Land Use Policy, 24, 600–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E. A., Guariguata, M. R., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., & Reyes-García, V. (2011). Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management, 268, 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. R., & Stavins, R. N. (2000). Public policies for environmental protection. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G., & Zilberman, D. (2006). Adoption of Bt cotton and impact variability: Insights from India. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 28, 48–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravnborg, H. M., & Guerrero, M. P. (1999). Collective action in watershed management – Experiences from the Andean hillsides. Agriculture and Human Values, 16, 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey, J. E., Nobre, C., & Deser, C. (1989). Amazon river discharge and climate variability: 1903 to 1985. Science, 246(4926), 101–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rios, A. R., & Pagiola, S. (2010). Poor household participation in payments for environmental services in Nicaragua and Colombia. In L. Tacconi, S. Mahanty, & H. Suich (Eds.), Payments for environmental services, forest conservation and climate change: Livelihoods in the Redd? (pp. 21–243). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, E. J. Z., Kumar, A. M., & Albers, H. J. (2010). Protecting developing Countries’ forests: Enforcement in theory and practice. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 2, 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68, 249–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuck, E. C., Nganje, W., & Yantio, D. (2002). The role of land tenure and extension education in the adoption of slash and burn agriculture. Ecological Economics, 43, 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartzman, S., & Zimmerman, B. (2005). Alianças de conservação com povos indígenas da Amazônia. Megadiversidade, 1, 165–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seroa da Motta, R., & Ferraz do Amaral, C. A. (2000). Estimating timber depreciation in the Brazilian Amazon. Environment and Development Economics, 5, 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seroa da Motta, R., Ruitenbeek, J., & Huber, R. (1996). Uso de Instrumentos Econômicos na Gestão Ambiental da América Latina e Caribe: Lições e Recomendações. Rio de Janeiro: IPEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simula, M., Salmi, J., & Puustajärvi, E. (2002). Forest financing in Latin America: The role of the inter-American development bank. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterner, T. (2003). Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudirman, D. W., & Nely, H. (2005). Local policy-making mechanisms processes, implementation and impacts of the decentralized forest management system in Tanjung Jabung Barat District, Jambi, Sumatra. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swallow, B., Noordwijk, M. v., Dewi, S., Murdiyarso, D., White, D., Gockowski, J., Hyman, G., Budidarsono, S., Robiglio, V., Meadu, V., Ekadinata, A., Agus, F., Hairiah, K., Mbile, P., Sonwa, D., & Weise, D. (2007). Opportunities for avoided deforestation with sustainable benefits. An interim report by the ASB partnership for the tropical forest margins, Nairobi, Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thünen, J. H. (1826). Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie. Hamburg: Perthes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toni, F., & Kaimowitz, D. (Eds.). (2003). Municípios e Gestao Florestal na Amazônia. Natal: A.S. Editores.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres, M. O., Maneta, M., Howitt, R., Vosti, S. A., Wallender, W. W., Bassoi, L. H., & Rodrigues, L. N. (2012). Economic impacts of regional water scarcity in the São Francisco River Basin, Brazil: an application of a linked hydro-economic model. Environment and Development Economics, 1(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veríssimo, A., Smeraldi, R., & Azevedo, T. (2005). Forest certification in Brazil: Advances, innovations and challenges. In D. Burger, J. Hess, & B. Lang (Eds.), Forest certification: An innovative instrument in the service of sustainable development (pp. 207–217). Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Glasbergen, P. (2007). Partnerships in forest governance. Global Environmental Change, 17, 408–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosti, S. A., & Reardon, T. (Eds.). (1997). Poverty-environment links in rural areas of developing countries. In Agricultural sustainability, growth, and poverty alleviation: A policy and agroecological perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosti, S., Witcover, J., Oliveira, S., & Faminow, M. (1997). Policy issues in agroforestry: technology adoption and regional integration in the western Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems, 38, 195–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosti, S. A., Witcover, J., & Carpentier, C. L. (2002). Agricultural intensification by smallholders in the Western Amazon: From deforestation to sustainable land use. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werth, D., & Avissar, R. (2002). The local and global effects of Amazon deforestation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, 8087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts (Rep. No. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42). International Center for Forestry Research (CIFOR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics, 13, 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S., & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. (2009). Payments for ecosystem services: A new way of conserving biodiversity in forests. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 28, 576–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65, 834–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, N., Yoon J., Marengo J. A., Subramaniam, A., Nobre, C., Mariotti A., & Neelin J. D. (2008). Causes and impacts of the 2005 Amazon drought. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 014002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman, D., Lipper, L., & McCarthy, N. (2008). When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor? Environment and Development Economics, 13, 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work benefited from consultations with stakeholders from Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela. We thank Maren Hohnwald, Sam Fujisaka and Roberto Porro for valuable support and Gretchen Daily, Susan Poats and Donald Sawyer for useful comments to improve the initial manuscript. A previous version of this chapter was part of a report to the Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation Program funded by NERC, DFID and ESRC – partial funding is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53113, Bonn, Germany

    Jan Börner

  2. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Center for Natural Resources Policy Analysis, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616-8512, USA

    Stephen A. Vosti

Authors
  1. Jan Börner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen A. Vosti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Börner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Cultural Anthropology and Development St, Radboud University Nijmegen, Thomas van Aquinostraat 4, Nijmegen, 6525 GD, Netherlands

    Roldan Muradian

  2. , Institute of Social and Cultural Anthrop, University of Oxford, Banbury Road 51/53, Oxford, 0X2 6PE, United Kingdom

    Laura Rival

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Börner, J., Vosti, S.A. (2013). Managing Tropical Forest Ecosystem Services: An Overview of Options. In: Muradian, R., Rival, L. (eds) Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Studies in Ecological Economics, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics