Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:59:38.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Payments for environmental services and rural livelihood strategies in Ecuador and Guatemala

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

DOUGLAS SOUTHGATE ,
TIMOTHY HAAB ,
JOHN LUNDINE  and
FABIÁN RODRÍGUEZ
DOUGLAS SOUTHGATE
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
TIMOTHY HAAB
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
JOHN LUNDINE
Affiliation:
Save the Children, Westport, CT, USA
FABIÁN RODRÍGUEZ
Affiliation:
Hexagón Consultores, Quito, Ecuador
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Presented in this paper are the results of two contingent valuation analyses, one undertaken in Ecuador and the other in Guatemala, of potential payments for environmental services (PES) directed toward rural households. We find that minimum compensation demanded by these households is far from uniform, depending in particular on individual strategies for raising incomes and dealing with risks. Our findings strengthen the case for allowing conservation payments to vary among recipients, which would be a departure from the current norm for PES initiatives in Latin America.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 21 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binswanger, H. (1980), ‘Attitudes toward risk: experimental measurement in rural India’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65: 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, P.J. (2001), ‘Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments’, Conservation Biology 15: 990–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, G.S. (1975), ‘Rural-urban migration, urban unemployment and under-employment, and job search activity in LDCs’, Journal of Development Economics 2: 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Vega, C., Rodríguez-Meza, J., Southgate, D., and Maldonado, J. (2004), ‘Poverty, structural transformation, and land use in El Salvador’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86: 1367–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haab, T. and McConnell, K. (2002), Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J.R. and Todaro, M.P. (1970), ‘Migration, unemployment, and development: a two-sector analysis’, American Economic Review 60: 125–142.Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, y Servicio de Información y Censos Agropecuarios (INEC/MAG/SICA) (2002), III Censo Nacional Agropecuario: Resultados Nacionales y Provinciales, Volumen I, Quito (in Spanish).Google Scholar
Landell-Mills, N. and Porras, I. (2002), Silver Bullet or Fool's Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor, London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
Ligon, E. and Schechter, L. (2003), ‘Measuring vulnerability’, Economic Journal 113: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundine, J. (2005), ‘An economic estimation of small land owner willingness to accept a reforestation project’, M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Markowitz, H. (1952), ‘Portfolio selection’, Journal of Finance 7: 77–91.Google Scholar
Masson, P. (2001), ‘Migration, human capital, and poverty in a dual-economy model of a developing economy’, Working Paper No. 01-128, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J., and Braña, J. (2008), ‘Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations, and results’, Ecological Economics 65: 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S. (2002), ‘Paying for water services in Central America: learning from Costa Rica’, in Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., and Landell-Mills, N. (eds), Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-Based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, London: Earthscan, pp. 37–62.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. (2008), ‘Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica’, Ecological Economics 65: 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, R.E., Sugal, C.A., Ratay, S.M., da Fonseca, G.A.V. (2001), ‘Sustainable forest management: a review of conventional wisdom’, Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science, Number 3, Conservation International, Washington.Google Scholar
Robertson, N. and Wunder, S. (2005), Fresh Tracks in the Forest: Assessing Incipient Payments for Environmental Services Initiatives in Bolivia, Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Meza, J., Southgate, D., and González-Vega, C. (2004), ‘Rural poverty, household responses to shocks, and agricultural land use: panel results for El Salvador’, Environment and Development Economics 9: 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, T.W. (1964), Transforming Traditional Agriculture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, R.D. and Sedjo, R.A. (1996), ‘Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems’, Environment and Development Economics 1: 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S. and Albán, M. (2008), ‘Decentralized payments for environmental services: comparing the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador’, Ecological Economics 65: 685–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zbinden, S. and Lee, D.R. (2005), ‘Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica's PSA program’, World Development 33: 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar