Biodiversity Conservation Financing Through Payment for Ecosystem Services

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Date: June 2025

Abstract

The escalating global biodiversity crisis necessitates innovative financing mechanisms that transcend traditional conservation approaches. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) has emerged as a transformative economic instrument that creates financial incentives for biodiversity conservation by compensating ecosystem service providers for maintaining natural capital. This paper examines the theoretical foundations, implementation frameworks, and empirical evidence surrounding PES mechanisms as viable financing solutions for biodiversity conservation. Through comprehensive analysis of global case studies and economic modeling approaches, this research demonstrates that PES schemes can effectively bridge the funding gap in conservation finance while simultaneously addressing market failures in ecosystem service provision. The findings reveal that successful PES implementation requires robust institutional frameworks, accurate ecosystem service valuation methodologies, and adaptive governance structures that accommodate diverse stakeholder interests. Furthermore, the paper identifies critical challenges including additionality concerns, transaction costs, and distributional equity issues that must be addressed to optimize PES effectiveness. The research concludes that while PES represents a promising avenue for biodiversity conservation financing, its success depends on careful design considerations, stakeholder engagement, and integration with broader conservation strategies.

Keywords: Payment for Ecosystem Services, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services valuation, conservation finance, natural capital, market-based mechanisms, environmental economics

1. Introduction

The contemporary biodiversity crisis represents one of the most pressing environmental challenges of the Anthropocene epoch, with species extinction rates accelerating at an unprecedented pace that fundamentally threatens ecosystem stability and human welfare (Díaz et al., 2019). Traditional conservation financing mechanisms, predominantly reliant on government allocations and philanthropic contributions, have proven inadequate to address the scale and urgency of biodiversity loss, creating a substantial funding gap estimated at $711 billion annually for global conservation needs (Deutz et al., 2020). This financial shortfall has catalyzed the development of innovative market-based conservation instruments, among which Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) has emerged as a particularly promising mechanism for mobilizing private capital toward biodiversity conservation objectives.

Payment for Ecosystem Services represents a paradigmatic shift from conventional command-and-control conservation approaches toward market-oriented solutions that explicitly recognize and compensate the economic value of ecosystem services. This mechanism operates on the fundamental premise that ecosystem service providers, whether individual landowners, communities, or institutions, should receive financial compensation for maintaining or enhancing ecosystem functions that generate benefits for society (Wunder, 2015). The theoretical foundation of PES rests on environmental economics principles that seek to internalize environmental externalities by creating markets for previously unpriced ecosystem services, thereby addressing market failures that have historically led to ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss.

The urgency of developing effective biodiversity conservation financing mechanisms has intensified following the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which establishes ambitious targets for protecting 30% of terrestrial and marine ecosystems by 2030 while simultaneously addressing the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss (CBD, 2022). Achieving these targets requires unprecedented financial mobilization that transcends traditional funding sources and harnesses the power of market mechanisms to create sustainable financing streams for conservation activities. PES schemes offer a unique opportunity to align economic incentives with conservation objectives while generating measurable outcomes for both biodiversity conservation and human welfare enhancement.

This research paper provides a comprehensive analysis of biodiversity conservation financing through Payment for Ecosystem Services, examining the theoretical foundations, implementation frameworks, empirical evidence, and future prospects of this innovative financing mechanism. The analysis encompasses diverse PES typologies, ranging from government-funded programs to private sector initiatives, and evaluates their effectiveness in achieving biodiversity conservation outcomes across different geographical and socioeconomic contexts.

2. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Foundations

The theoretical underpinnings of Payment for Ecosystem Services are rooted in environmental economics and natural resource management theory, particularly the concept of market failure in ecosystem service provision. Ecosystem services, defined as the benefits that humans derive from ecosystem functions, encompass provisioning services (food, water, timber), regulating services (climate regulation, water purification, disease control), cultural services (recreation, spiritual values), and supporting services (nutrient cycling, primary production) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Despite their fundamental importance to human welfare and economic productivity, ecosystem services have historically been treated as free public goods, leading to their systematic undervaluation and subsequent degradation.

The economic rationale for PES stems from the recognition that ecosystem service provision exhibits characteristics of positive externalities, where the social benefits of conservation exceed the private benefits accruing to individual ecosystem service providers. This market failure results in suboptimal levels of ecosystem service provision from a societal perspective, as individual decision-makers lack sufficient economic incentives to account for the full social value of ecosystem conservation in their land-use decisions (Engel et al., 2008). PES mechanisms attempt to correct this market failure by creating financial incentives that align private interests with social objectives, thereby internalizing the positive externalities associated with ecosystem service provision.

Wunder (2005) established the foundational definition of PES as a voluntary, conditional agreement between at least one ecosystem service buyer and one ecosystem service seller, where the service is well-defined, the seller secures ecosystem service provision, and payment is conditional on service delivery. This definition emphasizes several critical characteristics that distinguish PES from other conservation financing mechanisms: voluntary participation, conditionality of payments, and explicit focus on ecosystem service outcomes rather than conservation activities per se.

The theoretical framework for PES implementation encompasses several key components that determine program effectiveness and sustainability. First, accurate ecosystem service identification and quantification are essential for establishing credible payment mechanisms that reflect the true value of ecosystem services provided. This requires sophisticated ecological and economic assessment methodologies that can measure ecosystem service flows and translate them into monetary values that serve as the basis for payment calculations (Costanza et al., 2017).

Second, the institutional framework governing PES implementation must address fundamental challenges related to property rights, contract enforcement, and transaction cost minimization. Secure property rights or use rights are prerequisite for effective PES implementation, as service providers must have the legal authority to make land-use decisions that affect ecosystem service provision. Similarly, robust contract enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure compliance with PES agreements and maintain program credibility among participants (Börner et al., 2017).

Third, the design of PES mechanisms must carefully consider additionality concerns, ensuring that payments generate conservation outcomes that would not have occurred in the absence of the program. This requires sophisticated baseline establishment and counterfactual analysis that can distinguish between conservation activities motivated by PES payments and those that would have occurred regardless of program implementation. Failure to address additionality concerns can result in inefficient resource allocation and reduced program effectiveness (Baylis et al., 2016).

3. Typologies and Implementation Models

Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes exhibit considerable diversity in their design characteristics, funding sources, governance structures, and target outcomes, reflecting the need to adapt PES mechanisms to diverse ecological, economic, and institutional contexts. Understanding this diversity is crucial for developing effective PES programs that can address specific biodiversity conservation challenges while accommodating local conditions and stakeholder preferences.

Government-funded PES programs represent the most common implementation model, with national and subnational governments serving as primary ecosystem service buyers seeking to achieve public policy objectives related to environmental protection, climate change mitigation, and sustainable development. These programs typically focus on large-scale ecosystem service provision with significant public good characteristics, such as watershed protection, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity conservation. Examples include Costa Rica’s Payments for Environmental Services program, which compensates forest owners for carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, and scenic beauty provision, and China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program, which pays farmers to convert cropland on steep slopes to forest or grassland (Pagiola et al., 2005).

Private sector PES initiatives have gained increasing prominence as corporations recognize the business value of ecosystem services and seek to address supply chain risks associated with ecosystem degradation. These programs often focus on specific ecosystem services that directly impact business operations, such as water quality and quantity for beverage companies, pollination services for agricultural enterprises, and climate regulation for insurance companies. Nestlé’s partnership with coffee farmers in Mexico to implement sustainable agricultural practices that enhance watershed protection exemplifies private sector engagement in PES mechanisms (Goldman-Benner et al., 2012).

Multilateral PES programs operate at international scales and typically address global public goods such as climate regulation and biodiversity conservation that generate benefits across national boundaries. The United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism represents the most significant multilateral PES initiative, providing financial incentives for developing countries to reduce deforestation rates and enhance forest conservation (Angelsen et al., 2012). Similarly, international carbon markets create PES-like mechanisms that compensate forest owners and managers for carbon sequestration services that contribute to global climate change mitigation efforts.

Hybrid PES models combine elements from different funding sources and governance structures to leverage diverse financing streams and optimize program effectiveness. These models often involve partnerships between government agencies, private sector entities, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations to create comprehensive financing packages that address multiple ecosystem services simultaneously. The success of hybrid models depends on effective coordination mechanisms that align diverse stakeholder interests and ensure coherent program implementation across multiple institutional boundaries.

User-financed PES programs represent another important category where direct beneficiaries of ecosystem services provide compensation to service providers. Watershed-based PES schemes, where downstream water users pay upstream land managers for watershed protection services, exemplify this model. New York City’s watershed protection program, which compensates upstate landowners for maintaining forest cover that ensures high-quality water supply, demonstrates the potential for user-financed PES to achieve cost-effective conservation outcomes while providing direct benefits to service buyers (Grolleau & McCann, 2012).

4. Ecosystem Services Valuation and Economic Assessment

Accurate ecosystem services valuation constitutes the cornerstone of effective PES implementation, as payment levels must reflect the economic value of ecosystem services to ensure program sustainability and efficiency. The challenge of ecosystem services valuation lies in quantifying and monetizing complex ecological processes that often lack established market prices, requiring sophisticated methodological approaches that can capture both use and non-use values associated with ecosystem services provision.

The Total Economic Value (TEV) framework provides a comprehensive approach to ecosystem services valuation by disaggregating total value into use values and non-use values, each with distinct characteristics and valuation methodologies. Use values encompass direct use values (timber, food, recreation), indirect use values (water filtration, climate regulation), and option values (potential future uses), while non-use values include existence values (satisfaction from knowing ecosystems exist) and bequest values (value of preserving ecosystems for future generations) (Turner et al., 2003).

Market-based valuation methods utilize existing market prices or create surrogate markets to estimate ecosystem service values. The replacement cost method estimates ecosystem service value based on the cost of replacing ecosystem services with human-made alternatives, such as water treatment facilities substituting for wetland water purification services. The travel cost method estimates recreational value by analyzing visitor expenditures and travel patterns to natural areas, while hedonic pricing examines how ecosystem services affect property values or wage rates in different locations (Freeman et al., 2014).

Stated preference methods employ survey techniques to elicit individual preferences for ecosystem services through hypothetical market scenarios. Contingent valuation directly asks respondents about their willingness to pay for specific ecosystem services or willingness to accept compensation for ecosystem service loss. Choice experiments present respondents with alternative ecosystem service bundles and analyze their choices to infer value preferences. These methods are particularly valuable for estimating non-use values that cannot be captured through market-based approaches (Johnston et al., 2017).

Benefit transfer methods adapt ecosystem service values from existing studies to new contexts, offering a cost-effective approach to valuation when primary research is not feasible. Meta-analysis techniques systematically analyze multiple valuation studies to develop transferable value estimates that account for differences in study contexts, methodological approaches, and ecosystem characteristics. The development of ecosystem service valuation databases, such as the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD), facilitates benefit transfer applications and supports rapid valuation assessments for PES program development (Costanza et al., 2014).

Participatory valuation approaches engage local communities and stakeholders in ecosystem services identification and valuation, recognizing that local knowledge and preferences are essential for developing culturally appropriate and socially acceptable PES programs. These methods often combine quantitative valuation techniques with qualitative assessments that capture indigenous knowledge systems and traditional ecological practices. Participatory mapping exercises help identify ecosystem service flows and beneficiaries, while deliberative monetary valuation engages stakeholders in collective valuation processes that build consensus around ecosystem service values (Scholte et al., 2015).

5. Case Studies and Empirical Evidence

Empirical evidence from diverse PES implementations worldwide provides valuable insights into program effectiveness, design considerations, and factors influencing successful biodiversity conservation outcomes. Costa Rica’s Payments for Environmental Services program, established in 1997, represents one of the longest-running and most comprehensive PES initiatives globally, offering compelling evidence of PES potential for biodiversity conservation financing.

Costa Rica’s PES program compensates private forest owners for four ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, and scenic beauty provision. The program has enrolled over 300,000 hectares in forest conservation and reforestation activities, contributing to a reversal of deforestation trends and significant forest cover recovery. Econometric analysis reveals that PES payments have generated additional forest conservation beyond what would have occurred without the program, with estimated additionality rates ranging from 17% to 40% depending on specific program components and regional characteristics (Pfaff et al., 2017).

Biodiversity outcomes from Costa Rica’s PES program demonstrate significant conservation benefits, with participating forests exhibiting higher species richness and abundance compared to non-participating areas. Long-term monitoring data indicate that PES forests maintain more stable bird and mammal populations, suggesting that financial incentives for forest conservation translate into measurable biodiversity conservation outcomes. However, the analysis also reveals that biodiversity benefits vary considerably across different forest types and management practices, highlighting the importance of incorporating specific biodiversity criteria into PES program design (Daniels et al., 2010).

Mexico’s Payments for Hydrological Environmental Services program provides another compelling case study of large-scale PES implementation focused on forest conservation for watershed protection. Established in 2003, the program compensates forest owners in priority watersheds for maintaining forest cover that provides water regulation services to downstream users. Evaluation studies demonstrate that the program has reduced deforestation rates in participating areas by approximately 40%, with particularly strong effects in areas with high deforestation pressure (Alix-Garcia et al., 2012).

The biodiversity co-benefits of Mexico’s hydrological PES program are substantial, as forest conservation for watershed protection simultaneously preserves habitat for numerous species and maintains ecosystem connectivity across landscapes. Spatial analysis reveals that PES payments have been particularly effective in protecting forests in biodiversity hotspots and areas with high conservation value, suggesting that watershed-focused PES can achieve multiple conservation objectives simultaneously (Muñoz-Piña et al., 2008).

Private sector PES initiatives offer additional insights into innovative financing mechanisms that leverage corporate interests in ecosystem services. Vittel’s partnership with farmers in northeastern France to reduce agricultural pollution in water catchment areas demonstrates how private companies can successfully implement PES programs to secure ecosystem services essential for business operations. The program compensates farmers for adopting organic farming practices that reduce water contamination, ensuring high-quality water supply for Vittel’s bottled water production while simultaneously enhancing biodiversity through reduced pesticide and fertilizer use (Perrot-Maître, 2006).

Evaluation of Vittel’s PES program reveals significant environmental improvements, including reduced nitrogen and pesticide levels in groundwater, enhanced soil health, and increased biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. The program’s success stems from long-term contracts that provide farmers with stable income streams, technical assistance for transitioning to organic farming practices, and collaborative governance structures that facilitate ongoing dialogue between the company and participating farmers. These design features have enabled the program to achieve sustained environmental improvements while maintaining farmer participation over extended periods.

6. Challenges and Limitations

Despite the promising potential of PES mechanisms for biodiversity conservation financing, several significant challenges and limitations constrain their effectiveness and widespread adoption. Understanding these challenges is essential for developing realistic expectations about PES capabilities and designing program modifications that can overcome implementation barriers.

Additionality concerns represent perhaps the most fundamental challenge in PES implementation, as programs must demonstrate that payments generate conservation outcomes beyond what would have occurred in the absence of financial incentives. Establishing credible additionality requires sophisticated baseline development and counterfactual analysis that can distinguish between conservation activities motivated by PES payments and those driven by other factors such as existing regulations, market trends, or personal preferences. Many PES programs struggle to demonstrate clear additionality, particularly in contexts where conservation would have occurred regardless of payment provision (Börner et al., 2017).

Transaction costs associated with PES program development and implementation can substantially reduce program efficiency and limit participation, particularly among small-scale ecosystem service providers. These costs include program design and setup expenses, ecosystem service monitoring and verification costs, contract negotiation and enforcement expenditures, and ongoing administrative overhead. High transaction costs can make PES programs economically unviable for providing small-scale ecosystem services or working with numerous small landowners, creating barriers to inclusive program participation (Vatn, 2010).

Ecosystem service measurement and monitoring challenges pose significant technical obstacles to PES implementation, as many ecosystem services are difficult to quantify accurately and cost-effectively. Biodiversity conservation services, in particular, present complex measurement challenges due to the multidimensional nature of biodiversity and the long-term timeframes required to observe meaningful conservation outcomes. Developing standardized biodiversity metrics that can serve as the basis for PES payments requires substantial scientific expertise and ongoing monitoring investments that may exceed program budgets (Naidoo & Ricketts, 2006).

Distributional equity concerns arise when PES programs generate unequal benefits across different social groups or geographical areas, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities or creating new forms of environmental injustice. Small-scale farmers and indigenous communities may face barriers to PES participation due to limited technical capacity, insecure land tenure, or program design features that favor large landowners. These equity concerns are particularly pronounced in developing country contexts where PES programs may inadvertently exclude the most vulnerable populations from conservation benefits (Börner et al., 2016).

Institutional capacity limitations constrain PES implementation in many contexts, particularly in developing countries where government agencies, civil society organizations, and private sector entities may lack the technical expertise, financial resources, and institutional frameworks necessary for effective program management. Building institutional capacity for PES implementation requires substantial investments in human resource development, organizational strengthening, and governance system enhancement that may take years or decades to achieve.

7. Future Directions and Recommendations

The evolution of PES mechanisms for biodiversity conservation financing must address current limitations while capitalizing on emerging opportunities to enhance program effectiveness and expand implementation scope. Several strategic directions offer promising pathways for advancing PES development and maximizing conservation outcomes.

Integration of advanced technologies, particularly remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and blockchain systems, can significantly reduce transaction costs and improve ecosystem service monitoring capabilities. Satellite-based monitoring systems enable cost-effective tracking of forest cover changes, land-use patterns, and other ecosystem service indicators across large spatial scales, reducing the need for expensive ground-based monitoring. Blockchain technology can facilitate transparent and secure payment systems that automatically trigger compensation based on verified ecosystem service delivery, reducing administrative overhead and enhancing program credibility (Mora et al., 2019).

Development of standardized biodiversity metrics and monitoring protocols is essential for scaling up biodiversity-focused PES programs and ensuring consistent conservation outcomes across different implementations. These standards should incorporate multiple biodiversity dimensions, including species diversity, genetic diversity, and ecosystem diversity, while accounting for different conservation objectives and ecological contexts. International coordination efforts, potentially through organizations such as the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, could facilitate standardization processes and promote best practice sharing (Underwood et al., 2018).

Innovative financing mechanisms that combine PES with other conservation finance instruments offer opportunities to leverage diverse funding sources and create more robust financing packages for biodiversity conservation. Blended finance approaches that combine public sector funding, private sector investment, and philanthropic contributions can reduce individual investor risks while mobilizing larger capital volumes for conservation activities. Conservation bonds, debt-for-nature swaps, and other financial innovations can complement PES mechanisms to create comprehensive financing solutions that address different aspects of biodiversity conservation challenges (Deutz et al., 2020).

Enhanced stakeholder engagement and participatory governance approaches are crucial for addressing equity concerns and ensuring that PES programs generate benefits for all relevant stakeholder groups. This includes developing inclusive program design processes that engage local communities, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups in decision-making, as well as creating benefit-sharing mechanisms that ensure equitable distribution of PES revenues. Participatory monitoring systems that engage local communities in ecosystem service assessment can simultaneously reduce program costs and build local capacity for conservation activities.

8. Conclusion

Payment for Ecosystem Services represents a transformative approach to biodiversity conservation financing that addresses fundamental market failures in ecosystem service provision while creating sustainable financing streams for conservation activities. The empirical evidence from diverse PES implementations worldwide demonstrates significant potential for achieving measurable biodiversity conservation outcomes, particularly when programs are carefully designed to address local ecological, economic, and institutional contexts.

However, the effectiveness of PES mechanisms depends critically on addressing several key challenges, including additionality concerns, transaction cost minimization, accurate ecosystem service valuation, and equitable benefit distribution. Successful PES implementation requires robust institutional frameworks, stakeholder engagement processes, and adaptive management approaches that can respond to changing conditions and emerging challenges.

The future of biodiversity conservation financing through PES mechanisms lies in continued innovation that leverages technological advances, develops standardized metrics and protocols, and creates integrated financing packages that combine PES with other conservation finance instruments. As the global biodiversity crisis intensifies and traditional conservation funding proves inadequate, PES offers a promising pathway for mobilizing the substantial financial resources required to achieve ambitious conservation targets while simultaneously addressing human development needs.

The research presented in this paper underscores the importance of continued investment in PES research, development, and implementation to realize the full potential of this innovative financing mechanism for biodiversity conservation. Success will require sustained collaboration among government agencies, private sector entities, civil society organizations, and international institutions to overcome implementation challenges and scale up effective PES programs worldwide.

References

Alix-Garcia, J., Shapiro, E. N., & Sims, K. R. (2012). Forest conservation and slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Economics, 88(4), 613-638.

Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. V. (Eds.). (2012). Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. CIFOR.

Baylis, K., Honey-Rosés, J., Börner, J., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., … & Wunder, S. (2016). Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 58-64.

Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U. M., & Wunder, S. (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development, 96, 359-374.

Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U. M., & Wunder, S. (2016). Emerging evidence on the effectiveness of tropical forest conservation. PLoS One, 11(11), e0159152.

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. CBD.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., … & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1-16.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., … & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158.

Daniels, A. E., Bagstad, K., Esposito, V., Moulaert, A., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2010). Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica’s PES: Are we asking the right questions? Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2116-2126.

Deutz, A., Heal, G. M., Niu, R., Swanson, E., Townshend, T., Zhu, L., … & Yamazaki, A. (2020). Financing nature: Closing the global biodiversity financing gap. The Paulson Institute.

Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E. S., Ngo, H. T., Agard, J., Arneth, A., … & Zayas, C. N. (2019). Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science, 366(6471), eaax3100.

Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663-674.

Freeman, A. M., Herriges, J. A., & Kling, C. L. (2014). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Routledge.

Goldman-Benner, R. L., Benitez-Malvido, J., Boucher, D. H., Calvillo, N., Corrales-Araya, F., Hernández-Cárdenas, G., … & Wilcove, D. S. (2012). Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: Practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx, 46(1), 55-63.

Grolleau, G., & McCann, L. M. (2012). Designing watershed programs to pay farmers for water quality services: Case studies of Munich and New York City. Ecological Economics, 76, 87-94.

Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., … & Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319-405.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.

Mora, C., Spirandelli, D., Franklin, E. C., Lynham, J., Kantar, M. B., Miles, W., … & Hunter, C. L. (2019). Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 8(12), 1062-1071.

Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J. M., & Braña, J. (2008). Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 725-736.

Naidoo, R., & Ricketts, T. H. (2006). Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e360.

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(2), 237-253.

Perrot-Maître, D. (2006). The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: A “perfect” PES case? International Institute for Environment and Development.

Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Herrera, D., & Sandoval, C. (2017). Protected areas’ impacts on Brazilian Amazon deforestation: Examining conservation–development interactions to inform planning. PLoS One, 12(7), e0129460.

Scholte, S. S., van Teeffelen, A. J., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67-78.

Turner, R. K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., & Georgiou, S. (2003). Valuing nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 493-510.

Underwood, E., Polasky, S., Landis, J., Klausmeyer, K., Lonsdale, W., Matthews, J., … & Shaw, M. R. (2018). Ecosystem service mapping for marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental Management, 62(6), 998-1011.

Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1245-1252.

Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR.

Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234-243.