Vai ai contenuti. | Spostati sulla navigazione | Spostati sulla ricerca | Vai al menu | Contatti | Accessibilità

| Crea un account

Leonardi, Alessandro (2015) Characterizing governance and benefits of payments for watershed services in Europe. [Tesi di dottorato]

Full text disponibile come:

[img]
Anteprima
Documento PDF
18Mb

Abstract (inglese)

Globally, Payments for Watershed Services (PWS) make-up the largest ecosystem service market (Bennett et al., 2014b). Driven by the negative impacts of climate change and economic development for water quantity and quality provision, hydrological services are assuming a leading priority among forest and agriculture-based ecosystems. Indeed, afforestation and sustainable agriculture tend to be among the most rewarded management practices under contracts aiming to achieve additionality in upstream water storage, water quality protection and flood risk mitigation. Although conventionally PES is seen as a market-based tool, most existing PWS in Europe fundamentally depend on public bodies that act as intermediaries. European PWS are thus best described as “PES-like” schemes implemented by public entities, often acting in a rather complex institutional framework (Vatn, 2010). Accordingly, the research to date has tended to focus mainly on analyzing case studies from developing countries and US rather than Europe (Schomers and Matzdorf, 2013).
Through a snowball approach and networking, the study provided the first most comprehensive inventory of PWS case studies in Europe. We then used the 76 case studies for a comparative analysis aimed to characterize institutional, economic and governance mechanisms associated with PWS in Europe. Besides, we conducted a more detailed institutional analysis of four selected case studies in Italy and England.
The results show how co-investment approaches, public procurement and collaborative partnerships are substituting the theoretical idea of market transactions and commoditization of ecosystem services.
Long-term durability of private driven PWS depends on the ability of integrating different sources of funding, starting from existing subsides, private investments and service beneficiaries funds. We found evidence that innovative governance models based on partnership may increase PWS success by developing schemes with a clear benefits related to social, carbon and biodiversity. Ensuring PWS related co-benefits is important in order to engage and have a positive actors’ interaction, thus increase capacity and scale through partnerships and cross-cutting institutions. Collaborative approaches provide better territorial coverage, technical and financial capacity that has showed to be a key factor for PWS success.
Regarding public schemes, PWS based on public budget allocation are often undermined by political instability that could affect the allocation of resources depending on availability and political decisions. To avoid instability public PWS should be coupled with regulations that set financial instruments such as water charges or funds that systematically raise financial sources to run the scheme. Considered schemes based on water charges are run on long-term and seemed to have bigger scale and impacts

Abstract (italiano)

I Pagamenti per i Servizi Ecosistemici nel settore idrico (PWS, dall’inglese Payments for Watershed Services) costituiscono il mercato dei servizi ecosistemici più grande al mondo (Bennett et al., 2014b). I servizi idrologici stanno via via assumendo un ruolo di primo piano nella gestione degli ecosistemi agricoli e forestali, in modo particolare per contrastare gli effetti del cambiamento climatico e dello sviluppo economico sulla qualità e quantità della risorsa idrica.
Infatti, il rimboschimento e le pratiche di agricoltura sostenibile tendono ad essere tra le pratiche di gestione più premiate nell'ambito di contratti di pagamento volti a tutelare la qualità della risorsa idrica e mitigare i rischio idrogeologico.
Anche se convenzionalmente i PES sono definiti come strumenti di mercato, la maggior parte dei PWS esistenti in Europa dipendono fondamentalmente da enti pubblici che agiscono come intermediari per conto dei cittadini contribuenti. I PWS europei dunque vengono così meglio descritti come sistemi "quasi-PES" attuati da soggetti pubblici, spesso agendo in un quadro istituzionale piuttosto complesso (Vatn, 2010). Di conseguenza, fino ad oggi gli studi si sono concentrati principalmente su esempi provenienti dai Paesi in via di sviluppo e dagli Stati Uniti piuttosto che in Europa (Schomers and Matzdorf, 2013).
Attraverso un approccio snowball e networking europeo, lo studio ha fornito l’inventario più completo di PWS in Europa. Successivamente, attraverso un'analisi comparativa di 76 casi di studio, sono stati caratterizzati i meccanismi istituzionali, economici e di governance associati ai PWS in Europa. Inoltre, per raffinare la comparazione tra casi europei, è stata condotta un’analisi istituzionale più dettagliata di quattro casi di studio in Italia e in Inghilterra.
I risultati mostrano come gli approcci di co-investimento, gli acquisti pubblici e le partnership stanno sostituendo l'idea teorica di transazioni di mercato e commoditization dei servizi ecosistemici.
Il successo dei PWS privati è spesso determinato dalla capacità di integrare diverse fonti di finanziamento, a partire dai sussidi esistenti, investimenti privati e fondi beneficiari dei servizi. I modelli di governance innovativi basati sul partenariato orizzontale (locale-territoriale) e verticale (rispetto alle istituzioni nazionali e internazionali) possono aumentare il loro successo legando gli schemi di pagamento alla valorizzazione dei co-benefits legati alla biodiversità, allo stoccaggio di carbonio e agli obbiettivi di sviluppo socio-economico. Garantire i co-benefits è importante al fine di coinvolgere gli stakeholders e creare interazioni positive, aumentando la scala territoriale d’azione e la capacità tecnica e finanziaria, attraverso il partenariato e il networking. Gli approcci collaborativi forniscono dunque una migliore copertura del territorio, capacità tecnica e finanziaria, che hanno dimostrato essere fattori chiave per il successo PWS.
Per quanto riguarda gli schemi pubblici, quelli che basono il sistema di finanziamento dei PWS sulla semplice allocazione di bilancio annuale, sono spesso messi in difficoltà dall’instabilità politica che influenza la disponibilità delle risorse in base alle decisioni e preferenze politiche. Per evitare l'instabilità e l’incertezza, gli schemi pubblici dovrebbero essere accompagnati da regolamenti che stabiliscono strumenti finanziari, quali tasse di scopo o fondi speciali di accantonamento, che aumentano sistematicamente le risorse finanziarie per alimentare lo schema di pagamento. I PWS che implementano la “tassa di scopo” sulla bolletta idrica e altri che creano fondi di accantonamento appositi dimostrano maggiore longevità, dimensioni e capacità di raggiungere gli obbiettivi prefissati in termini idrogeologici

Statistiche Download - Aggiungi a RefWorks
Tipo di EPrint:Tesi di dottorato
Relatore:Pettenella, Davide
Dottorato (corsi e scuole):Ciclo 27 > scuole 27 > TERRITORIO, AMBIENTE, RISORSE E SALUTE
Data di deposito della tesi:30 Gennaio 2015
Anno di Pubblicazione:30 Gennaio 2015
Parole chiave (italiano / inglese):Payments for Ecosystem Services - Watershed Services - Governance - Institutional analysis
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 07 - Scienze agrarie e veterinarie > AGR/01 Economia ed estimo rurale
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento Territorio e Sistemi Agro-Forestali
Codice ID:7832
Depositato il:12 Nov 2015 16:48
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format

Bibliografia

I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

Agrawal, A., 2001. Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources. World Dev. 29, 1649–1672. Cerca con Google

Alcamo, J., Döll, P., Henrichs, T., Kaspar, F., Lehner, B., Rösch, T., Siebert, S., 2003. Global estimates of water withdrawals and availability under current and future “ business-as-usual ” conditions. Hydrol. Sci. Sci. Hydrol. 48, 339–348. Cerca con Google

Barataud, F., Aubry, C., Wezel, A., Mundler, P., 2014. Management of drinking water catchment areas in cooperation with agriculture and the specific role of organic farming. Experiences from Germany and France. Land use policy 36, 585–594. Cerca con Google

Bennett, D.E., Gosnell, H., Lurie, S., Duncan, S., 2014a. Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States. Ecosyst. Serv. Cerca con Google

Bennett, G., Nathaniel, C., Katherine, H., 2012. Charting New Waters State of Watershed Payments 2012. Washington, D.C. Cerca con Google

Bennett, G., Nathaniel, C., Leonardi, A., 2014b. Gaining Depth State of Watershed Investment 2014. Forest Trends Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, D.C. Cerca con Google

Bluemling, B., Horstkoetter, M., 2007. Agricultural Groundwater Protection through Groundwater Co-operations in Lower Saxony, Germany, a multi stakeholder task. L’avenir l'agriculture irriguée en Méditerranée 6–7. Cerca con Google

Borowski, I., Bourhis, J. Le, Pahl-wostl, C., Barraqué, B., 2008. Spatial Misfit in Participatory River Basin Management: Effects on Social Learning, a Comparative Analysis of German and French Case Studies. Ecol. Soc. 13, 7. Cerca con Google

Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital, in: Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, Greenwood, pp. 241–258. Cerca con Google

Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. Coast. Disasters Coast. Disasters Spec. Sect. 63, 616–626. Cerca con Google

Brauman, K. a., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K., Mooney, H. a., 2007. The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 67–98. Cerca con Google

Brouwer, F., Heinz, I., Zabel, T., 2003. Governance of Water-Related Conflicts in Agriculture. Springer Science & Business Media. Cerca con Google

Brouwer, R., Tesfaye, A., Pauw, P., 2011. Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environ. Conserv. 38, 380–392. Cerca con Google

Brunner, P., 2008. Sustainable Groundwater Management. Handbook of best practice to reduce agricultural impacts on groundwater quality. Cerca con Google

Bryson, J.M., 2004. What to do when Stakeholders matter. Public Manag. Rev. 6, 21–53. Cerca con Google

Butler, D.W., 2009. Planning iterative investment for landscape restoration: Choice of biodiversity indicator makes a difference. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2202–2216. Cerca con Google

Ciscar, J.-C., Iglesias, A., Feyen, L., Szabó, L., Van Regemorter, D., Amelung, B., Nicholls, R., Watkiss, P., Christensen, O.B., Dankers, R., Garrote, L., Goodess, C.M., Hunt, A., Moreno, A., Richards, J., Soria, A., 2011. Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 2678–83. Cerca con Google

Coase, R.H., 1960. Problem of Social Cost, The. J. Law Econ. 3. Cerca con Google

Corbera, E., Soberanis, C.G., Brown, K., 2009. Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 68, 743–761. Cerca con Google

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V, Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., Van Den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Cerca con Google

CTFC, 2012. Working report on ecosystem services that mediterranean forests provide in the water issue. Sylvamed. Cerca con Google

Dankers, R., Feyen, L., 2008. Climate change impact on flood hazard in Europe: An assessment based on high-resolution climate simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D19105. Cerca con Google

Day, B., Couldrick, L., 2013. Payment for Ecosystem Services Pilot Project: The Fowey River Improvement Auction. Norwich, UK. Cerca con Google

De Groot, R.B. a. A., Hermans, L.M., 2009. Broadening the picture: Negotiating payment schemes for water-related environmental services in the Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2760–2767. Cerca con Google

De Groot, R.S., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela, R., Rodriguez, L.C., ten Brink, P., van Beukering, P., 2012. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 50–61. Cerca con Google

De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M. a, Boumans, R.M.. J., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393–408. Cerca con Google

DEFRA, 2011. The Natural Environment White Paper: an analytical perspective. London, UK. Cerca con Google

DEFRA, 2013a. Payments for Ecosystem Services : A Best Practice Guide. London, UK. Cerca con Google

DEFRA, 2013b. Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Best Practice Guide. Annex - PES Case Studies. London, UK. Cerca con Google

DEFRA, 2013c. Developing the potential for Payments for Ecosystem Services : an Action Plan. London, UK. Cerca con Google

Derissen, S., Latacz-Lohmann, U., 2013. What are PES? A review of definitions and an extension. Ecosyst. Serv. 6, 1–4. Cerca con Google

Ellis, F., 1993. Peasant Economics: Farm Households in Agrarian Development. Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65, 663–674. Cerca con Google

England, R.W., 2000. Natural capital and the theory of economic growth. Ecol. Econ. 34, 425–431. Cerca con Google

Essam Yassin, M., 2013. Economic Incentives for Marine and Coastal Conservation. IIED, London. Cerca con Google

European Commission, 2012. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources. Cerca con Google

Falconer, K., 2000. Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. J. Rural Stud. 16, 379–394. Cerca con Google

Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68, 643–653. Cerca con Google

Fletcher, R., Breitling, J., 2012. Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. Geoforum 43, 402–411. Cerca con Google

Fu, B.-J., Su, C.-H., Wei, Y.-P., Willett, I.R., Lü, Y.-H., Liu, G.-H., 2010. Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: causes and countermeasures. Ecol. Res. 26, 1–14. Cerca con Google

Fung, A., 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 66–75. Cerca con Google

García-Amado, L.R., Manuel Ruiz Pérez, F., Reyes Escutia, Sara Barrasa García, E.C.M., Pérez, M.R., Escutia, F.R., García, S.B., Mejía, E.C., 2011. Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecol. Econ. 70, 2361–2368. Cerca con Google

Garin, P., 2012. Why are there so few cooperative agreements between farmers and water services in France? Water policies and the problem of land use rights. Irrig. Drain. 61, 95–105. Cerca con Google

Giani, P., 2012. I custodi del territorio. Intersezioni 19, 6–7. Cerca con Google

Gibbons, J.M., Nicholson, E., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Jones, J.P.G., 2011. Should payments for biodiversity conservation be based on action or results? J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 1218–1226. Cerca con Google

Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P., van Beek, L.P.H., 2012. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488, 197–200. Cerca con Google

Gong, Y., Bull, G., Baylis, K., 2010. Participation in the world’s first clean development mechanism forest project: The role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1292–1302. Cerca con Google

Greiber, T., van Ham, C., Jansse, G., Gaworska, M., Ham, C. Van, Jansse, G., Gaworska, M., 2009. Final report study on the Economic value of groundwater and biodiversity in European forests. Brussels. Cerca con Google

Grolleau, G., McCann, L.M.J., 2012. Designing watershed programs to pay farmers for water quality services: Case studies of Munich and New York City. Ecol. Econ. 76, 87–94. Cerca con Google

Groot, D.R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Gowdy, J., Haines-young, R., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R., Ring, I., Blignaut, J., Brondízio, E., Costanza, R., Jax, K., Kadekodi, G.K., May, P.H., Mcneely, J., Shmelev, S., 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation, in: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations. Cerca con Google

Hack, J., 2011. From Hydrological Ecosystem Service Valuation to Participatory Integrated Water Resource Management, in: AGUA 2011 Ecosistemas Y Sociedad. Cerca con Google

Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2007. The links between biodiversity , ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D. Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series, CUP, Cambridge (in press). Cerca con Google

Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2011. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Paper prepared for discussion at the expert meeting on ecosystem accounts organised by the UNSD, the EEA and the World Bank. London, UK. Cerca con Google

Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–8. Cerca con Google

Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H., Jax, K., 2013. “Maps have an air of authority”: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 25–32. Cerca con Google

He, X., Junying, C., Jiahong, L., Dayong, Q., 2011. Wetland Ecosystem Service Evaluation of Fenhe River. Procedia Environ. Sci. 10, 2118–2122. Cerca con Google

Heikkila, T., Schlager, E., Davis, M.W., 2011. The Role of Cross-Scale Institutional Linkages in Common Pool Resource Management: Assessing Interstate River Compacts*. Policy Stud. J. 39, 121–145. Cerca con Google

Hein, L., Koppen, K. Van, De Groot, R.S., Ierland, E.C. Van, 2006. Spatial scales , stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57, 209–228. Cerca con Google

Hejnowicz, A.P., Raffaelli, D.G., Rudd, M.A., White, P.C.L., 2014. Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework. Ecosyst. Serv. Cerca con Google

Higginson, M., Austin, P., 2014. A Review of United Utilities Sustainable Catchment Management Programme and Cost Benefit Analysis. Cerca con Google

Hussey, K., Pittock, J., 2012. The Energy – Water Nexus : Managing the Links between Energy and Water for a Sustainable Future. Ecol. Soc. 17. Cerca con Google

J.B.Ruhl and Juge Gregg, 2001. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Law: A case Study of Wetlands Mitigation Banking 365, 365–392. Cerca con Google

Keeler, B.L., Polasky, S., Brauman, K.A., Johnson, K.A., Finlay, J.C., O’Neill, A., Kovacs, K., Dalzell, B., 2012. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services., in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. pp. 18619–24. Cerca con Google

Kemkes, R.J., Farley, J., Koliba, C.J., 2010. Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecol. Econ. 69, 2069–2074. Cerca con Google

Knight, F.H., 1924. Some Fallacies in the Interpretation of Social Cost. Q. J. Econ. 38, 582. Cerca con Google

Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1228–1236. Cerca con Google

Kroeger, T., 2013. The quest for the “optimal” payment for environmental services program: Ambition meets reality, with useful lessons. For. Policy Econ. 37, 65–74. Cerca con Google

Leonardi, A., Pettenella, D., 2012. Impronta idrica e servizi ecosistemici. I pagamenti ecosistemici quali fonti di reddito per le imprese agroforestali. Intersezioni 20, 1–5. Cerca con Google

LIFE+ TRUST, 2012. Acqua in cassaforte. Una sperimentazione sulla ricarica artificiale della falda nel bacino del Brenta. Vicenza, Italy. Cerca con Google

Lockie, S., 2013. Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land use policy 31, 90–98. Cerca con Google

Lu, Y., He, T., 2014. Assessing the effects of regional payment for watershed services program on water quality using an intervention analysis model. Sci. Total Environ. 493, 1056–64. Cerca con Google

Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä, M., 2009. Hopping on one leg – The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For. Urban Green. 8, 309–315. Cerca con Google

Ma, S., Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Jolejole-Foreman, C., 2012. Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes. J. Agric. Econ. 63, 604–626. Cerca con Google

Maille, P., Collins, A.R., 2012. An index approach to performance-based payments for water quality. J. Environ. Manage. 99, 27–35. Cerca con Google

Marneffe, W., Vereeck, L., 2010. The meaning of regulatory costs. Eur. J. Law Econ. 32, 341–356. Cerca con Google

Martin-Ortega, J., Ojea, E., Roux, C., 2013. Payments for Water Ecosystem Services in Latin America: A literature review and conceptual model. Ecosyst. Serv. 6, 122–132. Cerca con Google

Matzdorf, B., Sattler, C., Engel, S., 2013. Institutional frameworks and governance structures of PES schemes. For. Policy Econ. 37, 57–64. Cerca con Google

MEA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis, World Health, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment series. Island Press, Washington, DC. Cerca con Google

Miranda, M., Porras, I.T., Moreno, M.L., 2003. The social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Cerca con Google

Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Young, O. R., The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Int. Environ. Agreements 3, 191–194. Cerca con Google

Mitchell, R.B., 2008. Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Institutions: What to Evaluate and How to Evaluate It ? 79–114. Cerca con Google

Muñoz Escobar, M., Hollaender, R., Pineda Weffer, C., 2013. Institutional durability of payments for watershed ecosystem services: Lessons from two case studies from Colombia and Germany. Ecosyst. Serv. 1–8. Cerca con Google

Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J.M., Braña, J., Munoz Pina, C., Brana, J., 2008. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol. Econ. 65, 725–736. Cerca con Google

Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., May, P.H., 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1202–1208. Cerca con Google

Muradian, R., Rival, L., 2012. Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 93–100. Cerca con Google

Natural England, 2014. A Catchment Approach for PR14 – A Joint Statement from the Drinking Water Inspectorate , Environment Agency and Natural England. Cerca con Google

OECD, 2013. Providing Agri-environmental Public Goods through Collective Action. Geneva, Switzerland. Cerca con Google

OFWAT, 2011. From catchment to customer. Can upstream catchment management deliver a better deal for water customers and the environment? Cerca con Google

Ojea, E., Martin-Ortega, J., Chiabai, A., 2012. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for economic valuation: the case of forest water services. Environ. Sci. Policy 19–20, 1–15. Cerca con Google

Ostrom, E., 1999. Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science (80-. ). 284, 278–282. Cerca con Google

Ostrom, E., 2000. Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 137–158. Cerca con Google

Ostrom, E., 2011. Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Stud. J. 39, 7–27. Cerca con Google

Pagiola, S., 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 65, 712–724. Cerca con Google

Pannell, D.J., Roberts, A.M., Park, G., Alexander, J., 2012. Improving environmental decisions : a transaction- costs story 1–17. Cerca con Google

Parish, E.S., Kodra, E., Steinhaeuser, K., Ganguly, A.R., 2012. Estimating future global per capita water availability based on changes in climate and population. Comput. Geosci. 42, 79–86. Cerca con Google

Pattanayak, S.K., Wunder, S., Ferraro, P.J., 2010. Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4, 254–274. Cerca con Google

Perrot-Maître, D., 2006. The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: a “perfect” PES case? London, UK. Cerca con Google

Pettenella, D., Vidale, E., Gatto, P., Secco, L., 2012. Paying for water-related forest services: a survey on Italian payment mechanisms. iForest - Biogeosciences For. 5, 210–215. Cerca con Google

Pirard, R., 2012. Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in the public policy landscape: “Mandatory” spices in the Indonesian recipe. Emerg. Econ. Mech. Glob. For. Gov. 18, 23–29. Cerca con Google

Porras, I., Aylward, B., Dengel, J., 2013. Sustainable Markets Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries. Cerca con Google

Postel, S.L., Thompson, B.H., 2005. Watershed protection: Capturing the benefits of nature’s water supply services 29, 98–108. Cerca con Google

Prokofieva, I., Gorriz, E., 2013. Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services : An assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-east Spain). For. Policy Econ. 37, 104–114. Cerca con Google

Reed, M.S., Moxey, A., Prager, K., Hanley, N., Skates, J., Bonn, A., Evans, C.D., Glenk, K., Thomson, K., 2014. Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes. Ecosyst. Serv. Cerca con Google

Rojas, R., Feyen, L., Watkiss, P., 2013. Climate change and river floods in the European Union: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 1737–1751. Cerca con Google

Rovai, M., Vanni, F., Brunori, G., 2013. Co-producing environmental services through ICT: the case of IDRAMAP, in: XXVth ESRS Congress 29. pp. 199–200. Cerca con Google

Russi, D., ten Brink, P., Farmer, A., Badura, T., Coates, D., Förster, J., Kumar, R., Davidson, N., 2013. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. London and Brussels, Ramsar Secretariat, Gland. Cerca con Google

Salanié, B., 1997. The economics of contracts: a primer. MIT press, Cambridge. Cerca con Google

Sandin, L., Solimini, A.G., 2009. Freshwater ecosystem structure-function relationships: from theory to application. Freshw. Biol. 54, 2017–2024. Cerca con Google

Sattler, C., Matzdorf, B., 2013. PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice—Approaches, design process and innovative aspects. Ecosyst. Serv. 6, 2–11. Cerca con Google

Sattler, C., Trampnau, S., Schomers, S., Meyer, C., Matzdorf, B., 2013. Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success? Ecosyst. Serv. 6, 31–45. Cerca con Google

SCBD, 2011. Possible Indicators for Water and Water Related Ecosystem Services for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/15/INF/10. Cerca con Google

Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 6, 1–15. Cerca con Google

Secco, L., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D.M., Gatto, P., 2013. Why and how to measure forest governance at local level: A set of indicators. For. Policy Econ. Cerca con Google

Serna-Chavez, H.M., Schulp, C.J.E., van Bodegom, P.M., Bouten, W., Verburg, P.H., Davidson, M.D., 2014. A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 39, 24–33. Cerca con Google

Smith, L., Hiscock, K., Porter, K., 2011. Integrating Science and Governance for Catchment Management The catchment management problem : How to protect and manage water resources in a. Cerca con Google

Taylor, P., Maltby, E., Acreman, M.C., 2011. Ecosystem services of wetlands : pathfinder for a new paradigm 37–41. Cerca con Google

TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: Asynthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Cerca con Google

Ten Brink P., Badura T., F.A. and R.D., Note, A.B., 2012. The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. A Briefing Note. Cerca con Google

Tognetti, S.S., Aylward, B., Mendoza, G.F., 2005. Markets for Watershed Services. Cerca con Google

Tognetti, S.S., Mendoza, G., Aylward, B., Southgate, D., Garcia, L., 1999. A Knowledge and Assessment Guide to Support the Development of Payment Arrangements for Watershed Ecosystem Services ( PWES ) 1–87. Cerca con Google

Tracy Stanton, Marta Echavarria, Katherine Hamilton, and C.O., 2010. State of Watershed Payments An Emerging Marketplace, Ecosystem Market Place - Forest Trend. Cerca con Google

Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., Georgiou, S., 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46, 493–510. Cerca con Google

Turpie, J.K.K., Marais, C., Blignaut, J.N.N., 2008. The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 65, 788–798. Cerca con Google

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James, P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81, 167–178. Cerca con Google

United Nation, 2013. The value of forests. Payment for Ecosystem Services in a Green Economy, Forestry and Timber Section,. Geneva, Switzerland. Cerca con Google

United Utilities, 2012. United Utilities Sustainable Catchment Management Programme water quality monitoring results - July 2012. Cerca con Google

Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 785–792. Cerca con Google

Vatn, A., 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1245–1252. Cerca con Google

Vlachopoulou, M., Coughlin, D., Forrow, D., Kirk, S., Logan, P., Voulvoulis, N., 2014. The potential of using the Ecosystem Approach in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ. 470-471, 684–94. Cerca con Google

Vörösmarty, C.J., 2000. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth, Science. Cerca con Google

Wendland, K.J., Honzák, M., Portela, R., Vitale, B., Rubinoff, S., Randrianarisoa, J., 2010. Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Spec. Sect. - Payments Ecosyst. Serv. From Local to Glob. 69, 2093–2107. Cerca con Google

Wessex Water, 2013. Catchment management managing water – managing land, 2013. Bath, UK. Cerca con Google

Williamson, O.E., 1979. Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations. J. Low Econ. 22, 233–261. Cerca con Google

Williamson, O.E., 1981. The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. Am. J. Sociol. 548–577. Cerca con Google

Williamson, O.E., 2007. The New Institutional Economics : Taking Stock , Looking Ahead. J. Econ. Lit. 38, 595–613. Cerca con Google

Wilson, D.S., Ostrom, E., Cox, M.E., 2012. Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. Cerca con Google

Witt, U., 2005. “Production” in nature and production in the economy—second thoughts about some basic economic concepts. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 16, 165–179. Cerca con Google

Wittwer, G., Dixon, J., 2013. Effective use of public funding in the Murray-Darling Basin: a comparison of buybacks and infrastructure upgrades. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 57, 399–421. Cerca con Google

Wunder, S., 2005a. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor, Indonesia. Cerca con Google

Wunder, S., 2005b. Payments for environmental services : Some nuts and bolts. Bogor, Indonesia. Cerca con Google

WUNDER, S., 2007. The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 21, 48 – 58. Cerca con Google

Wunder, S., Engel, S., Pagiola, S., 2008. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 65, 663–674. Cerca con Google

WWF, 2012. El fiasco del agua en el alto Guadiana. Cerca con Google

Young, R.H., 2000. Institutional interplay: the environmental consequences of cross-scale interactions. Cerca con Google

Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 64, 253–260. Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record