ArticleEnvironmental management2017
Communal Participation in Payment for Environmental Services (PES): Unpacking the Collective Decision to Enroll.
Article in Environmental management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study on the quantification of ecological compensation in a river basin considering different industries based on water pollution loss value.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Payment for Environmental Service programs are increasingly applied in communal settings where resource users collectively join the program and agree to limit their shared use of a common-property resource. Who decides to join PES and the degree to which community members agree with the collective decision is critical for the success of said programs. Yet, we have limited understanding of the factors that influence communal participation and the collective decision process. This paper examines communal participation in a national payment for conservation program in Ecuador. We use quantitative and qualitative analysis to (i) identify the attributes of the communities that participate (or not), and factors that facilitate participation (n = 67), and (ii) assess household preference and alignment with the collective decision to participate (n = 212). Household participation preferences indicate varying degrees of consensus with the collective decision to participate, with those using the resource less likely to support participation. At the communal level, however, our results indicate that over time, those communities that depend more heavily on their resource systems may ultimately choose to participate. Our findings suggest that communal governance structures and outside organizations may be instrumental in gaining participation in resource-dependent communities and building consensus. Findings also point to the need for further research on communal decision-processes to ensure that the collective decision is based on an informed and democratic process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.