Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131507›Full record

ReviewCampbell systematic reviews2019

Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector-the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Birte Snilsveit, Jennifer Stevenson, Laurenz Langer, Natalie Tannous, Zafeer Ravat, Promise Nduku, Joshua Polanin, Ian Shemilt, John Eyers, Paul J Ferraro

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Campbell systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Forest Restoration in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Annual review of environment and resources · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Synthesizing evidence in sustainability science through harmonized experiments: Community monitoring in common pool resources.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Birte SnilsveitInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.
Jennifer StevensonInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.
Laurenz LangerAfrica Centre for Evidence (ACE) University of Johannesburg Johannesburg South Africa.
Natalie TannousAfrica Centre for Evidence (ACE) University of Johannesburg Johannesburg South Africa.
Zafeer RavatAfrica Centre for Evidence (ACE) University of Johannesburg Johannesburg South Africa.
Promise NdukuAfrica Centre for Evidence (ACE) University of Johannesburg Johannesburg South Africa.
Joshua PolaninAmerican Institutes of Research Washington District of Columbia.
Ian ShemiltInstitute of Education University College London London UK.
John EyersInternational Initiative for Impact Evaluation London UK.
Paul J FerraroJohns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unsustainable practices in the land use sector contribute to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases. Payment for environmental services (PESs) provide economic incentives to reduce the negative environmental impacts of land use and are a popular approach to mitigate climate change in low- and middle-income countries. Some PES programmes also aim to improve socioeconomic outcomes and reduce poverty. This systematic review examines the effect of programmes on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes. We identified 44 quantitative impact evaluations and 60 qualitative studies of PES programmes for inclusion in the review, to assess both the effects of PES and identify context, design and implementation features that may influence PES effectiveness. The studies covered 18 programmes from 12 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The review finds that PES may increase household income, reduce deforestation and improve forest cover, but the findings are, however, based on low and very low quality evidence from a small number of programmes and should be treated with caution. Qualitative evidence indicates that several factors influence whether PES programmes are likely to be effective in different contexts and suggests that the inclusion of strong governance structures and the effective targeting of both locations and participants may improve intervention effectiveness. Funders, implementing agencies and researchers should collaborate to develop a coordinated programme of rigorous, mixed-methods impact evaluation implemented across contexts. Until such evidence is available, PES programmes remain a high-risk strategy for climate change mitigation.

Identifiers

PMID37131507
PMCPMC8356506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.