ArticleNature communications2026
Adding flexibility to payments for environmental services enhances cost-effectiveness in the Brazilian Amazon.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Payments for Environmental Services (PES) are widely used to protect tropical forests, but rigid pricing may fail when landowners' opportunity costs fluctuate. Inflexible incentives can lead to contract breaches, reducing environmental benefits. We test whether flexible PES contracts improve outcomes by allowing partial payments when deforestation remains below a threshold. Using a Becker-DeGroot-Marschak auction within a randomized controlled trial, we compare a flexible PES contract, a zero-deforestation contract, and a control group. Although the zero-deforestation contract had greater potential to avoid deforestation, high breach rates reduced realized conservation. The flexible PES contract, while more costly due to higher compliance, achieved greater forest protection per hectare: participants deforested 31% less than under the stringent contract in the peak period (95% CI [2%, 60%], d = 0.12). These findings suggest that flexible PES contracts can improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservation programs.
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.