Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is an environmental policy looking to improve ecosystem conservation and well-being. Assets have been used to evaluate socioeconomic outcomes of the program; however, the allocation of PES at a household level and its explaining variables have not been addressed. Thus, the aim of this article is to study the allocation of PES in nondurable and durable goods and the determinants of this household decision. Results from the La Antigua watershed located in Mexico indicate that the PES program is primarily used in durable goods, mainly on health, house infrastructure, agricultural inputs, and reforestation. Econometric models show that this allocation to one or several assets depends on the average age of the household head, on participation in a community organization, and on the average income. In contrast, government transfers are not significant. Based on this, policy recommendations are made related to the program’s socioeconomic outcomes and alignment with other conditional cash transfer.
Alix-GarciaJ. M.ShapiroE. N.SimsK. R. E. (2012). Forest conservation and slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Economics, 88, 613-638.
2.
Alix-GarcíaJ. M.SimsK. R. E.Orozco-OlveraV. H.CosticaL. E.Fernández MedinaJ. D.Romo MonroyS. (2018). Payments for environmental services supported social capital while increasing land management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(27): 7016-7021.
3.
Alix-GarciaJ. M.SimsK. R. E.Yañez-PagansP. (2015). Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico’s payments for ecosystem services program. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7, 1-40. doi:10.1257/pol.20130139
4.
Almeida-leñeroL.Revollo-fernándezD.Caro-BorreroA.Ruiz-MallénI.CorberaE.Mazari-HiriartM.FigueroaF. (2017). Not the same for everyone: Community views of Mexico’s payment for environmental services programmes. Environmental Conservation. 44, 201-211. doi:10.1017/S0376892916000564
5.
ArriagadaR. A.SillsE. O.FerraroP. J.PattanayakS. K. (2015). Do payments pay off? Evidence from participation in Costa Rica’s PES program. Plos One, 10(7), 1-17.
6.
AsbjornsenH.MansonR. H.ScullionJ. J.HolwerdaF.Munoz-VillersL. E.AlvaradoBarrientosM. S.GeissertD.DawsonT. E.McDonnellJ. J.BruijnzeelL. A. (2017). Interactions between payments for hydrolgocial services, landowner decisions, and ecohydrological consequences: Synergies and disconnection in the cloud forest zone of central Veracruz, Mexico. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 25.
7.
AsfawS.DaidoneS.DavisB.DewbreJ.RomeoA.DjebbariH.WintersP. (2012). Analytical framework for evaluating the productive impact of cash transfer programmes on household behaviour. FAO. www.fao.org
8.
Avila-FoucatV. S.MartínezA. F. (2018). Households’ resilience to hurricanes in coastal communities of Oaxaca, Mexico. Society & Natural Resources,31, 807-821. doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1443236
9.
Avila-FoucatV. S.Rodríguez-RobayoK. J. (2018). Determinants of livelihood diversification: The case wildlife tourism in four coastal communities in Oaxaca, Mexico. Tourism Management, 69, 223-231.
10.
BebbingtonA. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development,27, 2021-2044.
11.
BérengerV.DeutschJ.SilberJ. (2013). Durable goods, access to services and the derivation of an asset index: Comparing two methodologies and three countries. Economic Modelling,35, 881-891.
12.
BhandariP. B. (2013). Rural livelihood change? Household capital, community resources and livelihood transition. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 126-136.
13.
BlauF.Ferber,M.WinklerA. (2014). The economics of women, men and work (7th ed.). Pearson.
14.
Blundo-CantoG.BaxV.QuinteroM.Cruz-GarciaG. S.GroeneveldR. A.Perez-MarulandaL. (2018). The different dimensions of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) schemes: A systematic review. Ecological Economics, 149, 160-183. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.011
15.
BörnerJ.BaylisK.CorberaE.Ezzine-de-BlasD.Honey-RosésJ.PerssonU. M.WunderS. (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development, 96, 359-374. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020
16.
BottazziP.WiikE.CrespoD.JonesJ. P. G. (2018). Payment for environmental “self-service”: Exploring the links between farmers’ motivation and additionality in a conservation incentive programme in the Bolivian Andes. Ecological Economics, 150, 11-23. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.032
17.
BremerL. L.FarleyK. A.Lopez-CarrD.RomeroJ. (2014). Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for “win-win”?Ecosystem Services, 8, 148-165. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.007
18.
ChambersR.ConwayG.R. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies.
19.
CostedoatS.KoetseM.CorberaE.Ezzine-de-BlasD. (2016). Cash only? Unveiling preferences for a PES contract through a choice experiment in Chiapas, Mexico. Land Use Policy,58, 302-317. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.023
20.
DavisB.WintersP.CarlettoG.CovarrubiasK.QuiñonesE. J.ZezzaA.StamoulisK.AzzarriC.DiGiuseppeS. (2010). A cross-country comparison of rural income generating activities. World Development, 38, 48-63. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.01.003
21.
de JanvryA.SadouletE. (2011). Subsistence farming as a safety net for food-price shocks. Development in Practice, 21, 472-480. doi:10.1080/09614524.2011.561292
22.
EllisF. (2000). The determinants of rural livelihood diversification in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51, 289-302. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01229.x
Ezzine-de-BlasD.CorberaE.LapeyreR. (2018). Payments for environmental services and motivation crowding: Towards a conceptual framework. Ecological Economics. 156, 434-443. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.026
25.
Fierros-GonzálezI.Mora-RiveraJ.Avila-FoucatV.S. (2020). Vulnerability, family assets, and income-generating strategies of households in rural Mexico, Community Development, 51, 667-684. doi:10.1080/15575330.2020.1825976
26.
FierrosI.Ávila-FoucatV. S. (2017). Medios De Vida Sustentables y Contexto De Vulnerabilidad De Los Hogares Rurales De México. Problemas del Desarrollo, 48, 107-131. doi:10.1016/j.rpd.2017.11.006
27.
FisherJ. A.PatenaudeG.MeirP.NightingaleA. J.RounsevellM. D. A.WilliamsM.WoodhouseI. H. (2013). Strengthening conceptual foundations: Analysing frameworks for ecosystem services and poverty alleviation research. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1098-1111. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.002
FuentesT.ParéL. (2018). El comitpe de cuenca del Río Pixquiac:ensayos para 191 la creación de una plataforma social de cogestión y su instrumento de financiamiento. In Al filo del agua: Co-gestión de la subcuenca del Río Pixquiac, México Coord. Luisa Paré y Patricia Gerez, 191-218.
30.
HamA.MichelsonH. C. (2018). Does the form of delivering incentives in conditional cash transfers matter over a decade later?Journal of Development Economics. 134, 96-108. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.05.007
31.
HayesT.GrillosT.BremerL. L.MurtinhoF.ShapiroE. (2019). Collective PES: More than the sum of individual incentives. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.010
32.
HejnowiczA. P.RaffaelliD. G.RuddM. A.WhiteP. C. L. (2014). Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework. Ecosystem Services, 9, 83-97. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.001
33.
Izquierdo-TortS. (2020). Payments for ecosystem services and conditional cash transfers in a policy mix: Microlevel interactions in Selva Lacandona, Mexico. Environmental Policy and Governance, 30, 29-45. doi:10.1002/eet.1876
34.
JonesK. W.Avila FoucatS.PischkeE. C.SalconeJ.TorrezD.SelfaT.HalvorsenK. E. (2019). Exploring the connections between participation in and benefits from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz State, Mexico. Ecosystem Services, 35, 32-42. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.004
35.
JonesK. W.EtchartN.HollandM. B.Naughton-TrevesL.ArriagadaR. (2020). The impact of paying for forest conservation on perceived tenure security in Ecuador. Conservation Letters, 13, . doi:10.1111/conl.12710.
36.
KronebuschN.DamonA. (2019). The impact of conditional cash transfers on nutrition outcomes: Experimental evidence from Mexico. Economics and Human Biology, 33, 169-180. doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2019.01.008
37.
LiuZ.KontoleonA. (2018). Meta-analysis of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services programmes in developing countries. Ecological Economics, 149, 48-61. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.008
38.
McAfeeK.ShapiroE. N. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: Nature, neoliberalism, social movements, and the state. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(3), 579-599.
39.
Mora RiveraJ. J.Cerón MonroyH. (2015). Diversificación De Ingresos En El Sector Rural Y Su Impacto En La Eficiencia: Evidencia Para México. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural, 12, 57. doi:10.11144/javeriana.cdr12-76.disr
40.
MuradianR.ArselM.PellegriniL.AdamanF.AguilarB.AgarwalB.CorberaE.Ezzine de BlasD.FarleyJ.FrogerG.Garcia-FrapolliE.Gómez-BaggethunE.GowdyJ.KosoyN.Le CoqJ. F.LeroyP.MayP.MéralP.MibielliP.UramaK. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters,6, 274-279. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x
41.
MuradianR.CorberaE.PascualU.KosoyN.MayP. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1202-1208. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
42.
NarlochU.PascualU.DruckerA. G. (2013). How to achieve fairness in payments for ecosystem services? Insights from agrobiodiversity conservation auctions. Land Use Policy, 35, 107-118. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.002
43.
Nava-LópezM.ShelfaT.PishckeE.TorresD.Ávila-FoucatV. S. (2018). Decentralizing payments for ecosystem services programs on coupled human and natural systems in Mexico. Society and Natural Resources, 31(12), 1389–1399.
Pagiola,S.ArcenasA.PlataisG. (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, 237-253. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011
46.
PascualU.PhelpsJ.GarmendiaE.BrownK.CorberaE.MartinA.Gomez-BaggethunE.MuradianR. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience, 64, 1027-1036. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu146
47.
Persson MartinU.AlpízarF. (2013). Conditional cash transfers and payments for environmental services-a conceptual framework for explaining and judging differences in outcomes. World Development,43, 124-137. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.10.006
48.
PhaderaL.MichelsonH.Winter-NelsonA.GoldsmithP. (2019). Do asset transfers build household resilience?Journal of Development Economics, 138, 205-227. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.01.003
49.
Rodríguez-RobayoK. J.Ávila FoucatV. S. (2013). Instrumentos económicos voluntarios para la conservación: una mirada a su surgimiento y evolución en México. Sociedad y Economía, 25, 75-106.
50.
Rodríguez-RobayoK.J.Avila-FoucatV.S. (2014). Instrumentos de política pública para la conservación: su nacimiento y evolución en Colombia. Perfiles Latinoamericanos, 22, 127-158.
51.
RodríguezL. C.PascualU.MuradianR.PazminoN.WhittenS. (2011). Towards a unified scheme for environmental and social protection: Learning from PES and CCT experiences in developing countries. Ecological Economics, 70, 2163-2174. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.019
52.
Rodriguez-RobayoKAvila-FoucatV. S.MaldonadoJ. (2016). Indigenous communities’ perception regarding payments for environmental services program in Oaxaca Mexico. Ecosystem services, 17, 163-171.
53.
SimsK. R. E.Alix-GarciaJ. M.Shapiro-GarzaE.FineL. R.RadeloffV. C.AronsonG.CastilloS.Ramirez-ReyesC.Yañez-pagansP. (2014). Improving environmental and social targeting through adaptive management in Mexico’s payments for hydrological services program. Conservation Biology, 28, 1151-1159. doi:10.1111/cobi.12318
54.
TacconiL.MahantyS.SuichH. (2013). The livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+. Society & Natural Resources, 26, 733-744. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.724151
WunderS. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics, 13, 279-297. doi:10.1017/S1355770X08004282
57.
WunderS. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234-243.
58.
WunderS.BrouwerR.EngelS.Ezzine-De-BlasD.MuradianR.PascualU.PintoR. (2018). From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nature Sustainability, 1, 145-150. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x
59.
Yúnez-NaudeA.Meléndez-Martínez,Á. (2007). Efectos de los activas familiares en la selección de actividades y en el ingreso de los hogares rurales de México. Investigación Economica, 66, 49-80.
