Pagiola, StefanoRios, Ana R.2015-01-072015-01-072013-09https://hdl.handle.net/10986/21122The growing use of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) for conservation has fostered a debate on its effectiveness, but the few efforts to date to assess the impact of PES programs have been hampered by lack of data, leading to very divergent results. This paper uses data from a PES mechanism implemented in Quindío, Colombia, to examine the impact of PES on land use change. Alone among all early PES initiatives, the Silvopastoral Project included a control group of nonparticipants, whose land use changes were monitored throughout the project period, as well as detailed baseline data on both PES recipients and control group members. By comparing the land use changes undertaken by PES recipients to those undertaken by control group members, we can distinguish the impact of PES from that of other factors. The results show that payments had a positive and highly significant impact on land use change, under a variety of model formulations. PES recipients converted over 40 percent of their farms to environmentally-friendly land uses over 4 years, increasing environmental service provision by almost 50 percent. In contrast, control group members converted less than 20 percent of their farms, increasing environmental service provision by only 7 percent.en-USCC BY 3.0 IGOPAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PES)IMPACT EVALUATIONLIVESTOCKSILVOPASTORALCOLOMBIA PAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PES)IMPACT EVALUATIONLIVESTOCKSILVOPASTORALCOLOMBIAACCOUNTINGAFFORESTATIONAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONAGRICULTUREAGROFORESTRYAGROFORESTRY PRACTICESAIRAIR POLLUTIONALTITUDEBAMBOOBANKSBIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY CONSERVATIONBIODIVERSITY INDEXBIOMASSBUDGET CONSTRAINTSCARBONCARBON EMISSIONCARBON SEQUESTRATIONCARBON SEQUESTRATION SERVICESCARBON SERVICESCARBON STORAGECHANGES IN LAND USECLIMATECLIMATE CHANGECOLORSCONSERVATION AREACONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITYCOUNTRYAPOS;S FOREST AREADEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATION RATESDEGRADATIONDEGRADED PASTUREDEGRADED PASTURESDIFFUSIONECOLOGICAL ECONOMICSECONOMETRICSECOSYSTEMECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENTECOSYSTEM SERVICEECOSYSTEM SERVICESECOSYSTEMSEMISSION REDUCTIONSEMPLOYMENTENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICSENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMISTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMSENVIRONMENTAL SERVICEENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESENVIRONMENTSEROSIONEXTERNALITIESFERTILISERFODDERFORESTFOREST AREAFOREST CONSERVATIONFOREST COVERFOREST LANDFOREST LAND USEFOREST MARGINSFOREST OWNERSFOREST REGENERATIONFORESTSFUELWOODGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITYGOLDLAND AREALAND CONVERSIONLAND CONVERSION PROGRAMLAND ECONOMICSLAND USELAND USE CHANGELAND USE CHANGESLAND USE DECISIONSLAND USE PRACTICESLAND USERSLAND USESLAND-USELAND-USE CHANGELANDSLANDSCAPELANDSCAPE STRUCTURELOSS OF BIODIVERSITYLOSS OF FORESTNATURAL RESOURCENATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENTNATURAL RESOURCESNEGATIVE IMPACTNOW ACCOUNTSOPEN ACCESSPARTNERSHIPPASTUREPASTURESPLANTINGPRESENT VALUEPRODUCTIVITYPROFITABILITYPUBLIC POLICYREFORESTATIONRIVERRURAL COMMUNITIESRURAL DEVELOPMENTSEASOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTSOILSOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICESSOIL EROSIONSOILSSUSTAINABLE BENEFITSSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTTECHNICAL ASSISTANCETENURETIMBERTIMBER PLANTATIONSTREESTROPICAL DEFORESTATIONTROPICAL FORESTTROPICAL FORESTSTROPICSVEGETATIONVEGETATION COVERWATER QUALITYWATERSHEDWILDLIFEWIND10.1596/21122