Documentos CODS. No. 6. Pagos por servicios ambientales y Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible en América Latina: ¿hacia dónde deben orientarse?

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorMoros, Lina
dc.contributor.authorMatallana, Jorge
dc.contributor.authorBeltrán, María Fernanda
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-03T15:59:46Z
dc.date.available2026-03-03T15:59:46Z
dc.date.issued2020-07-01
dc.descriptionEste documento analiza los pagos por servicios ambientales como instrumento de gobernanza ambiental para contribuir al cumplimiento de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible en América Latina. A partir de una revisión de casi 25 años de experiencias en la región, evalúa su efectividad ambiental y social, identifica lecciones aprendidas y formula recomendaciones de política para fortalecer su diseño e implementación, con énfasis en la conservación de ecosistemas terrestres y la reducción de la pobreza y la desigualdad.
dc.format.extent40 páginas
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.instnameinstname:Universidad de los Andes
dc.identifier.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional Séneca
dc.identifier.repourlrepourl:https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1992/78334
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherUniversidad de los Andes
dc.publisherVicerrectoría de Investigación y Creación
dc.publisherCentro de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
dc.publisher.placeBogotá
dc.relation.referencesAlix-Garcia, J. M., Shapiro, E. N., & Sims, K. R. (2012). Forest conservation and slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Economics, 88(4), 613-638. https:// doi.org/10.3368/le.88.4.613
dc.relation.referencesArmenteras, D., Negret, P., Melgarejo, L. F., Lakes, T. M., Londoño, M. C., García, J., Krueger, T., Baumann, M., & Davalos, L. M. (2019). Curb land grabbing to save the Amazon. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 3(11), 1497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1020-1
dc.relation.referencesAsquith, N. M., Vargas, M. T., & Wunder, S. (2008). Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 675- 684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.014
dc.relation.referencesBarrantes, G., & Gámez, L. (2007). Programa de pago por servicio ambiental hídrico de la Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia. Ecomarkets: Costa Rica’s Experience with Payments for Environmental Services, 41-45.
dc.relation.referencesBörner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U. M., & Wunder, S. (2017). The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services. World Development, 96, 359-374. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020
dc.relation.referencesBrown, K., & Corbera, E. (2003). Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy. Climate Policy, 3(SUPPL 1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. clipol.2003.10.004
dc.relation.referencesCalvet-Mir, L., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Fisher, J., & Gross-Camp, N. (2015). Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: A closer look at effectiveness and equity. En Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 150-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cosust.2015.06.001
dc.relation.referencesCisneros, E., Borner, J., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2019). Impacts of conservation incentives in protected areas. The Case of Bolsa Floresta, Brazil. Environment Department Papers, 1-30. https://doi. org/10.1596/33077
dc.relation.referencesCoase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1-44.
dc.relation.referencesComisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (Cepal) (2019). Panorama social de América Latina, 2019. En Spyer, J. Mídias sociais no Brasil emergente (pp. 69-104). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv550d07.6
dc.relation.referencesComisión Nacional Forestal (Conafor) (2020). Estado que guarda el sector forestal en México. http://www.conafor.gob.mx:8080/documentos/ docs/1/7743Estado%20que%20Guarda%20el%20 Sector%20Forestal%20en%20Mexico%202019.pdf
dc.relation.referencesConservation International y WWF. (2015). Sustainable Sourcing Guide for Palm Oil Users: A practical handbook for US consumer goods and retail companies Sustainable Sourcing Guide for Palm Oil Users. http://assets.worldwildlife. org/publications/799/files/original/CI_Palm-Oil- Sourcing-Guide.pdf
dc.relation.referencesCorbera, E., Brown, K., & Adger, N. W. (2007). The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change, 38(4), 587-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.x
dc.relation.referencesCostedoat, S., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey- Rosés, J., Baylis, K., & Castillo-Santiago, M. A. (2015). How effective are biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico? PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0119881. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119881
dc.relation.referencesCurtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407), 1108-1111. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aau3445
dc.relation.referencesDe Koning, F., Aguiñaga, M., Bravo, M., Chiu, M., Lascano, M., Lozada, T., & Suarez, L. (2011). Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: The Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environmental Science and Policy, 14(5), 531-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007
dc.relation.referencesEngel, S. (2016). The devil in the detail: A practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 9(1-2), 131-177. https://doi. org/10.1561/101.00000076
dc.relation.referencesEzzine-de-Blas, D., Corbera, E., & Lapeyre, R. (2019). Payments for environmental services and motivation crowding: Towards a conceptual framework. Ecological Economics, 156, 434-443. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.026
dc.relation.referencesEzzine-de-Blas, D., Wunder, S., Ruiz-Pérez, M., & Moreno-Sánchez, R. (2016). Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0149847. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149847
dc.relation.referencesFergusson, L., Romero, D., & Vargas, J. F. (2014). The Environmental Impact of Civil Conflict: The Deforestation Effect of Paramilitary Expansion in Colombia. Documento CEDE No. 2014-36. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2516512
dc.relation.referencesFonafifo (2019). Distribución de las hectáreas contratadas en el Programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales, por año y por modalidad, período 1997- 2018. http://www.fonafifo.go.cr/media/1388/gepsahectareascontratadas. pdf
dc.relation.referencesGeldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L., & Balmford, A. (2019). A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(46), 23209-23215. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1908221116
dc.relation.referencesGómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1209-1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2009.11.007
dc.relation.referencesGrillos, T., Bottazzi, P., Crespo, D., Asquith, N., & Jones, J. P. (2019). In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia. Ecological Economics, 166, 106404 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106404
dc.relation.referencesGrima, N., Singh, S. J., Smetschka, B., & Ringhofer, L. (2016). Payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosystem Services, 17, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2015.11.010
dc.relation.referencesGroom, B., & Palmer, C. (2010). Cost-effective provision of environmental services: The role of relaxing market constraints. Environment and Development Economics, 15(2), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1355770X09990167
dc.relation.referencesHack, J., Kosmus, M., Kräuter, H. J., Weiskopf, B., & Somarriba, D. (2013). TEEBcase: Payments for hydrological ecosystem services in the Gil González watershed. A public-private-partnership case study. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Case Studies, November 2014. https://bit.ly/3faL1yA
dc.relation.referencesHansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., & Townshend, J. R. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160), 850-853. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1244693
dc.relation.referencesHeckman, J., & Smith, J. (1995). Assessing the Case for Social Experiments. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 85-110.
dc.relation.referencesHegde, R., & Bull, G. Q. (2011). Performance of an agro-forestry based payments-for-environmental-services project in Mozambique: A household level analysis. Ecological Economics, 71(1), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.014
dc.relation.referencesHendrickson, C. Y., & Corbera, E. (2015). Participation dynamics and institutional change in the Scolel Té carbon forestry project, Chiapas, Mexico. Geoforum, 59, 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.022
dc.relation.referencesInstituto Nacioal de Bosques (Guatemala) (2015). Resolución Nº 4.28.2015. Reglamento de la Ley de Incentivos Forestales para Poseedores de Pequeñas Extensiones de Tierra de Vocación Forestal o Agroforestal – Pinpep. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/gua159204.pdf
dc.relation.referencesIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science. Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2020-02/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf
dc.relation.referencesInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2016, 12 de agosto). Making forest restoration a good investment for Guatemalan farmers. https://www.iucn.org/news/forests/201608/making-forest-restoration-good-investment-guatemalan-farmers
dc.relation.referencesIUCN (2008). Securing protected areas in the face of global change: Key lessons learned from case studies and field learning sites in protected areas (P. Shadie y M. Epps (eds.); IUCN Asia). https://www.iucn.org/content/securing-protected-areas-face-global-change-key-lessons-learned-case-studies-and-field-learning-sites-protected-areas
dc.relation.referencesJayachandran, S. (2013). Liquidity constraints and deforestation: The limitations of payments for ecosystem services. American Economic Review, 103(3), 309-313. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.3.309
dc.relation.referencesJayachandran, S., De Laat, J., Lambin, E. F., Stanton, C. Y., Audy, R., & Thomas, N. E. (2017). Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science, 357(6348), 267-273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan0568
dc.relation.referencesJones, K. R., Venter, O., Fuller, R. A., Allan, J. R., Maxwell, S. L., Negret, P. J., & Watson, J. E. (2018). One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science, 360(6390), 788-791. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565
dc.relation.referencesJoppa, L. N., & Pfaff, A. (2011). Global protected area impacts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences, 278(1712), 1633-1638. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1713
dc.relation.referencesKarsenty, A., & Ezzine-de-Blas, D. (2014). Du mésusage des métaphores. Les paiements pour services environnementaux sont-ils des instruments de marchandisation de la nature ? En C. Halpern, P. Lascoumes, & P. Le Galès (eds.), L’instrumentation de l’action publique - Controverses, résistances, effets (pp. 161-189). París: Presses de Sciences Po.
dc.relation.referencesLanz, B., Dietz, S., & Swanson, T. (2017). The expansion of modern agriculture and global biodiversity decline: An integrated assessment. Ecological Economics, 144, 260-277.
dc.relation.referencesLópez-Feldman, A. (2012). Deforestation in Mexico: Preliminary analysis (No. 527). Working Documents CIDE. División de Economía. https://ideas.repec.org/p/emc/wpaper/dte527.html
dc.relation.referencesMartin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., McGuire, S., & Munyarukaza, J. (2014). Whose environmental justice? Exploring local and global perspectives in a payments for ecosystem services scheme in Rwanda. Geoforum, 54, 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.02.006
dc.relation.referencesMillennium Ecosystem Assessment Board (MA) (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf
dc.relation.referencesMilne, S., & Adams, B. (2012). Market masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia. Development and Change, 43(1), 133-158. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01748.x
dc.relation.referencesMoros, L., Vélez, M. A., & Corbera, E. (2019). Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia’s Amazon Piedmont. Ecological Economics, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2017.11.032
dc.relation.referencesMoros, L., Corbera, E., Vélez, M. A., & Flechas, D. (2020). Pragmatic conservation: Discourses of payments for ecosystem services in Colombia. Geoforum, 108, 169- 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.09.004
dc.relation.referencesMuñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J. M., & Braña, J. (2008). Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 725-736. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.031
dc.relation.referencesMuradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Farley, J., Froger, G., Garcia-Frapolli, E., Gómez- Baggethun, E., Gowdy, J., Kosoy, N., Le Coq, J. F., Leroy, P., May, P., Méral, P., Mibielli, P., … Urama, K. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters, 6(4), 274-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755- 263X.2012.00309.x
dc.relation.referencesMuradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1202-1208. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
dc.relation.referencesNaeem, S., Ingram, J. C., Varga, A., Agardy, T., Barten, P., Bennett, G., Bloomgarden, E., Bremer, L. L., Burkill, P., Cattau, M., Ching, C., Colby, M., Cook, D. C., Costanza, R., DeClerck, F., Freund, C., Gartner, T., Goldman-Benner, R., Gunderson, J., … Wunder, S. (2015). Get the science right when paying for nature’s services: Few projects adequately address design and evaluation. Science 347(6227), 1206-1207. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aaa1403
dc.relation.referencesNarloch, U., Pascual, U., & Drucker, A. G. (2011). Costeffectiveness targeting under multiple conservation goals and equity considerations in the Andes. Environmental Conservation, 38(4), 417-425. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0376892911000397
dc.relation.referencesOrganización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) (2015). La Asamblea General adopta la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/es/2015/09/la-asambleageneral- adopta-la-agenda-2030-para-el-desarrollosostenible/
dc.relation.referencesPagiola, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 712-724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.033
dc.relation.referencesPascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Muradian, R. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64(11), 1027-1036). https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146
dc.relation.referencesPattanayak, S. K., Wunder, S., & Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(2), 254-274. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/req006
dc.relation.referencesPynegar, E. L., Jones, J. P., Gibbons, J. M., & Asquith, N. M. (2018). The effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services at delivering improvements in water quality: Lessons for experiments at the landscape scale. PeerJ, 2018(10), e5753. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5753
dc.relation.referencesRendón, O. R., Dallimer, M., & Paavola, J. (2016). Flow and rent-based opportunity costs of water ecosystem service provision in a complex farming system. Ecology and Society, 21(4), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08787-210436
dc.relation.referencesRincón-Ruiz, A., Correa, H. L., León, D. O., & Williams, S. (2016). Coca cultivation and crop eradication in Colombia: The challenges of integrating rural reality into effective anti-drug policy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 33, 56–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.06.011
dc.relation.referencesRobalino, J., & Pfaff, A. (2013). Ecopayments and deforestation in Costa Rica: A nationwide analysis of PSA’s initial years. Land Economics, 89(3), 432-448. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.3.432
dc.relation.referencesRobalino, J., Sandoval, C., Barton, D. N., Chacon, A., & Pfaff, A. (2015). Evaluating Interactions of Forest Conservation Policies on Avoided Deforestation. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0124910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124910
dc.relation.referencesRodríguez-de-Francisco, J. C., & Budds, J. (2015). Payments for environmental services and control over conservation of natural resources: The role of public and private sectors in the conservation of the Nima watershed, Colombia. Ecological Economics, 117, 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.003
dc.relation.referencesSachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., & Fuller, G. (2019). Sustainable Development Report 2019. https://www.sdgindex.org/
dc.relation.referencesSalzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A., & Jenkins, M. (2018). The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0
dc.relation.referencesSills, E. O., Atmadja, S. S., de Sassi, C., Duchelle, A. E., Kweka, D. L., Resosudarmo, I. A., & Sunderlin, W. D. (eds.). (2014). REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Center for International Forestry Research (Cifor). https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/5202/
dc.relation.referencesSims, K. R. E., & Alix-Garcia, J. M. (2017). Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 86, 8-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.11.010
dc.relation.referencesSims, K. R., Alix-Garcia, J. M., Shapiro-Garza, E., Fine, L. R., Radeloff, V. C., Aronson, G., Castillo, S., Ramirez-Reyes, C., & Yañez-Pagans, P. (2014). Improving Environmental and Social Targeting through Adaptive Management in Mexico’s Payments for Hydrological Services Program. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1151-1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12318
dc.relation.referencesTrujillo, D. (2019) Nota Técnica sobre Gobernanza para Parques Como Vamos. Documento de trabajo. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá-Colombia.
dc.relation.referencesUchida, E., Xu, J., Xu, Z., & Rozelle, S. (2007). Are the poor benefiting from China’s land conservation program? Environment and Development Economics, 12(4), 593-620. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X07003713
dc.relation.referencesUnited States Department of Agriculture (Usda) (2020). World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/
dc.relation.referencesUNODC. (2015). Colombia - Monitoreo de Cultivos de Coca 2014.
dc.relation.referencesVan Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., & Windey, C. (2015). Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecological Economics, 120, 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.012
dc.relation.referencesVélez, M.A. (2019) Es hora de que la política ambiental se hable con la de drogas. Portal periodístico La silla vacía. Disponible en: https://lasillavacia.com/silla-llena/blogoeconomia/hora-de-la-politica-ambiental-se-hable-la-de-drogas-71537
dc.relation.referencesVélez, M. A., Rueda, X., Moros, L., Guerrero, A., & Link, A. (2017). Recomendaciones para el diseño e implementación de incentivos para la conservación en paisajes agrícolas. Documento de política No. 48. Foro Nacional Ambiental. Bogotá, Colombia.
dc.relation.referencesVorlaufer, M., Ibanez, M., Juanda, B., & Wollni, M. (2017). Conservation versus Equity : Can Payments for Environmental Services Achieve Both? 93(4), 667-688.
dc.relation.referencesWallbott, L., Siciliano, G., & Lederer, M. (2019). Beyond PES and REDD+: Costa rica on the way to climate-smart landscape management? Ecology and Society, 24(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10476-240124
dc.relation.referencesWiik, E., d’Annunzio, R., Pynegar, E., Crespo, D., Asquith, N., & Jones, J. P. G. (2019). Experimental evaluation of the impact of a payment for environmental services program on deforestation. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.8
dc.relation.referencesWunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper, 42. https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf
dc.relation.referencesWunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016
dc.relation.referencesWunder, S., & Albán, M. (2008). Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and Profafor in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 685-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.004
dc.relation.referencesWunder, S., Brouwer, R., Engel, S., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Muradian, R., Pascual, U., & Pinto, R. (2018). From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x
dc.relation.referencesWunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 834-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.010
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.urihttps://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/static/pdf/aceptacion_uso_es.pdf
dc.subject.keywordPagos por servicios ambientales
dc.subject.keywordGobernanza ambiental
dc.subject.keywordObjetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
dc.subject.keywordConservación de ecosistemas
dc.subject.keywordPobreza rural
dc.subject.keywordAmérica Latina
dc.titleDocumentos CODS. No. 6. Pagos por servicios ambientales y Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible en América Latina: ¿hacia dónde deben orientarse?
dc.typeDocumentos de trabajo
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_8042
dc.type.contentText
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/workingPaper
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/WP
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
CODS_DOCS_06.pdf
Tamaño:
1.04 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descargar
Bloque de licencias
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
2.48 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción:
Descargar
Colecciones
Documentos CODS