Scholarlink

<p>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%], <i>d</i> = 0.12). These findings suggest that flexible PES contracts can improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservation programs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Adding flexibility to payments for environmental services enhances cost-effectiveness in the Brazilian Amazon

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月22日

查看全文
  • Gabriela Demarchi,
  • Julie Subervie,
  • Cauê D. Carrilho,
  • Thibault Catry,
  • Antoine Pfefer,
  • Philippe Delacote

摘要

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.