4.7 Article

Payments for Pioneers? Revisiting the Role of External Rewards for Sustainable Innovation under Heterogeneous Motivations

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 234-245

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.011

关键词

Agroforestry adoption; Payments for ecosystem services; Tropical forest frontier; Silvopastoral systems; Innovation diffusion; Qmethodology; Perspectives

资金

  1. Basque Government [AK2009]
  2. Consejo National de Ciencia y Tecnologia
  3. CONACYT [51293]
  4. FORDECYT [116306]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acknowledging the diversity of preferences, goals and motivations of individuals is key to promote the effectiveness of incentive-based conservation interventions. This paper analyses the heterogeneity of motivations to adopt silvopastoral practices, a social-ecological innovation for soil conservation and carbon emission reduction. We use Qmethodology to identify smallholders' views with regard to these practices in a community in the forest frontier in Chiapas (Mexico). The analysis uncovers three main perspectives: self-sufficient pioneers, environmentally-conscious followers and payment-dependent conservatives. We discuss these perspectives around three topics: smallholders' predisposition to adopt silvopastoral practices, their views about needing external payments to sustain their livelihood and the diffusion of innovative sustainable practices. We relate these perspectives with livelihood characteristics and with observed adoption levels under a pilot programme to promote silvopasture. Our findings suggest that incentives other than payments may be more appropriate for those more likely to adopt, and that payments could encourage rent-seeking strategies and not necessarily promote permanent behavioural change. We suggest ways for designing more effective and adaptive environmental conservation programmes to foster adoption and continuation of social-ecological innovations. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据