Unpacking ‘Success’: Applying Local Perceptions to Interpret Influences of Water Fund Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Ecuadorian Andes

References

• Adams, W. M., and C.Sandbrook. 2013. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47 (3):329–335. doi:10.1017/S0030605312001470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arriagada, R. A., E. O.Sills, P. J.Ferraro, and S. K.Pattanayak. 2015. Do payments pay off? Evidence from participation in Costa Rica’s PES program. PLoS One 10 (7):e0131544. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bajak, A. 2017. In water we trust: How Quito’s water trust funds succeed. https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/07/28/water-we-trust-how-quitos-water-trust-funds-succeed. (accessed November 19, 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, N. J. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30 (3):582–592. doi:10.1111/cobi.12681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birks, M., and J. Mills. 2011. Grounded theory: A practical guide. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Bremer, L. L., D. A.Auerbach, J. H.Goldstein, A. L.Vogl, D.Shemie, T.Kroeger, J. L.Nelson, S. P.Benítez, A.Calvache, and J.Guimarães, et al. 2016. One size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American water funds partnership. Ecosystem Services 17:217–236. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, R., A.Tesfaye, and P.Pauw. 2011. Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environmental Conservation 38 (04):380–382. doi:10.1017/S0376892911000543.
   Google Scholar
• Büscher, B. 2012. Payments for ecosystem services as neoliberal conservation: (Reinterpreting) evidence from the Maloti-Drakensberg, South Africa. Conservation and Society 10 (1):29–41. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.92190.
   Google Scholar
• Büscher, B. 2014. Selling success: Constructing value in conservation and development. World Development 57:79–90. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.11.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büscher, B., S.Sullivan, K.Neves, J.Igoe, and D.Brockington. 2012. Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capitalism Nature Socialism 23 (2):4–30. doi:10.1080/10455752.2012.674149.
   Google Scholar
• Buytaert, W., R.Célleri, B.De Bièvre, F.Cisneros, G.Wyseure, J.Deckers, and R.Hofstede. 2006. Human impact on the hydrology of the Andean páramos. Earth Science Reviews 79 (1–2):53–72. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2006.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd edn. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, J. Y., and E.-H.Lee. 2014. Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report 19 (32):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Corbera, E., N.Kosoy, and M.Martinez-Tuna. 2007. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protectes areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17 (3-4):365–380. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echavarria, M. 2002. Financing watershed conservation: The FONAG water fund in Quito, Ecuador. In Selling forest environmental services: Market-based mechanisms for conservation and development, ed. S. Pagiola, J. Bishop and N. Landell-Mills. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Ferraro, P. J., and A.Kiss. 2002. Ecology. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science (New York, N.Y.) 298 (5599):1718–1719. doi:10.1126/science.1078104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R., and J.Breitling. 2012. Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. Geoforum 43 (3):402–411. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.11.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FONAG. 2008a. Comunidades actores de su desarollo. Fondo-a-Agua September 2008. 6: 12.
   Google Scholar
• FONAG. 2008b. Proyecto Ecologico - Productivo “Flor andina” de la comunidad paquiestancia. Quito: FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• FONAG. 2009. Proyecto Ecologico-Productivo de crianza de cuyes Para la comercializacion de la comunidad de oyacachi. Quito: FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• FONAG. 2010. Plan de monitoreo y evaluacion. Proteccion de los recursos hidricos Para la conservacion de la biodiversidad: Mecanismos financieros Para proteger las cuencas en el Ecuador. Quito: USAID and FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• FONAG 2011a. Proyecto Ecologico - Productivo “Flor andina” of communidad paquiestancia: Pastizales mejorados y conservacion del habitat del condor. Quito: FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• FONAG 2011b. Proyecto Ecologico - Viviendo la ruta de las cascadas “Pakchapi pakari”. Quito: FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• FONAG 2014. Rendicion de cuentas 2013, ed. N. Puente. Quito: FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman-Benner, R. L., S. P.Benitez, T.Boucher, A.Calvache, G. C.Daily, P.Kareiva, T.Kroeger, and A.Ramos. 2012. Water funds and payments for ecosystem services: Practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx 46 (01):55–63. doi:10.1017/S0030605311001050.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, P. M. 1989. Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and mediterranean pollution control. International Organization 43:376–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, T., F. Murtinho, and H. Wolff. 2017. The impact of payments for environmental services on communal lands: An analysis of the factors driving household Land-Use behavior in Ecuador. World Development 93:427–466. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joslin, A. J., and W. E.Jepson. 2018. Territory and authority of water fund payments for ecosystem services in ecuador’s andes. Geoforum 91:10–20. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.02.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauffman, C. M. 2014. Financing watershed conservation: Lessons from ecuador’s evolving water trust funds. Agricultural Water Management 145:39–49. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2013.09.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauffman, C. M. 2017. Grassroots global governance: Local watershed management experiments and the evolution of sustainable development. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kenny, A. 2012. Decade old Ecuadorian water fund providing template for entire region. The Ecosystem Marketplace http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article. (accessed May 12, 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, J. M., M.Vardhan, and R.Jindal. 2014. Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services. International Journal of the Commons 8 (2):595–616. doi:10.18352/ijc.438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolinjivadi, V., G.Van Hecken, J. C.Rodríguez de Francisco, J.Pelenc, and N.Kosoy. 2017. As a lock to a key? Why science is more than just an instrument to pay for nature’s services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latin American Water Fund Partnershsip (LAWFP). 2018. Where we Work. http://waterfunds.org/esp/where-we-work/. (accessed May 15, 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Li, T. M. 2007. The will to improve: Governmentality, development and the practice of politics. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, J., E. Sungusia, M. Mabele, and A. Scheba. 2017. Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD + as conservation fad. World Development 89:124–139. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosse, D. 2004. Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change 35 (4):639–671. doi:10.1111/j.0012-155X.2004.00374.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradian, R. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services as incentives for collective action. Society and Natural Resources 26:1155–1169. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.820816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradian, R., M.Arsel, L.Pellegrini, F.Adaman, B.Aguilar, B.Agarwal, E.Corbera, D.Ezzine de Blas, J.Farley, and G.Froger, et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters 6 (4):274–279. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradian, R., E.Corbera, U.Pascual, N.Kosoy, and P. H.May. 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental sevices. Ecological Economics 69 (6):1202–1208. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naeem, S., J. C.Ingram, A.Varga, T.Agardy, P.Barten, G.Bennett, E.Bloomgarden, L. L.Bremer, P.Burkill, and M.Cattau, et al. 2015. Get the science right when paying for nature’s services. Science 347 (6227):1206–1207. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattanayak, S. K., S.Wunder, and P. J.Ferraro. 2010. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4 (2):254–274. doi:10.1093/reep/req006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullin, A. S., W. J.Sutherland, T.Gardner, V.Kapos, and J. E.Fa. 2013. Conservation priorities: Identifying need, taking action and evaluating success. Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2:3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Redford, K. H., C.Padoch, and T.Sunderland. 2013. Fads, funding, and forgetting in three decades of conservation. Conservation Biology 27 (3):437–438. doi:10.1111/cobi.12071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocheleau, D. 1995. Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. The Professional Geographer 47 (4):458–466. doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.1995.00458.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-de-Francisco, J. C., and R.Boelens. 2015. Payment for environmental services: Mobilising an epistemic community to construct dominant policy. Environmental Politics 24 (3):481–500. doi:10.1080/09644016.2015.1014658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-de-Francisco, J. C., J.Budds, and R.Boelens. 2013. Payment for environmental services and unequal resource control in pimampiro, Ecuador. Society and Natural Resources 26:1217–1233. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.825037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland, W. J., A. S.Pullin, P. M.Dolman, and T. M.Knight. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 (6):305–308. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svarstad, H., and T. A.Benjaminsen. 2017. Nothing succeeds like success narratives: A case of conservation and development in the time of REDD. Journal of Eastern African Studies 11 (3):482–505. doi:10.1080/17531055.2017.1356622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TNC. 2012. Report on the Ecological and Socioeconomic Assessments of the Quito Water Fund: The nature conservancy’s central science and Northern Andes and Southern Central America conservation programs.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Success stories: Ecosystem services in Ecuador. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/SuccessStories/EcosystemServicesinEcuador/tabid/29870/Default.aspx (accessed July 17, 2011)
   Google Scholar
• USAID. 2007. Protecting water sources to conserve biodiversity: Financial mechanisms for watershed protection in Ecuador. Cooperative agreement no. 518-A-00-07-00056-00. Quito: FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• USAID. 2011. Protecting water sources to conserve biodiversity: Financial mechanisms for watershed protection in Ecuador, Cooperative agreement no. 518-A-00-07-00056-00. Narrative report year 4, September 2011. Quito: FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• USAID. 2014a. Evaluacion de cumplimiento del proyecto USAID/Ecuador protecction de los recursos hidricos Para la conservacion de la biodiversidad: Mecanismos financieros Para proteger las cuencas hidrica en el Ecuador. Quito: Corporation Oikos/USAID.
   Google Scholar
• USAID. 2014b. Protecting water sources to conserve biodiversity: Financial mechanisms for watershed protection in Ecuador, Cooperative agreement no. 518-A-00-07-00056-00. Final Report, 2014. Quito: FONAG.
   Google Scholar
• Van Hecken, G., and J.Bastiaensen. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: Do market-based approaches work?. Development and Change 41 (3):421–444. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01644.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Hecken, G., J. Bastiaensen, and F. Huybrechs. 2015. What’s in a name? Epistemic perspectives and payments for ecosystem services policies in Nicaragua. Geoforum 63:55–66. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.05.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veiga, F., A.Calvache, S. P.Benitez, J.León, and A.Ramos. 2015. Water Funds as a Tool for Urban Water Provision and Watershed Conservation in Latin America. In Water and cities in Latin America: Challenges for sustainable development, ed. I.Aguilar-Barajas, J.Malhknecht, J. Kaledin, M.Kjellen and Mejia-Betancourt. London and New York: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Wunder, S. 2007. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21 (1):48–58. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar