Skip to main content Accessibility help

Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews



Over the last decade, hundreds of payments for ecosystem services (PES) programmes have been initiated around the world, but evidence of their environmental benefits remains limited. In this study, two PES programmes operating in the municipality of Coatepec (Mexico) were evaluated to assess their effectiveness in protecting the region's endangered upland forests. Landsat satellite data were analysed to assess changes in forest cover before and after programme implementation using a difference-in-differences estimator. Additionally, surveys and interviews were conducted with local residents and a subset of PES programme participants to evaluate the programmes’ social and environmental impacts, particularly the effect of the programmes on landowner behaviour. The remote-sensing data show that deforestation was substantially lower on properties receiving PES payments compared to properties not enrolled in the programmes, but the programmes did not prevent the net loss of forests within Coatepec. Moreover, the on-site interviews suggest that the payments may have had little impact on deforestation rates, and that other factors contributed to the conservation of forests in PES properties. These findings suggest that risk-targeted payments, robust monitoring and enforcement programmes, and additional conservation initiatives should be included in all PES schemes to ensure environmental effectiveness.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews
      Available formats


Corresponding author

*Correspondence: Mr Jason Scullion e-mail:


Hide All
Alix-Garcia, J., Shapiro, E. & Sims, K. (2010) The environmental effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: preliminary lessons for REDD. Draft [www document]. URL
Armitage, D. (2007) Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons 2: 732.
Andam, K., Ferraro, P., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, A. & Robalino, J. (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 1608916094.
Arriagada, R., Sills, E., Pattanayak, S. & Ferraro, P. (2009) Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate participation in Costa Rica's programme of environmental services. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28: 343367.
Bruijnzeel, L.A. (2002) Hydrology of tropical montane cloud forests: a reassessment. In: Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on Hydrology and Water Management of the Humid Tropics, ed. Gladwell, J.S., pp. 353383. Paris, France & Panama City, Panama: UNESCO & CATHALAC.
Biernacki, P. & Waldorf, D. (1981) Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods of Research 10: 141163.
Buckley, J. & Shang, Y. (2003) Estimating policy and programme effects with observational data: the ‘differences-in-differences’ estimator. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 8: 112.
Chen, X., Lupi, F., He, G. & Liu, J. (2009) Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 1181211817.
Codjoe, S. (2007) Integrating remote sensing, GIS, census, and socioeconomic data in studying the population-land-use/cover nexus in Ghana: a literature update. Africa Development 2: 197212.
CONAFOR (2009) ArcGIS polygons of PSAH payment areas. CONAFOR, Coatepec, Mexico.
Daily, G., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P., Mooney, H., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T., Salzman, J. & Shallenberger, R. (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 7: 2128.
Dirzo, R. & Raven, P. (2003) Global state of biodiversity loss. Annual Review Environmental Resources 28: 137–7.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and in practice. An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65: 663–74.
Ferraro, P. (2009) Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Directions for Evaluation 122: 7584.
Ferraro, P. & Pattanayak, S. (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4: 482–88.
FIDECOAGUA (2009) ArcGIS polygons of FIDECOAGUA payment areas. FIDECOAGUA, Coatepec, Mexico.
FIDECOAGUA (2010) Entrega de recursos de servicios ambientales hidrológicos por fundos concurrentes. FIDECOAGUA-CONAFOR [www document]. URL
Flores-Villa, O. & Gerez, P. (1994) Biodiversidad and conservacion en Mexico. Vertabrados, vegatacion, uso de suelo. Comision nacional para el uso y conservacion de la biodiversidad, Universidad nacional, autonoma de Mexico, Mexico DF.
Fuentes-Pangtay, T. (2008) Análisis de los programmes de pago o compensación por servicios ambientales en la Cuenca del Pixquiac: Fortalezas y depilidades en el contexto local. Report on behalf of Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, AC (FMCN) y de la Agencia de los Estados Unidos de América para el Desarrollo Internacional (USAID), Coatepec, Mexico [in Spanish].
GEF (2006) Mexico: environmental services project: project appraisal document. Report No: 33228-MX. Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Sector Management Unit, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
German, L., Villamor, G., Twine, E., Velarde, S. & Kidane, B. (2009) Environmental services and the precautionary principle: using scenarios to reconcile conservation and livelihood objectives in upper catchments. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28: 368394.
Holling, CS., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (1998) Science, sustainability and resource management. In: Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, ed. Berkes, F. & Folke, C., pp. 342362. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Holwerda, F., Bruijnzeel, L.A., Muñoz-Villers, L., Equihua, M. & Asbjornsen, H. (2010) Rainfall and cloud water interception in mature and secondary lower montane cloud forests of central Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Hydrology 384: 8496.
INEGI (1995) Digital orthophotos. Scale 1:20 000. INEGI, Mexico City, Mexico.
Ishihara, H. & Pascual, U. (2008) Social capital in community level environmental governance: a critique. Ecological Economics 68: 1549–62.
Jack, K., Kousky, C. & Sims, K. (2008) Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 9465–70.
Jengo, C. (2005) RuleGen Spatial Analysis ENVI Module (Version 1.02) [www document]. URL
Klooster, D. (2003) Forest transitions in Mexico: institutions and forests in a globalized countryside. The Professional Geographer 55: 227–37.
Kremen, C., Merenlender, A. & Murphy, D. (1994) Ecological monitoring: a vital need for integrated conservation and development programmes in the tropics. Conservation Biology 8: 388–97.
Landell-Mills, N. & Porras, N. (2002) Silver bullet or fool's gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. Report. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK [www document]. URL
MA (2005) Summary for decision-makers. In: Ecosystems and Human Well Being: Synthesis, ed. World Resources Institute, pp. 15. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.
Martínez, L., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Vázquez, G., Castillo-Campos, G., García-Franco, J., Mehltreter, K., Equihua, M. & Landgrave, R. (2009) Effects of land-use change on biodiversity and ecosystem services in tropical montane cloud forests of Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 18561863.
McGarigal, K., Cushman, S., Neel, M. & Ene, E. (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis programme for categorical maps. Computer software programme produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA [www document]. URL
Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Manuel-Torres, J. & Braña, J. (2008) Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 65: 725736.
Ostrom, E. & Nagendra, H. (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102: 19224–31.
Pattanayak, S., Wunder, S. & Ferraro, P. (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4: 254274.
Pfaff, J., Robalino, A. & Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. (2008) Payments for environmental services: empirical analysis for Costa Rica. Working Paper Series, SAN08–05. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA [www document]. URL
Robalino, J., Pfaff, A., Sánchez-Azofeifa, A., Alpízar, F., León, C. & Rodríguez, M. (2008) Deforestation impacts of environmental services payments Costa Rica's PSA Program 2000–2005. Environment for Development. Discussion Paper Series. August 2008 [www document]. URL
Rosa, H., Kandel, S. & Dimas, L. (2004) Compensation for environmental services and rural communities: lessons from the Americas. International Forestry Review 6: 187194.
Rzedowski, J. (1998) Diversidad y orıgenes de la flora fanerogamica de Mexico.’ In: Diversidad Biologica de Mexico: Orıgenes y distribucion., eds, Ramammoorthy, T.P., Bye, R., Lot, A., & Fa, J, pp 129145. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Mexico, DF.
Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K. & Robinson, J. (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16: 1469–19.
Schneider, J., Scholz, M., Lubell, D., Mindruta, J. & Edwardsen, E. (2003) Building consensual institutions: networks and the national estuary programme. American Journal of Political Science 47: 143–58.
Seabright, P. (1993) Managing local commons: theoretical issues in incentive design. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7: 113–34.
SCBD (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 [www document]. URL
Schweik, C. & Thomas, C. (2002) Using remote sensing to evaluate environmental institutional designs: a habitat conservation planning example. Social Science Quarterly 83: 244262
Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Marvier, M. & Chang, A. (2008) An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 9547–64.
Thomas, C. (1998) Maintaining and restoring public trust in government agencies and the employees. Administration and Society 30: 166193.
Thomas, C. & Koontz, T. (2011) Research designs for evaluating the impact of community-based management on natural resource conservation. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 3: 97111.
Turner, B., Lambin, E. & Reenberg, A. (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 52: 20666–71.
Turner, R. & Daily, G. (2008) The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environmental Resource Economics 39: 2535.
Weber, E. (1998) Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation. Washington, DC, USA: Georgetown University Press.
Williams-Linera, G., Manson, R. & Isunza-Vera, E. (2002) La fragmentación del bosque mesófilo de montaña y patrones de uso del suelo en la región oeste de Xalapa, Veracruz, México. Madera y Bosques 8: 7389.
Wunder, S. (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper 42, Center for International Forestry and Research, Bogor, Indonesia.
Wunder, S. (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21: 4858.
Wunder, S., Engel, S. & Pagiola, S. (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programmes in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65: 834–52.



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed