Login
Home
Participants
NINA (Norway)
UFZ (Germany)
CENSE (Portugal)
IVM (Netherlands)
IIED (UK)
SYKE (Finland)
REDES (Brazil)
FUNDAG (Brazil)
CATIE (Costa Rica)
Research topics
Review of policy instruments and roles (WP2)
Policy objectives & monitoring effectiveness (WP3)
Economic benefits and costs (WP4)
Social impacts and policy legitimacy (WP5)
Legal & institutional options & constraints (WP6)
Multi-scale case study comparative analysis (WP8)
Methodological synthesis & policy recomm. (WP9)
Case studies
Norway
Germany
Portugal
Finland
Brazil – Mata Atlantica
Brazil – Mato Grosso
Costa Rica
Associated Case studies
South eastern Australia
Conference
Welcome
Themes
Program
Keynotes
Registration
Accommodation
Conference venue
Important dates
Committees
Contact
Publications
Biodiversity and ecosystem impact
Ecosystem service values
Social impact
Institutional fit
Modelling
Policy instruments
Comparisons & mixes
Trade policy
REDDplus
Ecological fiscal transfers
Protected area enforcement
AEM
PES
Tradable rights & offsets
Policymix tool
Search
You are here:
Home »
Policymix tool
»
Instruments public-private benefits
»
Protected areas
Instruments public-private benefits » Protected areas
Peer reviewed
Barton, D.N. et al. (2013) Policyscape—A Spatially Explicit Evaluation of Voluntary Conservation in a Policy Mix for Biodiversity Conservation in Norway. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 26:10, 1185-1201
Begossi, A., May, P. H., Lopes, P. F., Oliveira, L.E.C., Vinha, V. and Silvano, R.A.M. 2011. Compensation for environmental services from artisanal fisheries in SE Brazil: Policy and technical strategies. Ecological Economics, 71:25- 32.
Lindhjem, H ., K. Grimsrud, S. Navrud and S. O. Kolle (forthcoming) "The Social Benefits and Costs of Preserving Forest Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services".
Mitani, Y. and H. Lindhjem (2014) "Forest owners' participation in voluntary biodiversity conservation in Norway: What does it take to forego forestry for eternity?"... Resubmitted and under review, Revised April 2014.
Primmer (2011), Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry, Journal of Cleaner Production, 19: 16, 1822 - 1832
Schröter et al. (2015) Ecosystem Services and Opportunity Costs Shift Spatial Priorities for Conserving Forest Biodiversity. PLOS ONE November 13, 2014
Project publications
Barton, D. N. et al. (2012)Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in Norway. Report 1/2012
Bunikyte, R., G. M. Rusch, and B. J. Graae. 2012. A time-line analysis of the public biodiversity conservation mix: Changes in conservation gains in the county of Sør-Trøndelag.
Chacón-Cascante, A.et al. (2012). Costa Rica: National level assessment of the role of economic instruments in the conservation policymix. Report 2/2012
Droste, N., Ring, I., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Lenk, T. Ecological Fiscal transfers in Germany. Discussion paper draft.
May, P. et al. (2012) Assessment of the role of economic and regulatory instruments in the conservation policymix for the Brazilian Amazon – a coarse grain study. Report 5/2012
May, P.H. et al (2012) The "Ecological" Value Added Tax (ICMS-Ecologico) in Brazil and its effectiveness in State biodiversity conservation: a comparative analysis
Primmer, E. et al. (2013) Finland: Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation at national level POLICYMIX Report Issue No 2/2013. This report replaces POLICYMIX Report 4/2012.
Robalino et al. Substitutability and complementarity of forest conservation policies
Romeiro, A.R. et al. (2012) Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in São Paulo -Brazil: a coarse grain analysis. Report 3/2012
Santos, R. et al. (2012) Assessment of the role of economic instruments in the Portuguese conservation policymix – a national coarse grain analysis. Report 6/2012
Previous
<
Policymix tool Home
Policymix webpage Home