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
»
Policy cycle
»
Implementation process
Policy cycle » Implementation process
Peer reviewed
Klassert, C., und Möckel, S. (2013). Improving the Policy Mix: The Scope for Market-Based Instruments in EU Biodiversity Policy. Environmental Policy and Governance (EPG) 23: 311-322
Lienhoop, N., Brouwer, R., 2014: Agrienvironmental policy valuation: Farmers‘ design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Planning
Paloniemi, Riikka and Vainio, Annukka (2011) 'Legitimacy and empowerment: combining two conceptual approaches for explaining forest owners' willingness to cooperate in nature conservation', Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 8: 2, 123 - 138
Primmer (2011), Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry, Journal of Cleaner Production, 19: 16, 1822 - 1832
Primmer, E. et al.(2013) Evolution in Finland's Forest Biodiversity Conservation Payments and the Institutional Constraints on Establishing New Policy, Society and Natural Resources, 0:1-18
Santos, R., Antune,s P., Ring, I., Clemente, P., Ribas, T., Directing economic instruments at public and private local stakeholders for biodiversity conservation. The case of agrienvironment schemes and ecological fiscal transfers. Environmental Policy and Governance
Schröter et al. (2015) Ecosystem Services and Opportunity Costs Shift Spatial Priorities for Conserving Forest Biodiversity. PLOS ONE November 13, 2014
Project publications
Bittner, S. and Lienhoop, N., 2013: Understanding non-participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes for afforestation. The case of West Saxony.
Chacón-Cascante, A.et al. (2012). Costa Rica: National level assessment of the role of economic instruments in the conservation policymix. Report 2/2012
Clemente, P., Santos, R., Antunes, P., Pinto, R. Assessing farmers’ perceptions and performance of agri-environmental schemes in a multifunctional agro-forest system: lessons for instrument design in a conservation policymix.
Fasiaben, M.C.R., Gori, A., Andrade, D.C., Ângelo, J.A. Costs of environmental protection in different types of agricultural production units: the case of Cantareira-Mantiqueira Corridor Region.
Grieg-Gran, M. et al. (2011) Guidelines for Assessing Social Impacts and Legitimacy in Conservation. Technical Guide Issue no. 1
Grieg‐Gran, M. et al. (2013) Best practice guidelines for assessing social impacts and legitimacy of conservation policy instruments. Technical Brief Issue no.8
J. Vivan (in memoriam), R. Davenport, P.C. Nunes, R. Abad, P.H. May, D.N. Barton, L.P. Amaral. 2013. Pilot projects and agroenvironmental measures in northwest Mato Grosso, Brazil: impacts and lesson for REDD+ policy “mixes.” Paper presented at ESEE Conference, Lille.
Pinto, R., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Blumentrath, S., Clemente, P. Evaluating spatial targeting and planning effectiveness of policies: Illustrative example of an agri-environmental measure application in a multifunctional system. (in preparation)
Primmer, E. et al. (2011) Draft Guidelines for the analysis of institutions shaping biodiversity policy instrument applicability. Technical Brief Issue No. 2
Primmer, E. et al. (2013) Best practice guidelines on the role of multi‐level governance institutions in policy. Technical Brief Issue No. 9
Ring, I. et al. (2011) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. Report 2/2011
Rugtveit, S.V., D. N. Barton, S. Navrud, A. Chacón Cascante (2013) Transaction and compliance costs of payments for ecosystem services in a public-private benefits framework - a case study from Peninsula de Nicoya, Costa Rica. Submitted to Ecosystem Services
Santos, R., Clemente, P., Brouwer, R., Antunes, P., Pinto, R., Landowners Preferences for Agri-Environmental Agreements to Improve the Conservation Value of the Montados’ Ecosystem in Portugal (to be submitted in May 2014)
Similä, J. et al. (2012) Legal analysis of the relationship between European state aid and nature conservation law, and economic instruments for biodiversity protection. Report 7/2012
Svarstad, H. et al. (2011) Three types of environmental justice - From concepts to empirical studies of social impacts of policy instruments for conservation of biodiversity. Report No 1
Vatn et al.(2014) Payments for Nature Values Market and Non-market Instruments
Previous
<
Policymix tool Home
Policymix webpage Home