Social impacts and policy legitimacy (WP5)

Peer reviewed

		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

		Bittner, S. and Lienhoop, N., 2013: Understanding non-participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes for afforestation. The case of West Saxony.
		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.
		May P. H., M. F. Gebara, G. Lima, C. Jordão, P. Nogueira, M. Grieg-Gran. 2013. The effectiveness and fairness of the “Ecological ICMS” as a fiscal transfer for biodiversition conservation. A tale of two municipalities in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Paper presented at ESEE Conference, Lille.
		Porras, I. , A. Chacon Cascante, D.N.Barton, D. Tobar (2014) Ecosystems for Sale. Land prices and payments for ecosystem services in Costa Rica
		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