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 »
Publications
»
Policy instruments
»
Comparisons & mixes
Policy instruments » Comparisons & mixes
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
Schröter et al. (2015) Ecosystem Services and Opportunity Costs Shift Spatial Priorities for Conserving Forest Biodiversity. PLOS ONE November 13, 2014
Project publications
Barton et al. (2014) Guidelines for multi-scale policy mix assessments. POLICYMIX Technical Brief No. 12
Barton, D. N. et al. (2010) Assessing the Role of Economic Instruments in a Policy Mix for Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Services Provision: A Review of Some Methodological Challenges. Discussion Paper 1-2010
Barton, D. N. et al. (2012)Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in Norway. Report 1/2012
Barton, D.N. , I. Ring, G. Rusch (2014) Policyscape: Nature-based policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision
Chacón-Cascante, A.et al. (2012). Costa Rica: National level assessment of the role of economic instruments in the conservation policymix. Report 2/2012
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
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.
Ring, I. et al. (2011) Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. Report 2/2011
Ring, I. et al. (2011) Recommendations for assessing instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity and ecosystem governance. Technical Brief Issue no. 5
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
Santos, R., May, P., Barton, D.N., and Ring, I. (eds.) 2014. Comparative assessment of policy mixes across case studies - common design factors and transferability of assessment results. Report 1/2014.
Schröter‐Schlaack,C.et al.(2013) Assessment of existing and proposed policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in Germany The role of ecological fiscal transfers. Report 1/2013
Vatn et al.(2014) Payments for Nature Values Market and Non-market Instruments
Vatn, A. et al. (2011) Can markets protect Biodiversity? An evaluation of different financial mechanisms