Skip to main content Accessibility help

Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes

  • TANYA M. HAYES (a1)


Payment for ecosystem services (PES) has been widely promoted as an effective and efficient model for conservation; however, few studies have empirically examined how the market-based approach interacts with farmer's decision-making processes and their abilities to sustain new conservation practices. This paper examines the sustainability of a PES silvopastoral programme in Colombia from peasant farmers’ perspectives. Programme participants were asked questions regarding their perceived ability to continue with the silvopastoral practices, the influence of the economic benefits and contracts on behavioural change, and the programme's impacts on self-determination, innovation and social learning; factors considered critical for sustained resource management. While the participants expressed a need for the PES programme practices, less than half stated that they would continue with the silvopastoral measures and only 13% understood that part of their contractual commitment was to conserve forests. Ten per cent of the participants considered themselves the principal decision-maker in the farm-level changes and only one participant had altered the prescribed practices, despite a common perception that some techniques were not suitable for the region. The results suggest a need to re-examine the degree to which the PES model in fact encourages adaptive management practices and sustained land-use behaviours in peasant communities.

  • 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.

      Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes
      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.

      Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes
      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.

      Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes
      Available formats


Corresponding author

*Correspondence: Dr Tanya Hayes, Environmental Studies and Institute for Public Service, Seattle University, 901 12th Avenue, PO Box 222000, Seattle, WA 98122, USA e-mail:


Hide All
Agrawal, A. & Chhatre, A. (2007) State involvement and forest co-governance: evidence from the Indian Himalayas. Studies in Comparative International Development 42: 6786.
Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179211.
Ajzen, I. (2006) Constructing a TpB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations [www document]. URL
Altieri, M.A. (1999) Applying agroecology to enhance the productivity of peasant farming systems in Latin America. Environment, Development and Sustainability 1 (3): 197217.
Altieri, M.A. (2000) Developing sustainable agricultural systems for small farmers in Latin America. Natural Resources Forum 24 (2): 97105.
Angelsen, A. & Kaimowitz, D. (1999) Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models. The World Bank Research Observer 14 (1): 7398.
Armenteras, D., Gast, F. & Villareal, H. (2003) Andean forest fragmentation and the representativeness of protected natural areas in the Eastern Andes, Colombia. Biological Conservation 113 (2): 245256.
Armitage, D. (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management 35 (6): 703715.
Ashby, J. (1985) The social ecology of soil erosion in a Colombian farming system. Rural Sociology 50 (3): 377396.
Ashby, J.A. & Sperling, L. (1995) Institutionalizing participatory, client driven research and technology development in agriculture. Development and Change 26 (4): 753770.
Avella, A. & Cárdenas, L.M. (2010) Conservación y uso sostenible de los bosques de roble en el corredor de conservación Guantiva-La Rusia-Iguaque, departamentos de Santander y Boyacá, Colombia. Colombia Forestal 13 (1): 526.
Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84 (2): 191215.
Biggs, S.D. (1989) Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from nine national agricultural research systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper No. 3. The Hague, the Netherlands: ISNAR
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A., Spielman, D. J., Horna, D. & Benin, S. (2006) From’ Best Practice’ to’ Best Fit’: a Framework for Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. Washington, DC. USA: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Braun, A. R. (2000) Farmer Field Schools and Local Agricultural Research Committees: Complementary Platforms for Integrated Decision-Making in Sustainable Agriculture. London, UK: ODI
Bunch, R. (1982) Two Ears of Corn: a Guide to People Centered Agricultural Improvement. Oklahoma City, OK, USA: World Neighbors.
Bunch, R. (1999) Reasons for non-adoption of soil conservation technologies and how to overcome them. Mountain Research and Development 19 (3): 213220.
Cárdenas, J. C., Stranlund, J. & Willis, C. (2000) Local environmental control and institutional crowding out. World Development 28 (10): 17191733.
Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L.A., eds (1989) Farmer First: Farmer innovation and Agricultural Research. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd.
Clements, T., John, A., Nielsen, K., An, D., Tan, S. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010) Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: comparison of three programs from Cambodia. Ecological Economics 69: 12831291.
Dagang, A.B.K. & Nair, P.K.R. (2003) Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agroforestry Systems 59: 149155.
Dorward, A., Kydd, J., Morrison, J. & Urey, I. (2004) A policy agenda for pro-poor agricultural growth. World Development 32 (1): 7389.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. & Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65: 663674.
Escobar, A. (1998) Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology 5 (1): 5382.
Ferraro, P.J. (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 65 (4): 810821.
Ferraro, P. & Kiss, A. (2002) Ecology: direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298 (5599): 1718.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441473.
Frey, B. & Jegen, R. (2001) Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys 15 (5): 589611.
Geist, H. & Lambin, E. (2001) What drives tropical deforestation? a meta-analysis of approximate and underlying causes of deforestation based on subnational case study evidence. Report. LUCC Report Series, LUCC International Project Office, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
German, L., Mowo, J. & Kingamkono, M. (2006) A methodology for tracking the ‘fate’ of technological interventions in agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 353369.
Gneezy, U. & Rustichini, A. (2000) Pay enough or don't pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3): 791810.
Godtland, E.M., Sadoulet, E., Janvry, A., Murgai, R. & Ortiz, O. (2004) The impact of farmer field schools on knowledge and productivity: a study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Economic Development and Cultural Change 53 (1): 6392.
Grothmann, T. & Patt, A. (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 15 (3): 199213.
Gsottbauer, E. & van den Bergh, J. (2011) Environmental policy theory given bounded rationality and other-regarding preferences. Environmental and Resource Economics 49 (2): 263304.
Hagmann, J. & Chuma, E. (2002) Enhancing the adaptive capacity of the resource users in natural resource management. Agricultural Systems 73 (1): 2339.
Hellin, J. & Haigh, M. (2002) Better land husbandry in Honduras: towards the new paradigm in conserving soil, water and productivity. Land Degradation and Development 13 (3): 233250.
Hellin, J. & Schrader, K. (2003) The case against direct incentives and the search for alternative approaches to better land management in Central America. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 99 (1–3): 6181.
Holden, S.T., Shiferaw, B. & Wik, M. (1998) Poverty, market imperfections and time preferences: of relevance for environmental policy? Environment and Development Economics 3 (1): 105130.
Holt-Gimenez, E. (2006) Campesino A Campesino: Voices from Latin America's Farmer to Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture. Oakland, CA, USA: Food First.
Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. (2007) Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction. Conservation and Society 5 (4): 432.
Johnson, N.L., Lilja, N. & Ashby, J.A. (2003) Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research. Agricultural Systems 78 (2): 287306.
Kiptot, E., Hebinck, P., Franzel, S. & Richards, P. (2007) Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agricultural Systems 94 (2): 509519.
León, M. & Harvey, C. (2006) Live fences and landscape connectivity in a neotropical agricultural landscape. Agroforestry Systems 68 (1): 1526.
Liverman, D. (2004) Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance, and the commodification of nature. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (4): 734738.
Maddux, J.E. & DuCharme, K.A. (1997) Behavioral intentions in theories of health behavior. In: Handbook of Health Behavior Research I, ed. Gochman, D. S., pp. 133149. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
McGinty, M.M., Swisher, M.E. & Alavalapati, J. (2008) Agroforestry adoption and maintenance: self-efficacy, attitudes and socio-economic factors. Agroforestry Systems 73: 99108.
Mercer, D.E. (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agroforestry Systems 204411: 311328.
Milder, J.C., Scherr, S.J. & Bracer, C. (2010) Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 15 (2): 4.
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N. & May, P. (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 12021208.
Murgueitio, E. (2009) Incentivos para los sistemas silvopastoriles en América Latina. Avances en Investigación Agropecuaria AIA 13 (1): 319.
Murtinho, F., Eakin, H. & Lopez-Carr, D. (2010) External Assistance Needed for Adaptation? An Assessment of Government Intervention in Local Water Management in the Colombian Andes. In: North American Regional Meeting of the International Association for the Study of the Commons, Tempe, Arizona: IASC. URL
Nair, P.K.R. (1985) Classification of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 3 (2): 97128.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A. & Platais, G. (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33 (2): 237253.
Pagiola, S., Ramírez, E., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E. & Ruíz, J.P. (2007) Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics 64 (2): 374385.
Pagiola, S., Rios, A.R. & Arcenas, A. (2008) Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? lessons from the silvopastoral project in Nicaragua. Environment and Development Economics 13 (3): 299325.
Petheram, L. & Campbell, B.M. (2010) Listening to locals on payments for environmental services. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (5): 11391149.
Pretty, J. & Shah, P. (1997) Making soil and water conservation sustainable: from coercion and control to partnerships and participation. Land Degradation and Development 8 (1): 3958.
Robbins, M. & Williams, T. (2005) Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Global Environmental Facility: land management and its benefits. The challenge, and the rationale for sustainable management of drylands. Washington, DC, USA: Global Environmental Facility Council [www document]. URL
Shiferaw, B. A., Okello, J. & Reddy, R. V. (2009) Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environment Development and Sustainability 11 (3): 601619.
Solano, C. (2007) Corredor de Robles, una estrategia integrada de manejo y conservación de la biodiversidad en el marco del enfoque ecosistémico. In: Aplicación del Enfoque Ecosistémico en Latinoamérica. ed. Andrade, Á., pp. 3236. Bogota, Colombia: IUCN.
Solano, C., Roa, C. & Calle, Z. (2005) Estrategia de Desarrollo Sostenible en Corredor de Conservación. Bogota, Colombia: Fundacion Natura.
Spielman, D.J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K. & Ochieng, C.M.O. (2008) An innovation systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems 98 (1): 19.
Sullivan, S. (2009) Green capitalism, and the cultural poverty of constructing nature as service provider. Radical Anthropology 3: 1827.
Sumberg, J., Okali, C. & Reece, D. (2003) Agricultural research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative: theoretical considerations. Agricultural Systems 76 (2): 739753.
Tilman, D. (1998) The greening of the green revolution. Nature 396 (6708): 211212.
van Dam, C. (2011) Indigenous territories and REDD in Latin America: opportunity or threat? Forests 2 (1): 394414.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. & Munda, G. (2000) Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy. Ecological Economics 32 (1): 4361.
Vatn, A. (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 12451252.
Vignola, R., Koellner, T., Scholz, R.W. & McDaniels, T.L. (2010) Decision-making by farmers regarding ecosystem services: factors affecting soil conservation efforts in Costa Rica. Land Use Policy 27 (4): 11321142.
Wilshusen, P., Brechin, S., Fortwangler, C. & West, P. (2002) Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent ‘protection paradigm’ in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15 (1): 1740.
Wunder, S. (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts.CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 24, CIFOR, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Wunder, S. (2006) Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics? Ecology and Society 11 (2): 23 [www document]. URL


Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Hayes Supplementary Material

 Word (103 KB)
103 KB
Supplementary materials

Hayes Supplementary Material

 Word (94 KB)
94 KB

Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes

  • TANYA M. HAYES (a1)


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.