Free Access
Issue
Nat. Sci. Soc.
Volume 23, Number 3, juillet-septembre 2015
Dossier « Politiques du changement global. Expertises, enjeux d’échelles et frontières de l’action publique environnementale »
Page(s) 234 - 243
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2015049
Published online 05 November 2015
  • Aubertin, C., 2005. Représenter la nature ? ONG et biodiversité, Paris, IRD Éditions. [Google Scholar]
  • Betsill, M.M, Corell, E., 2008. NGO diplomacy: the influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environmental negotiations, Cambridge (Mass.)/London, The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., 2000. Globalization, four paths of internationalization and domestic policy change: the case of ecoforestry in British Columbia, Canada, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 33, 1, 67-99. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., 2001. Globalization, internationalization, and liberal environmentalism: exploring non-domestic sources of influence on Canadian environmental policy, in VanNijnatten, D.L., Boardman, R. (Eds), Canadian environmental policy: ecosystems, politics and process, Oxford, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Boisvert, V., Méral, P., Froger, G., 2013. MBIs for ecosystem services: institutional innovation or renovation?, Society and Natural Resources, 26, 10, 1122-1136. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bonnin, M., Méral, P., Bidaud, C., Rodary, E., Descamps, M., 2013. Services écosystémiques et aires protégées. Programme Serena (Services environnementaux et usages de l’espace rural), http://www.serena-anr.org/PDF/FICHE_8_BD.PDF. [Google Scholar]
  • Boussaguet, L., Jacquot, S., Ravinet, P., 2004. Article « Fenêtre d’opportunité », in Dictionnaire des politiques publiques, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 219-227. [Google Scholar]
  • Broughton, E., Pirard, R., 2011. What’s in a name? Market-based instruments for biodiversity, Health and Environment reports, 8, 1-78, http://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/hembismay2011.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Cathelin, C., 2015. L’enjeu biodiversité dans la politique des forêts privées du Costa Rica : une analyse du Programme de paiement pour services environnementaux par les coalitions et les institutions. Communication au 13e congrès national de l’Association française de science politique, Aix-en-Provence, 22-24 juin. [Google Scholar]
  • Clark, M.A., 1997. Transnational alliances and development policy in Latin America: nontraditional export promotion in Costa Rica, Latin American Research Review, 32, 2, 71-97. [Google Scholar]
  • Corbera, E., 2015. Valuing nature, paying for ecosystem services and realizing social justice: a response to Matulis (2014), Ecological Economics, 110, 154-157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Corell, E., Betsill, M.M., 2001. A comparative look at NGO influence in international environmental negotiations: desertification and climate change, Global environmental politics, 1, 4, 86-107. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruedo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387, 253-260. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues, Ecological Economics, 65, 4, 663-674. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fletcher, R., Breitling, J., 2012. Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica, Geoforum, 43, 3, 402-411. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Genieys, W., Hassenteufel, P., 2012. Qui gouverne les politiques publiques ?, Gouvernement et action publique, 2, 2, 89-115. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Guéneau, S., Jacobée, F., 2005. Conservation de la biodiversité forestière tropicale en Afrique centrale : dépassionner les débats, Working papers, 14, Iddri. [Google Scholar]
  • Hrabanski, M., 2014. Instrument de marché et biodiversité, CERISCOPE Environnement, http://ceriscope.sciences-po.fr/ environnement/content/part4/instrument-de-marche-et-biodiversite. [Google Scholar]
  • Hrabanski, M., Bidaud, C., 2014. Circulation d’une norme internationale d’action publique et recomposition de l’État : analyse comparée des « services écosystémiques » à Madagascar et en France, Revue internationale de politique comparée, 21, 3, 87-109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hrabanski, M., Bidaud, C., Le Coq, J.-F., Méral, P., 2013. Environmental NGOs, policy entrepreneurs of market-based instruments for ecosystem services? A comparison of Costa Rica, Madagascar and France, Forest Policy and Economics, 37, 124-132. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jakobi, A.P., 2009. International organizations and lifelong learning? From global agendas to policy diffusion, New York, Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  • Karsenty, A., Ezzine de Blas, D., 2014. Du mésusage des métaphores. Les paiements pour services environnementaux sont-ils des instruments de marchandisation de la nature ?, in Halpern, C., Lascoumes, P., Le Galès, P. (Eds), L’instrumentation de l’action publique. Controverses, résistances, effets, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 161-189. [Google Scholar]
  • King, D., Le Galès, P., 2011. Sociologie de l’État en recomposition, Revue française de sociologie, 52, 3, 453-480. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kingdon, J.W., 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, Boston, Little, Brown and Company. [Google Scholar]
  • Landell-Mills, N., Porras, I.T., 2002. Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor, Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series, London, International Institute for Environment and Development, https://www.cbd.int/doc/external/iied/iied-silver-report-2002-en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Lapeyre, R., Born, C.-H., Chervier, C., Méral, P., Pirard, R., 2014. Aichi biodiversity target 3: can market based instruments make a difference? Results from the INVALUABLE project. Report of the Invaluable side event at the 12th meeting of the Conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity, Invaluable, Paris, Iddri, http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Publications-scientifiques-et-autres/INVALUABLE%20-%20report%20side%20event%20october %209.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Lascoumes, P., Le Galès, P. (Eds), 2004. Gouverner par les instruments, Paris, Presses de Science Po. [Google Scholar]
  • Le Coq, J.-F., Pesche, D., Legrand, T., Froger, G., Saenz Segura, F., 2012. La mise en politique des services environnementaux : la genèse du Programme de paiements pour services environnementaux au Costa Rica, VertigO, 12, 3, https://vertigo.revues.org/12920. [Google Scholar]
  • Le Coq, J.-F., Méral, P., Marzin, J., 2013. Les paiements pour services environnementaux. Programme Serena (Services environnementaux et usages de l’espace rural), http://www.serena-anr.org/PDF/FICHE_6_BD.PDF. [Google Scholar]
  • Le Prestre, P., 2005. Protection de l’environnement et relations internationales. Les défis de l’écopolitique mondiale, Paris, Armand Colin. [Google Scholar]
  • Lewis, D., Mosse, D., 2006. Development brokers and translators: the ethnography of aid and agencies, Bloomfield, Kumarian Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Meyer, C.A., 1997. The political economy of NGOs and information sharing, World Development, 25, 7, 1127-1140. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services, Ecological Economics, 69, 6, 1202-1208, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nay, O., Smith, A., 2002. Le gouvernement du compromis. Courtiers et généralistes dans l’action publique, Paris, Economica. [Google Scholar]
  • OECD, 2003. Harnessing markets for biodiversity: towards conservation and sustainable use, Paris, OECD. [Google Scholar]
  • OECD, 2004. Handbook of market creation for biodiversity: issues in implementation, Paris, OECD. [Google Scholar]
  • OECD, 2010. Paying for biodiversity: enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services (PES), Paris, OECD. [Google Scholar]
  • Pagiola, S., 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica, Ecological Economics, 65, 4, 712-724. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., Landell-Mills, N. (Eds), 2002. Selling forest environmental services: market based mechanisms for conservation and development, London, Earthscan. [Google Scholar]
  • Pagiola, S., Platais, G., 2002. Payments for environmental services, Environment Strategy Notes, 3, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/Resources/EnvStrategyNote32002.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Pattanayak, S.K, Wunder, S., Ferraro, P.J., 2010. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4, 2, 254-274. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pesche, D., Méral, P., Hrabanski, M., Bonnin, M., 2013. Ecosystem services and payments for environmental services: two sides for the same coin?, in Muradian, R., Rival, L. (Eds), Governing the provision of ecosystem services, Dordrecht, Springer, 67-86. [Google Scholar]
  • Pirard, R., 2012. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon, Environmental Science and Policy, 19-20, 59-68. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Scholte, J.A., 2005. Globalization: a critical introduction, New York, Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  • Scholte, J.A., 2008. Defining globalization, The World Economy, 31, 11, 1471-1502. [Google Scholar]
  • Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries, Ecosystem services, 6, 16-30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Segura-Bonilla, O., 2003. Competitiveness, systems of innovation and the learning economy: the forest sector in Costa Rica, Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 4, 373-384. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Silva, E., 1997. The politics of sustainable development: native forest policy in Chile, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Mexico, Journal of Latin American Studies, 29, 2, 457-493. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Silva, E., 2002. National environmental policies: Costa Rica, in Weidner, H., Jänicke, M. (Eds), Capacity building in national environmental policy: a comparative study of 17 countries, Berlin/New York, Springer, 147-176. [Google Scholar]
  • Steinberg, P.F., 2001. Environmental leadership in developing countries: transnational relations and biodiversity policy in Costa Rica and Bolivia, Cambridge, The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Takacs, D., 1996. The idea of biodiversity: philosophies of paradise, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • TEEB, 2008. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. An interim report, European Communities. [Google Scholar]
  • Valette, E., Aznar, O., Hrabanski, M., Maury, C., Caron, A., Decamps, M., 2012. Émergence de la notion de service environnemental dans les politiques agricoles en France : l’ébauche d’un changement de paradigme ?, VertigO, 12, 3, doi : 10.4000/vertigo.12925. [Google Scholar]
  • Vatn, A., 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services, Ecological Economics, 69, 6, 1245-1252. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper, n° 42, Bogor, Cifor, http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • Wunder, S., Engel, S., Pagiola, S., 2008. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries, Ecological Economics, 65, 4, 834-852. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.