Table 3.
Table of characteristics—included studies
| Included study | Country | Programme name | Included outcomes | Definitions of primary outcomes | Subgroups | Study design | Study analysis method | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hedge et al. (2011) | Mozambique | Nhambita PES‐project | Income/consumption/expenditure; intermediate outcomes | Expenditure per capita (MTS); cash income per capita (MTS); crop value (MTS); forest products (value‐MTS) | Woman headed households and poor households |
CBA; method of analysis PSM |
290 | |
| Jindal et al. (2011) | Mozambique | Nhambita PES‐project | Other socioeconomic outcome | Number of literates per household; number of m'shambas (plots) per household; household's annual cash income (MTN); households with access to wage labour in the village (%); household with at least one permanent job or a small business (%); asset ownership per household (number) | No | CBA; method of analysis DID | DID (simple t‐test) | 334 |
| Garbach et al. (2012) | Costa Rica | Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Approaches to Ecosystem Management Project (RISEMP) | Intermediate outcomes | Total number of silvopastoral practices adopted | No | RCT (random assignment to households/individuals) | OLS regression | 124 |
| Honey‐Roses (2011) | Mexico | The Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund | Forest cover/deforestation | Avoided disturbance: percent conserved forest (>70% canopy cover) and hectares of forest cover; avoided deforestation: percent forest cover and hectares of forest cover | No |
Spatial panel data with matched controls; method of analysis PSM |
4,203 polygons | |
| Beauchamp (2018) (associated papers: Clements (2015) | Cambodia | Bird Nest protection programme | Food security; other socioeconomic outcome | Rice surplus (kg) ; rice harvest (kg); education (whether a child is attending high school) | No | CBA | Matching with DID—post matching regression |
596 247 |
| Sharma et al. (2015) | Nepal | Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) Pilot | Forest condition; carbon stocks; income/consumption/expenditure; other socioeconomic outcome | Observed in the sampled forest plots: forest fire signs; tree crown cover; shrub cover; grass cover; signs of wildlife; encroachment signs; timber extraction signs; firewood collection signs; open grazing signs; fodder collection signs; total forest carbon; gross income from CFUGs; household income from CFUG; backloads of total firewood collected by household annually; household with improved cooking stove installed for household cooking (have ICS) ; household with improved cooking stove installed for household cooking (have biogas); percentage share of firewood in household cooking; backloads of leaf‐litter collected by household annually; backloads of total fodder grass collected by household annually | No | CBA | PSM and DID | 630; 277 |
| Arriagada et al. (2011) | Costa Rica | Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales | Forest cover/deforestation | Forest gain 1997–2005; forest loss 1997–2005; net deforestation 1997–2005 | No | CBA | Various types of PSM matching | 8188 |
| Arriagada (2012) (associated papers: Arriagada (2008a) | Costa Rica | Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales | Forest cover/deforestation | Change in forest cover on the farm between 1992 and 2005; self‐reported native forest cover change (ha); spillover effects—change in Self‐Reported Mature Native Forest Cover 1996–2005 | No | CBA | Various types of PSM matching combined with DID/regression |
202 197 |
| Arriagada (2015) | Costa Rica | Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales | Other socioeconomic outcome | Changes in cattle herd owned by the farmer; changes in hired labour; change in absentee status since 1996; Household Change in Asset Index; household change in asset count; family's quality of life | No | CBA | PSMatching + OLS regression | 80 |
| Robalino (2013) | Costa Rica | Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales | Forest cover/deforestation | Deforestation (1997–2000) | No | CBA | Various types of PSM matching | 10,108 |
| Robalino (2014) | Costa Rica | Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales | Other socioeconomic outcome | Poverty and extreme poverty | Type of slope; gender age, 35 or less, older than 35; distance to national roads |
Panel data but no baseline OLS |
Various types of PSM matching | 18,425 |
| Robalino (2015) | Costa Rica | Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales | Forest cover/deforestation | Deforestation (2000–2005)—5 year effect (%) | No | Spatial panel data with matched controls; method of analysis PSM | Various types of PSM matching | 10,944 |
| Sierra and Russman (2006) | Costa Rica | Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales | Forest cover/deforestation | Land use | No |
Panel data but no baseline OLS |
OLS regression | 60 |
| Alix‐Garcia et al. (2012) | Mexico | Pago por Servicios Ambientales‐Hidrolo´gico or PSAH | Forest cover/deforestation | The classification of deforestation in the Monitoreo is based on changes in NDVI values across years | No |
RDD PSM with subsequent fixed effects regression |
814 | |
| Alix‐Garcia et al. (2015a) (associated papers: Alix‐Garcia et al. (2015b) | Mexico | Pago por Servicios Ambientales‐Hidrolo´gico or PSAH | Forest cover/deforestation; other socioeconomic outcome; intermediate outcomes | NDVI; percent forest cover change (locality data); Poverty Index ; education investment; Food index; Durables index; Housing index; number of cattle; number of small animals; livestock infrastructure; agricultural inputs; agricultural equipment; quantity firewood collected; has large or small grazers; # Large grazers (such as cattle); participates livestock activity; quantity staples cultivated; produces staples | No |
RDD PSM with subsequent fixed effects regression |
Weighted, fixed effects regression | 1,210; 21,769; 1,162; 1,401; 1,464 |
| Arriagada et al. (2018) | Mexico | Pago por Servicios Ambientales‐Hidrolo´gico or PSAH | Income/consumption/expenditure; other socioeconomic outcome; intermediate outcomes | Proportion of households that earned more than the minimum wage from nonagricultural activities from 2007 to 2013; proportion of households that earned more than the minimum wage from agricultural activities from 2007 to 2013; difference in the proportion of households that processed goods from 2007 to 2013; difference in the number of household assets from 2007 to 2013; difference in household's asset index from 2007 to 2013; difference between ha of managed land in 2007 and 2013; difference in the proportion of households that owned livestock from 2007 to 2013; Cultural Services Number of Cultural Services mentioned by respondent; difference between ha of managed land for agriculture in 2007 and 2013.; Ecosystem Services Total Number of ES mentioned by respondent; Provisioning Services Number of Provisioning Services mentioned by respondent; Regulating Services Number of Regulating Services mentioned by respondent | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | Genetic matching + DID (OLS regression) | 1,102;1,198; 1,190; 2,424 | |
| Le Velley et al. (2017) | Mexico | Pago por Servicios Ambientales‐Hidrologico or PSAH | Forest cover/deforestation | Forest loss within a polygon—2005–2012 | No | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | PSM + OLS regression (and also weighted regression) | 10,352 |
| Scullion (2011) | Mexico | Pago por Servicios Ambientales‐Hidrologico or PSAH | Forest cover/deforestation | The outcome variable measured was the change in hectares of forest cover between time periods | No |
Spatial panel data with matched controls Method of analysis PSM & DID |
Not sure about the sample | |
| Sims et al. (2017) | Mexico | Pago por Servicios Ambientales‐Hidrologico or PSAH | Forest cover/deforestation; other socioeconomic outcome | Net change in forest cover from 2000–2012; population growth; poverty alleviation; % without electricity; % without piped water; % without refrigerator; % with dirty floor; localities with a >5% share in PES; population growth Full Index, % population illiterate; % without primary school localities with a >5% share in PES | No |
Panel data but no baseline Method of analysis Other regression |
59,535 | |
| Duan et al. (2015) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure | Family total income.; nonfarm employment income‐nonfarm employment; crop production income; forest income. | Income quantile 20%, 80% |
Panel data but no baseline Method of analysis Quantile regression model, Tobit regression model and weighted least square model |
375 | |
| Groom (2010) | China | SLCP | Other socioeconomic outcome | Househld off‐farm labour supply (194 days per household per annum) | No |
CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) Method of analysis DID and switching regression |
Switching regression + DID | 286 |
| Liang (2012) (associated papers: Li, 2011) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure | Local wage‐income; migrating wage‐income; on‐farm income; total income | Income quantile 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% |
Panel data but no baseline Method of analysis Regression |
DID OLS regression/Tobit regression multivariate linear regression + quantile regression |
366 1,078 |
| Lin (2014) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure | Household income | No |
Panel data Method of analysis maximum likelihood method |
MLM regression | 189; 200; 236; 269 |
| Liu (2013) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure | Average Quintile Immobility Rate; Average Quintile Move Rate | No |
Panel data Method of analysis regression |
3,375 | |
| Liu (2014) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure | Land‐based income (RL); off‐farm income (RO); total income (R) | Stage of implementation |
Panel data Method of analysis regression |
3,375 | |
| Liu (2018) | China | SLCP | Intermediate outcomes | Tenure security; land reallocation | No |
Panel data Method of analysis regression |
300; 1,310 | |
| Liu (2018) | China | SLCP | Other socioeconomic outcome | Off‐farm labour time inputs (person‐days) | No |
Panel data, but no baseline Method of analysis: PSM |
1,158 | |
| Liu (2015) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure | Household income diversity index | High medium‐ and low‐income |
Panel data Method of analysis regression |
1,458 | |
| Uchida (2009) (associated papers: Uchida, 2007) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure; other socioeconomic outcome; intermediate outcomes | Off‐farm labour status change income per capita (yuan); crop income per capita (yuan); other agricultural income per capita (yuan); nonagricultural income per capita (yuan); value of house (yuan); fixed productive assets (yuan); livestock inventories (yuan); off‐farm work (number of adults with off‐farm work in household); migration status (number of adult migrants in household) | Income quantile | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | Matching + DID OLS regression |
270 339 |
| Xu (2010) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure | Cropping before subsidy; other income; noncropping income; off‐farm income; total agricultural with subsidy; husbandry income | No |
Panel data, but no baseline Method of analysis regression |
Fixed effects regression for quantiles | 360 |
| Yao (2010) | China | SLCP | Income/consumption/expenditure; other socioeconomic outcome | Other income; total income; off‐farm income; animal husbandry income; crop production income; off‐farm employment | No | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | DID OLS regression | 600 |
| Kwayu (2017) | Tanzania | EPWS | Food security; other socioeconomic outcome | Food security; livestock ownership; ownership of consumer durables | No | Comparison group with endline data only PSM | PSM (nearest neighbour with replacement) +t tests to compare means | 233 |
| Lokina and John (2016) (associated paper: John, 2012) | Tanzania | EPWS | Other socioeconomic outcome; intermediate outcome | Perception of household on there welfare before and after 2008; perception of forest size | No | Comparison group with endline data only PSM | PSM with probit regression |
200 189 |
| Hayes (2011) | Ecuador | Programa Socio Bosque | Forest cover/deforestation | Household decision to stop grazing animals (cows and sheep) in the collective páramo | No | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | DID | 399 |
| Jones (2017) | Ecuador | Programa Socio Bosque | Forest cover/deforestation | Household level deforestation—change in deforestation rates | No |
Spatial panel data with matched controls Method of analysis PSM |
PSM (caliper matching with replacement) + fixed effects panel regression | 513 |
| Mohebalian (2016) | Ecuador | Programa Socio Bosque | Forest cover/deforestation | Deforestation between 2008 and 2014 | No | Spatial panel data with matched controls Method of analysis PSM | PSM (one‐to‐one nearest neighbour match, without replacement) + comparison of means with t test | 1,772 |
| Mohebalian (2018) | Ecuador | Programa Socio Bosque | Forest cover/deforestation | Net effect on avoided deforestation (percent); avoided deforestation controlling for slippage; tree species richness (frequency); trees species at risk of extinction (frequency); tree species with commercial timber value (frequency) | No |
Spatial panel data with matched controls Method of analysis PSM |
PSM with t test of means | 38; 536 |
| Jayachandran et al. (2017) (associated document: Jayachandran et al., 2011) | Uganda | PES experiment | Forest cover/deforestation; food security; intermediate outcomes; other socioeconomic outcome; | Cut any trees in the past year; PFO‐level land circles: change in tree cover (ha); village boundaries: change in tree cover (ha); IHS of nonfood expend in past 30 days; IHS of food expend in past 30 days; allow others to gather firewood from own forest; increased patrolling of the forest in last 2 years; has any fence around land with natural forest. Programme impacts on tree‐planting: total trees survived; programme impacts on tree‐planting: total trees planted; programme impacts on tree‐planting: reforestation area; programme impacts on tree‐planting: took up reforestation option; tree cover‐spillovers/anticipation effects; child was sick with diarrhoea in last 30 days (age 0–5); child was sick with malaria in last 30 days (age 0–15); Has outstanding loan or repaid a loan in past year; nine‐step income ladder; IHS of alcohol/tobacco expend; claim to ownership of forest became stronger in last 2 years; have planted trees in the past year; had dispute with neighbours in last 2 years; decreased access to others who take trees from forest in last 2 years; any revenue from cut trees in the last year; IHS of total revenue from cut trees; total revenue from cut trees; cut trees for timber products; cut trees for emergency/lumpy expenses; cut trees to clear land for cultivation | No | RCT (random assignment to Households/individuals) | 1,099 | |
| Pagiola (2016) (associated papers: Pagiola et al., 2013) | Columbia | Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Ecosystem Management Project | Forest cover/deforestation; intermediate outcomes | Change in ESI; proportion of farm changed % ESI per ha 2011‐follow up data from the above, post‐PES implementation (2007–2011) | No | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) |
DID + regression OLS regression |
101 99 |
| Chervier et al. (2017) | Cambodia | Conservation Agreement | Forest cover/deforestation; intermediate outcomes | The average yearly forest cover loss in ha in each grid square; perceived monetary‐related values from conserving the forest | No | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | PSM | 325; 921; 841; 1,078 |
| Zheng (2013) | China | Paddy Land‐to‐Dry Land programme | Income/consumption/expenditure; intermediate Outcome | Washing machine, refrigerator; television; motorcycle; liquefied petroleum gas; coal; wood; education; SLCP income; migrant income; nonfarm income; agricultural income; all income; seed expenditures; fertiliser expenditures; pesticide expenditures; P application; N application; estimated P export; estimated N export; agricultural intensification | No | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | DID with PSM | 723 |
| Jack and Santos (2017) | Malawi | ICRAF PES experiment | Income/consumption/expenditure; food security; other socioeconomic outcome | Total income from crop sales; per capita spending on food; casual labour income; months of food shortage; asset index; stated labour constraint; casual labour is a coping strategy; has acquired new land since 2008; total trees across all plots; No. of plots planted with trees; total plots cleared in last 3 years; has acquired new land since 2008 | Lottery Auction | RCT (random assignment to households/individuals) | DID | 319 |
| Simonet et al. (2017) | Brazil | Projeto Assentamentos Sustentáveis na Amazônia (PAS) | Forest cover/deforestation; income/consumption/expenditure; other socioeconomic outcome | Forest cover as a share of total land area (hectares); wage salary; cattle ranching; total land as a share of total land area; cropland as a share of total land area; pastures as a share of total land area | No | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | DID with psmatching (nearest neighbour) | 181 |
| Liu (2014) (associated papers: Liu et al., 2018) | China | DCBT | Income/consumption/expenditure; other socioeconomic outcome |
Land‐based income (RL); Off‐farm income (RO); total income R off‐farm labour time inputs (person‐days) |
Stage of implementation |
Panel data Method of analysis Fixed effects regression |
3,375 1,158 |
|
| Zhang (2015) | China | DCBT | Income/consumption/expenditure | Household per capital income | No |
Panel data but no baseline Method of analysis Regression |
188 | |
| Costedoat (2015) | Mexico | Unclear: seems like 2 programmes: PESL and the hydroligc federal one which is PASH | Forest cover/deforestation | Total forest cover in 2007 and 2013 | No | CBA (comparison group with baseline and endline data collection) | Covariate matching DID | 2,174 |
Abbreviations: CBA, comparison group with baseline and endline data collection; CFUG, Community Forest User Group; DCBT, Desertification Combating Program around Beijing and Tianjin; DID, difference‐in‐difference; EPWS, Equitable Payment for Watershed Services; ESI, environmental services index; MLM, multilevel modeling; NDVI, normalised difference vegetation index; OLS, ordinary least squares; RCT, randomised controlled trial; PES, payment for environmental service; PESL, Programa Especial de la Selva Lacandona; PFO, private forest owner; PSM, Propensity Score Matching; PSAH, Payments for Hydrological Services Program; SLCP, Sloping Land Conversion Program.