Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
6
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
6 results for “Payment for ecosystem services”
PESMEX20: 20 years of payments for ecosystem services in Mexico
<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p> <p>As some of the world’s largest, longest lasting and most researched initiatives that reward individual and communal landowners for conserving forests and associated ecosystem services, Mexico´s Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programmes provide a significant opportunity to examine questions of how, where, and by whom PES scholarship has been produced. The PESMEX20 database is the most up-to-date and comprehensive compendium of peer-reviewed publications for PES in a single country. It is a systematic analysis of the relevant peer-reviewed literature in English and Spanish through 2022 (N=140). Studies represent a breadth of themes, disciplinary and methodological approaches, and spatial scales.</p> <p><strong>Research questions</strong></p> <p>We address two specific research questions: </p> <ol> <li> <p>How has the body of PES research evolved over time in terms of methodological, temporal, and geographic coverage?</p> </li> <li> <p>What have been the main research priorities and reported results so far and how do these compare between in-country (i.e. based in Mexican institutions) and foreign scholars?</p> </li> </ol> <p><strong>Search strategy and inclusion criteria</strong></p> <p>Our approach to article selection followed PRISMA established norms (Moher et al., 2009). We employed advanced searches for publications in several internationally recognised databases as suggested by previous PES reviews (Calvet-Mir et al., 2015; Perevochtchikova et al., 2021; Schomers & Matzdorf, 2013; Kolinjivadi et al., 2023) and other related literature reviews. Specifically, we conducted searches in three internationally recognised databases: i) Scopus (international database of peer-reviewed academic publications worldwide); ii) Scielo (international database of peer-reviewed academic publications, mainly from Latin America, Ibero-America, and South Africa); and iii) Redalyc (international database of peer-reviewed academic publications from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain, and Portugal).</p> <p>Additionally, given our specific interest in PES literature based in Mexico, we also conducted online searches of articles published in nationally-recognised scientific journals based in Mexico. Our analysis focused on peer-reviewed journals with indexation by Mexico’s Science and Technology Journal Classification System (CRMCYT) as of 2023. From a list of 109 CRMCYT indexed journals from seven thematic areas, we narrowed our search to 14 journals based on title and thematic relevance. Of these 14 journals, 11 were already included in Scopus, Scielo, or Redalyc. We therefore conducted additional searches in the 3 remaining Mexican journals: Estudios Sociológicos de El Colegio de México; Política y Gobierno; Papeles de Población.</p> <p>The systematic review process first consisted of online searches of publications with keywords related to PES programmes in Mexico in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The search elements were sought specifically in the title, abstract and keywords for Scopus and Scielo, and in the full text of the publications for Redalyc and the three individual Mexican journals. The syntax used included a wide array of combinations of the following terms: </p> <p>Mexico/Mexican AND payment/programme/scheme + ecosystem/environmental/ hydrological/biodiversity/carbon service. </p> <p>In total, 1357 records were obtained and downloaded in a single Excel spreadsheet containing records until 2022. Duplicate records (N=152) were identified and excluded, with the final publication database including a total of 1205 publications. The following step consisted of identifying the set of records related to PES programmes in Mexico from the publication database, and thus relevant for analysis. We coded each record according to two dimensions:</p> <ul> <li> <p>PES focus: publication related to actual or hypothetical PES programmes and/or providing insights related to their application. Actual PES programmes included the federal PES programmes and other public and private programmes addressed by the studies.</p> </li> <li> <p>Mexico focus: publication provides insights and/or data collected in Mexico. This includes comparative studies based in Mexico and other geographic regions.</p> </li> </ul> <p>For each dimension, the coding process consisted of two main steps: 1) search for keywords in the title related to PES or Mexico; 2) reading the abstract to confirm PES or Mexico focus. Whenever the publication’s classification was unclear after steps 1) and 2), the body of the publication was further scanned. This codification was developed by the first author but was validated by the team of co-authors to ensure its accuracy. Once all records were coded, only those publications that combined a focus on PES and Mexico were selected for our analysis.</p> <p>In total, 140 publications met this requirement and formed the empirical basis for our analysis (Included in Supplementary Materials). These 140 publications included 137 peer-reviewed journal articles and three book chapters.</p> <p><strong>Coding strategy</strong></p> <p>The publication database explores a series of variables that cover four main components: basic features, thematic coverage, methodological coverage, and reported effects. Each entry was coded twice independently in separate spreadsheets by two co-authors who have experience with PES programmes and research in Mexico. Subsequently, the spreadsheets were merged and each result was double checked for consistency and, in cases where discrepancies were found, the coders jointly deliberated to reach a final result.</p> <p>The basic features component identifies the lead authors and country and institutional affiliation, publication outlet, publication year, and number of citations (citation number retrieved from Google Scholar on 8 November 2023). </p> <p>The thematic coverage component identifies the set of themes addressed by the publication. Our assessment framework situates PES research within four main stages of PES design and implementation: Assessment & planning, Implementation & evaluation, and Improvement. Each of these stages involves, in turn, a series of theme-specific categories. The framework was developed based on our existing knowledge acquired from long-term research of PES programmes and is composed of a series of well-established themes in PES literature. These themes are not mutually exclusive (publications in our database addressed on average 2.15 themes).</p> <p>The methodological coverage component characterises the programme(s) studied (type, geographic location) and the study's design (if and where primary data was collected, the type of methods employed and the temporal scale of analysis). We also captured the degree of critique towards PES based on the overall tone and language of the study’s abstract and conclusions.</p> <p>The reported effects component addresses the 56 studies in our database that provided empirical evidence related to PES environmental and/or social impacts or outcomes and excluded reviews as well as conceptual, experimental and hypothetical studies. Specifically, we examined what scholars have concluded about the social and ecological effects of Mexican PES programmes in terms of key indicators used, whether the study assesses outcomes (measurable indicators of programme effects) versus impact (through counterfactual analysis), and the authors’ conclusions on the direction (positive, negative or neutral) and magnitude of effects. Classification as positive or negative was based on our interpretation of the authors' overall assessment of environmental and social outcomes (separately). If reported outcomes were predominantly positive, we classified the effects as positive, and vice versa for negative outcomes. Where findings did not allow an assessment of outcome direction, or in instances where there was a balance of positive and negative outcomes, we designated these as neutral.</p> <p><strong>Variable list</strong></p> <p>The description of variables and their corresponding values can be found in the second sheet of the Excel spreadsheet.</p> <p><strong>Acknowledgements</strong></p> <p>We thank Daniela Oropeza Calderón and Lucero Hidalgo García for excellent research assistance with the publication database in the early stages of this manuscript. We also acknowledge the helpful input from Vijay Kolinjivadi, Gert van Hecken and Pierre Merlet for the design of the coding strategy.</p>
The ePEStemology database: a meta-analysis of 15 years of research on knowledge claims of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)
<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p> <p>Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are a leading conservation finance tool to encourage land-users to deliver ecosystem services in exchange for financial incentives (Blundo-Canto et al., 2018; Kaiser et al., 2021; Salzman et al., 2018; Schomers and Matzdorf, 2013). They have generated considerable interest over the past two decades, following the publication of the UN’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005). Yet, there has been a dearth of analysis that reveals the outcomes and evolution of the PES research body itself, with most studies having a very specific or limited focus on the theoretical and empirical development of these PES programmes. The ePEStemology database assembles a systematic literature review into a meta-analysis aimed at understanding knowledge generation in PES research. The database allows for an analysis of key trends in how the body of literature on PES has informed scholars and practitioners since the emergence of this conservation tool.</p> <p><strong>Research questions and main objectives:</strong></p> <p>The ePEStemology database is the largest review of PES scientific research to date and addresses the following research questions:</p> <ul> <li>In the history of 15 years of PES research, what are the dominant criteria used to define and assess success of PES in practice? Are there geographical patterns in defining those criteria? Where does research take place? And by whom?</li> <li>What does 15 years of PES research illustrate in terms of the social and political consequences that arise in the implementation of PES? To what extent does literature engage with territorial dynamics and conflicting frameworks around nature’s values?</li> <li>How has PES research evolved? Do research recommendations feed into future research objectives over time?</li> <li>How does the epistemological position, including methods used, geographic location and disciplinary focus of authors among other variables, influence PES research outcomes?</li> </ul> <p>A core objective of the database is to ensure it remains a living compendium of PES research. While the database does not account for every peer-reviewed published article on PES, it facilitates the possibility of iteratively adding new publications or retroactively adding in missing articles as well as those that use cognate terms to define PES (e.g. as rewards or compensation for ecosystem services). The database also aims to serve as an important basis for future research questions on overall or regional trends emerging from PES research.</p> <p><strong>Search strategy</strong></p> <p>Using these key objectives and questions, we defined a set of variables (see attached) and search strategy to construct the ‘ePEStemology’ database. The database is populated by International Scientific Indexed (ISI) peer-reviewed journal articles. It includes Anglophone articles in Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), using all of the search terms “PES”, “Payments for Ecosystem Services,” “Payment for Ecosystem Services,” “Payment for Environmental Service,” or Payments for Environmental Services” either in the title, abstract, or keywords of queried articles. </p> <p>Articles were excluded if they were produced in a language other than English or if they were book chapters, books, conference papers, reviews, or webpages. While recognizing the caveats of excluding research articles in other languages as well as in other media (e.g. as books or conference papers), we justify our approach in order to ensure consistency and comparability of the body of research literature.</p> <p>Following the different steps prescribed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol (Moher et al., 2009), we identified a total of 1,067 published articles between 2005 and 2019. We took the year 2005 as the starting point for published research on PES, following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) of the same year as well as an initial seminal publication on the subject (Wunder, 2005). Initial screening of articles began in September, 2018 with a total of 1,215 ISI-peer reviewed research articles on PES identified between both the Scopus and WoS queries. Additional articles were included to account for the year 2019 in October, 2020 to total 1,439 articles.</p> <p>It is also worth noting that Scopus providing the greatest coverage of published articles on PES, accounting for 78% of the total identified. WoS accounted for 66% of the total, but also included 305 articles that did not fall within the Scopus search.</p> <p>The screening procedure for selecting articles was contingent on the time in which the search in SCOPUS and WoS were conducted. It should be noted that this systematic review does not account for every ISI-research article published on PES during the time period considered. Since the database search tools are continuously updated retroactively, the query date may alter the number of articles retrieved in the search, increasing them over time despite being limited to specific dates. However, even if the database gets adapted over time, we can safely assume that the corpus represents a representative account of peer-reviewed published research on PES. In addition to the language exclusions made (i.e. our database only includes Anglophone publications), there are various permutations on the PES terminology, including “payments for hydrological services,” “payments for watershed services”, “conservation payments,” “rewards for ecosystem services,” or “agro-ecological incentives,” and many others that make it challenging to fully account for every relevant article. However, the protocol does not include all these possible variations, but can easily allow these variations to be included and brought into the analysis at a later stage.</p> <p><strong>Coding strategy</strong></p> <p>For the initial database (2005-2019) four independent reviewers to review each abstract and full text of each article were selected (BT, CJ, GVH, VK). Each reviewer had experience in (empirical) PES research and have published peer-reviewed research on PES or other market-like transactions for ecosystem services (e.g. Tabaichount et al., 2019; Jacob et al., 2016; Van Hecken et al., 2015; Kolinjivadi and Sunderland, 2012). Broad variables of interest that guide our analysis (e.g. research objectives, disciplines, methods, author affiliations and positionality, geographical base, research outcomes, and others) served as the basis for coding. However, in order to establish a foundation of codes for each of these categories of interest and further refine each of those broader categories, the research team randomly selected 100 articles of the final 1,067 articles identified and applied a grounded theory open-coding process (e.g. Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Thornberg and Charmaz, 2014). The latter implies a process in which any preconceived identification for each category of interest was open to be further adapted prior to the final coding process. The iterative process of initial coding determined the most relevant sets of codes for each identified variable of interest, as well as possible values for each of them. Additional codes were added to the list as more articles were reviewed and until saturation was reached.</p> <p>After discussing and deciding on the final categories/variables with the whole group, all remaining articles in the corpus were evenly and randomly divided among all reviewers. On average, each of the four reviewers coded between 500 and 600 articles. </p> <p>Subsequently, and for over a period of 15 months, the coding team revised and coded all articles based on the abstracts and a review of the full text in case the abstract did not allow to accurately code some of the variables. Each article was independently (blindly) coded by two different reviewers. To ensure robustness of coding, pairs of reviewers for each set compared results of the coding process for each article through a triangulation process and resolved discrepancies through collective deliberation and cross-checked consensus.</p> <p><strong>Variable list</strong></p> <p>The variable list and description of variables and their corresponding values can be found in the attached Word-document</p>
Payment For Ecosystem Services (PES); A Holistic Tool For Sustainable Forest Management-A Case Study From Pakistan
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Figure 2 from: Valatin G, Abildtrup J, Accastello C, Al-Tawaha A, Andreucci M, Atanasova S, Avdibegović M, Baksic N, Banasik K, Barquin J, Barstad J, Bastakova V, Becirovic D, Begueria S, Bethers U, Bihunova M, Blagojevic B, Bösch M, Bournaris T, Cao Y, Carvalho-Santos C, Chikalanov A, Cunha e Sá M, Czyżyk K, Daly H, Davies H, Del Campo A, Groot R, De Vreese R, Dostál T, El Mokaddem A, Finér L, Evans R, Fiquepron J, Frac M, Futter M, Garcia S, Gatto P, Geneletti D, Gezik V, Giupponi C, González-Sanchís M, Gordillo F, Gorriz E, Grigorova Y, Heinsoo K, Hochbichler E, Högbom L, Image M, Jacobsen J, Japelj A, Jelic S, Junk J, Juhasz C, Kagalou I, Kelly-Quinn M, Klamerus-Iwan A, Kluvankova T, Koeck R, Konovska I, Ostoic S, Krc J, Lavnyy V, Leonardi A, Libiete Z, Little D, Lo Porto A, Loukas A, Lyubenova M, Maric B, Martínez-López J, Martinez I, Maxim A, Metslaid M, Melvin A, Costică M, Mincev I, Morkvenas Z, Nevenic R, Nisbet T, O'hUallachain D, Olschewski R, Östberg J, Oszust K, Ovando P, Paletto A, Parpan T, Pettenella D, Malovrh Š, Planinšek Š, Podlipná R, Posavec S, Potočki K, Prokofieva I, Quinteiro P, Radocz L, Ristic R, Robert N, Rugani B, Sabanovic J, Sarvasova Z, Savoska S, Schleppi P, Schueler G, Shannon M, Silgram M, Srdjevic B, Stefan G, Stijovic A, Strange N, Tattari S, Teofilovski A, Termansen M, Thorsen B, Toth A, Trebs I, Tmušić N, Vasiliades L, Vedel S, Ventrubová K, Vuletic D, Winkel G, Yao R, Young S, Yousefpour R, Zahvoyska L, Zhang D, Zhou J, Žižková E (2017) PESFOR-W: Improving the design and environmental effectiveness of woodlands for water Payments for Ecosystem Services. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e13828. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e13828
Figure 2 - GANTT Diagram
Figure 1 from: Valatin G, Abildtrup J, Accastello C, Al-Tawaha A, Andreucci M, Atanasova S, Avdibegović M, Baksic N, Banasik K, Barquin J, Barstad J, Bastakova V, Becirovic D, Begueria S, Bethers U, Bihunova M, Blagojevic B, Bösch M, Bournaris T, Cao Y, Carvalho-Santos C, Chikalanov A, Cunha e Sá M, Czyżyk K, Daly H, Davies H, Del Campo A, Groot R, De Vreese R, Dostál T, El Mokaddem A, Finér L, Evans R, Fiquepron J, Frac M, Futter M, Garcia S, Gatto P, Geneletti D, Gezik V, Giupponi C, González-Sanchís M, Gordillo F, Gorriz E, Grigorova Y, Heinsoo K, Hochbichler E, Högbom L, Image M, Jacobsen J, Japelj A, Jelic S, Junk J, Juhasz C, Kagalou I, Kelly-Quinn M, Klamerus-Iwan A, Kluvankova T, Koeck R, Konovska I, Ostoic S, Krc J, Lavnyy V, Leonardi A, Libiete Z, Little D, Lo Porto A, Loukas A, Lyubenova M, Maric B, Martínez-López J, Martinez I, Maxim A, Metslaid M, Melvin A, Costică M, Mincev I, Morkvenas Z, Nevenic R, Nisbet T, O'hUallachain D, Olschewski R, Östberg J, Oszust K, Ovando P, Paletto A, Parpan T, Pettenella D, Malovrh Š, Planinšek Š, Podlipná R, Posavec S, Potočki K, Prokofieva I, Quinteiro P, Radocz L, Ristic R, Robert N, Rugani B, Sabanovic J, Sarvasova Z, Savoska S, Schleppi P, Schueler G, Shannon M, Silgram M, Srdjevic B, Stefan G, Stijovic A, Strange N, Tattari S, Teofilovski A, Termansen M, Thorsen B, Toth A, Trebs I, Tmušić N, Vasiliades L, Vedel S, Ventrubová K, Vuletic D, Winkel G, Yao R, Young S, Yousefpour R, Zahvoyska L, Zhang D, Zhou J, Žižková E (2017) PESFOR-W: Improving the design and environmental effectiveness of woodlands for water Payments for Ecosystem Services. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e13828. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e13828
Figure 1 - Types of PES Schemes
Figure 3 from: Valatin G, Abildtrup J, Accastello C, Al-Tawaha A, Andreucci M, Atanasova S, Avdibegović M, Baksic N, Banasik K, Barquin J, Barstad J, Bastakova V, Becirovic D, Begueria S, Bethers U, Bihunova M, Blagojevic B, Bösch M, Bournaris T, Cao Y, Carvalho-Santos C, Chikalanov A, Cunha e Sá M, Czyżyk K, Daly H, Davies H, Del Campo A, Groot R, De Vreese R, Dostál T, El Mokaddem A, Finér L, Evans R, Fiquepron J, Frac M, Futter M, Garcia S, Gatto P, Geneletti D, Gezik V, Giupponi C, González-Sanchís M, Gordillo F, Gorriz E, Grigorova Y, Heinsoo K, Hochbichler E, Högbom L, Image M, Jacobsen J, Japelj A, Jelic S, Junk J, Juhasz C, Kagalou I, Kelly-Quinn M, Klamerus-Iwan A, Kluvankova T, Koeck R, Konovska I, Ostoic S, Krc J, Lavnyy V, Leonardi A, Libiete Z, Little D, Lo Porto A, Loukas A, Lyubenova M, Maric B, Martínez-López J, Martinez I, Maxim A, Metslaid M, Melvin A, Costică M, Mincev I, Morkvenas Z, Nevenic R, Nisbet T, O'hUallachain D, Olschewski R, Östberg J, Oszust K, Ovando P, Paletto A, Parpan T, Pettenella D, Malovrh Š, Planinšek Š, Podlipná R, Posavec S, Potočki K, Prokofieva I, Quinteiro P, Radocz L, Ristic R, Robert N, Rugani B, Sabanovic J, Sarvasova Z, Savoska S, Schleppi P, Schueler G, Shannon M, Silgram M, Srdjevic B, Stefan G, Stijovic A, Strange N, Tattari S, Teofilovski A, Termansen M, Thorsen B, Toth A, Trebs I, Tmušić N, Vasiliades L, Vedel S, Ventrubová K, Vuletic D, Winkel G, Yao R, Young S, Yousefpour R, Zahvoyska L, Zhang D, Zhou J, Žižková E (2017) PESFOR-W: Improving the design and environmental effectiveness of woodlands for water Payments for Ecosystem Services. Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e13828. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e13828
Figure 3 - PERT Diagram
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.