Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

Reply to: In defence of simplified PES designs

The Original Article was published on 01 June 2020

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. Wells, G., Ryan, C., Fisher, J. & Corbera, E. In defence of simplified PES designs. Nat. Sustain. (2020).

  2. Wunder, S. et al. From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat. Sustain. 1, 145–150 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Quote Investigator: Albert Einstein (QI, 2011);

  4. Pinto, R. et al. Spatial modelling of biodiversity conservation priorities in Portugal’s Montado ecosystem using Marxan with Zones. Environ. Conserv. 46, 251–260 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Uthes, S., Matzdorf, B., Müller, K. & Kaechele, H. Spatial targeting of agri-environmental measures: cost-effectiveness and distributional consequences. Environ. Manage. 46, 494–509 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Horst, D. Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial targeting of policy interventions; the example of an agri-environmental scheme. J. Environ. Manage. 85, 1076–1087 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fooks, J. R. et al. Conserving spatially explicit benefits in ecosystem service markets: experimental tests of network bonuses and spatial targeting. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 98, 468–488 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Engel, S. The devil in the detail: a practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 9, 131–177 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Phan, T.-H. D., Brouwer, R., Hoang, L. P. & Davidson, M. D. Do payments for forest ecosystem services generate double dividends? An integrated impact assessment of Vietnam’s PES program. PLoS ONE 13, e0200881 (2018).

  10. Muñoz-Piña, C., Guevara, A., Torres, J. M. & Braña, J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico’s forests: analysis, negotiation and results. Ecol. Econ. 65, 725–736 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosa da Conceição, H., Börner, J. & Wunder, S. REDD+ as a public policy dilemma: understanding conflict and cooperation in the design of conservation incentives. Forests 9, 725 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Huber-Stearns, H. R. et al. Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 22, 18 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Snilsveit, B. et al. Incentives for Climate Mitigation in the Land Use Sector—The Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) on Environmental and Socio-economic Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Mixed-Method Systematic Review (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 2019).

  14. Brouwer, R., Tesfaye, A. & Pauw, P. Meta-analysis of institutional-economic factors explaining the environmental performance of payments for watershed services. Environ. Conserv. 38, 380–392 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ferraro, P. & Pattanayak, S. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. 4, e105 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Armsworth, P. R. et al. The cost of policy simplification in conservation incentive programs. Ecol. Lett. 15, 406–414 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



S.W. wrote the paper, assisted by all co-authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Wunder.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wunder, S., Brouwer, R., Engel, S. et al. Reply to: In defence of simplified PES designs. Nat Sustain 3, 428–429 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene