Publicación:
Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of the Association Between Payments for Ecosystem Services and Satellite-Based Vegetation Dynamics in Cundinamarca, Colombia

dc.contributor.authorVergara Narvaez Andrés
dc.contributor.authorJiménez Castilla, Tania Isabel
dc.contributor.authorBALLUT DAJUD, GASTON ANTONIO
dc.contributor.researchgroupGrupo de Investigación Instituto de Estudios en Desarrollo Economía y Sostenibilidad – IDEEAS
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-28T14:58:59Z
dc.date.issued2026-07-25
dc.descriptionContiene mapas, gráficos
dc.description.abstractPayments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are increasingly used to promote conservation, but evidence of their biophysical outcomes remains mixed because participation is rarely assigned at random. This study assessed the association between participation in the Yo Protejo ¡Agua para Todos! PES program and satellite-based vegetation dynamics in Cundinamarca, Colombia, during 2015–2024. Annual NDVI, EVI, and SAVI values were derived from Landsat 8 and 9 imagery processed in Google Earth Engine. The empirical strategy combined fixed-effects difference-in-differences models, two spatial comparison groups, propensity-score adjustment, inverse probability of treatment weighting, propertyclustered inference, event-study diagnostics, differential-trend models, and property-year robustness analyses. Pre-treatment and covariate-balance diagnostics indicated imperfect counterfactual comparability, particularly for the external 500–1000 m buffer-ring controls. No vegetation index produced uniformly positive and robust associations across specifications. NDVI showed a small positive association during program implementation under the 500 m neighboring-control definition, but this result was not preserved after differential-trend adjustment or property-year aggregation. EVI produced positive pointlevel estimates under the external control, although this specification retained substantial residual imbalance and the estimates became negative after property-year aggregation. SAVI provided no robust positive evidence and showed negative post-implementation differentials in some external-control models. Overall, the estimated associations were sensitive to the vegetation metric, comparison-group definition, temporal phase, inferential level, and spatial aggregation. The results should therefore be interpreted as specificationdependent adjusted associations rather than definitive causal effects.
dc.description.researchareaDesarrollo sostenible
dc.format.extent20 páginas
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.ark10.3390/land15081340
dc.identifier.citationVergara Narvaez, A., Jiménez Castilla, T., & Ballut-Dajud, G. (2026). Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of the Association Between Payments for Ecosystem Services and Satellite-Based Vegetation Dynamics in Cundinamarca, Colombia. Land, 15(8), 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15081340
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12585/14534
dc.publisherLand
dc.publisher.placeColombiaLand
dc.relation.referencesWunder, S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts; CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42; Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2005.
dc.relation.referencesEngel, S.; Pagiola, S.; Wunder, S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 663–674.
dc.relation.referencesMuradian, R.; Corbera, E.; Pascual, U.; Kosoy, N.; May, P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1202–1208.
dc.relation.referencesWunder, S.; Börner, J.; Ezzine-de-Blas, D.; Feder, S.; Pagiola, S. Payments for environmental services: Past performance and pending potentials. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2020, 12, 209–234
dc.relation.referencesSalzman, J.; Bennett, G.; Carroll, N.; Goldstein, A.; Jenkins, M. The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 136–144.
dc.relation.referencesAlix-Garcia, J.; de Janvry, A.; Sadoulet, E. The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13, 375–394.
dc.relation.referencesWünscher, T.; Engel, S.; Wunder, S. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 822–833
dc.relation.referencesIzquierdo-Tort, S.; Jayachandran, S.; Saavedra, S. Redesigning payments for ecosystem services to increase cost-effectiveness. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 9252.
dc.relation.referencesFerraro, P.J.; Pattanayak, S.K. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e105
dc.relation.referencesFerraro, P.J. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Dir. Eval. 2009, 2009, 75–84
dc.relation.referencesPattanayak, S.K.; Wunder, S.; Ferraro, P.J. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2010, 4, 254–274.
dc.relation.referencesJayachandran, S.; de Laat, J.; Lambin, E.F.; Stanton, C.Y.; Audy, R.; Thomas, N.E. Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 2017, 357, 267–273.
dc.relation.referencesCharoud, H.; Costedoat, S.; Izquierdo-Tort, S.; Moros, L.; Villamayor-Tomás, S.; Castillo-Santiago, M.Á.; Wunder, S.; Corbera, E. Sustained participation in a payments for ecosystem services program reduces deforestation in a Mexican agricultural frontier. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22314
dc.relation.referencesBörner, J.; Baylis, K.; Corbera, E.; Ezzine-de-Blas, D.; Honey-Rosés, J.; Persson, U.M.; Wunder, S. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev. 2017, 96, 359–374.
dc.relation.referencesPresidencia de la República de Colombia. Decreto Ley 870 de 2017: Por el Cual se Establece el Pago por Servicios Ambientales y Otros Incentivos a la Conservación. Available online: https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i= 84633 (accessed on 9 May 2026).
dc.relation.referencesGobernación de Cundinamarca. “Yo Protejo, Agua Para Todos”, la Estrategia Para Conservar el Recurso Hídrico. 25 April 2018. Available online: https://www.cundinamarca.gov.co/noticias/YO%2BPROTEJO%2BAGUA%2BPARA%2BTODOS (accessed on 12 May 2026)
dc.relation.referencesTucker, C.J. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 1979, 8, 127–150.
dc.relation.referencesHuete, A.; Didan, K.; Miura, T.; Rodriguez, E.P.; Gao, X.; Ferreira, L.G. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 83, 195–213.
dc.relation.referencesHuete, A.R. A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI). Remote Sens. Environ. 1988, 25, 295–309
dc.relation.referencesMas, J.F. Assessing protected area effectiveness using surrounding (buffer) areas environmentally similar to the target area. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 105, 69–80
dc.relation.referencesRobalino, J.; Sandoval, C.; Barton, D.N.; Chacón, A.; Pfaff, A. Evaluating interactions of forest conservation policies on avoided deforestation. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0124910
dc.relation.referencesSchleicher, J.; Eklund, J.; Barnes, M.D.; Geldmann, J.; Oldekop, J.A.; Jones, J.P.G. Statistical matching for conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 34, 538–549
dc.relation.referencesDepartamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE). DIVIPOLA/MGN 2025 Geographic Service. Available online: https://geoportal.dane.gov.co/mparcgis/rest/services/Divipola/Serv_DIVIPOLA_MGN_2025/FeatureServer (accessed on 19 May 2026)
dc.relation.referencesCrawford, C.J.; Roy, D.P.; Arab, S.; Barnes, C.; Vermote, E.; Hulley, G.; Gerace, A.; Choate, M.; Engebretson, C.; Micijevic, E.; et al. The 50-year Landsat Collection 2 archive. Sci. Remote Sens. 2023, 8, 100103
dc.relation.referencesGorelick, N.; Hancher, M.; Dixon, M.; Ilyushchenko, S.; Thau, D.; Moore, R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 202, 18–27.
dc.relation.referencesNASA Earth Observatory. Measuring Vegetation (NDVI & EVI). Available online: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ MeasuringVegetation/measuring_vegetation_2.php (accessed on 14 May 2026)
dc.relation.referencesAngrist, J.D.; Pischke, J.-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2009.
dc.relation.referencesAshenfelter, O.; Card, D. Using the longitudinal structure of earnings to estimate the effect of training programs. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1985, 67, 648–660.
dc.relation.referencesCard, D.; Krueger, A.B. Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994, 84, 772–793.
dc.relation.referencesRoth, J.; Sant’Anna, P.H.C.; Bilinski, A.; Poe, J. What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. J. Econom. 2023, 235, 2218–2244.
dc.relation.referencesMiller, D.L. An introductory guide to event study models. J. Econ. Perspect. 2023, 37, 203–230.
dc.relation.referencesXu, S.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Qian, K.; Yang, X.; Ma, X. Evaluating the cumulative and time-lag effects of vegetation response to drought in Central Asia under changing environments. J. Hydrol. 2023, 627, 130455
dc.relation.referencesertler, P.J.; Martinez, S.; Premand, P.; Rawlings, L.B.; Vermeersch, C.M.J. Impact Evaluation in Practice, 2nd ed.; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016
dc.relation.referencesRoth, J. Pretest with caution: Event-study estimates after testing for parallel trends. Am. Econ. Rev. Insights 2022, 4, 305–322.
dc.relation.referencesRosenbaum, P.R.; Rubin, D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70, 41–55.
dc.relation.referencesStuart, E.A. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. 2010, 25, 1–21.
dc.relation.referencesAustin, P.C.; Stuart, E.A. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat. Med. 2015, 34, 3661–3679
dc.relation.referencesRambachan, A.; Roth, J. A more credible approach to parallel trends. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2023, 90, 2555–2591
dc.relation.referencesJack, B.K.; Kousky, C.; Sims, K.R.E. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9465–9470.
dc.relation.referencesMoros, L.; Vélez, M.A.; Quintero, D.; Tobin, D.; Pfaff, A. Temporary PES do not crowd-out and may crowd-in lab-in-the-field forest conservation in Colombia. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 204, 107652.
dc.relation.referencesEngel, S. The devil in the detail: A practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2016, 9, 131–177
dc.rights.licenseAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subject.ddc330 - Economía::333 - Economía de la tierra y de la energía
dc.subject.lembEcosystem services
dc.subject.lembPayments for ecosystem services
dc.subject.lembNature conservation
dc.subject.lembEnvironmental protection
dc.subject.lembVegetation monitoring
dc.subject.lembRemote sensing
dc.subject.lembSatellite imagery
dc.subject.lembLandsat satellites
dc.subject.lembGoogle Earth Engine
dc.subject.lembDifference-in-differences estimators
dc.subject.lembEnvironmental policy
dc.subject.lembEnvironmental economics
dc.subject.lembSustainable development
dc.subject.lembCundinamarca (Colombia)
dc.subject.ocde5. Ciencias Sociales
dc.subject.odsODS 15: Vida de ecosistemas terrestres. Proteger, restablecer y promover el uso sostenible de los ecosistemas terrestres, gestionar sosteniblemente los bosques, luchar contra la desertificación, detener e invertir la degradación de las tierras y detener la pérdida de biodiversidad
dc.subject.odsODS 11: Ciudades y comunidades sostenibles. Lograr que las ciudades y los asentamientos humanos sean inclusivos, seguros, resilientes y sostenibles
dc.subject.proposalPayments for Ecosystem Services
dc.subject.proposalVegetation dynamics
dc.subject.proposalNDVI
dc.subject.proposalEVI
dc.subject.proposalSAVI
dc.subject.proposalDifference-in-differences
dc.subject.proposalEvent study
dc.subject.proposalPropensity-score weighting
dc.subject.proposalRemote sensing
dc.subject.proposalCundinamarca
dc.titleQuasi-Experimental Evaluation of the Association Between Payments for Ecosystem Services and Satellite-Based Vegetation Dynamics in Cundinamarca, Colombia
dc.typeArtículo de revista
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.contentText
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication05296eb9-d150-47d6-b864-0ab844ce8f8d
relation.isAuthorOfPublication10b523e2-e33e-4b0e-8535-b22baf66af16
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery05296eb9-d150-47d6-b864-0ab844ce8f8d

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
Land_Quasi-Experimental Evaluation_AVergara_TJimenez_GBallut.pdf
Tamaño:
3.75 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Bloque de licencias

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
14.49 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción: