Payment-for-Ecosystem-Services (PES) has been promoted as an innovative approach to environmental governance capable of simultaneously advancing conservation and sustainable development objectives. While studies commonly assess the ecological and economic performance of PES schemes, less attention has been given to their organizational and administrative effectiveness. This study examines these governance dimensions of one of Latin America’s most prominent PES initiatives—the Water Producer Program (WPP) in Brazil. Drawing on a meta-synthesis of 125 publications, the analysis investigates how regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutional forces shaped WPP implementation. Guided by neo-institutional theory and institutional bricolage, findings show that WPP governance operated through hybrid and adaptive institutional arrangements developed in response to administrative constraints, land tenure ambiguities, and uneven organizational capacity. These exploratory findings highlight a need for expanded social science inquiry into the administrative dimensions of PES schemes to aid initiatives like the WPP in achieving their objectives in the future.
AguiarF. R. (2017). O Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais sob a Ótica do Produtor Rural no Município de Rio Claro/RJ. Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. [Master Thesis]. https://rima.ufrrj.br/jspui/handle/20.500.14407/12038
AndradeA. P. S.GrzebieluckasC.FrançaR. N. C.PinheiroR. H.EstevinhoT. A. D. (2020). Políticas públicas de conservação ambiental baseadas no instrumento econômico de pagamento por serviços ambientais: avaliação dos atores sobre a experiência pioneira em Mato Grosso. Brazilian Journal of Development, 6(3), 15340–15352. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv6n3-418
6.
BarretoJ. B.FreitasP. A. B.FontgallandI. L.MacriL. M. S. R.EstrelaT. F. (2020). Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais (PSA): um estudo acerca da legislação brasileira e da estruturação de acordos. Research, Society, and Development, 9(12), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i12.11306
7.
BebbingtonA. J.BatterburyS. P. J. (2001). Transnational livelihoods and landscapes: Political ecologies of globalization. Ecumene: A Journal of Environment, Culture and Society, 8(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/096746080100800401
8.
BenincáM. D. C. (2019). O programa Produtor de Água e a Questão do Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável no Contexto do Município de Rio Verde/GO. [Universidade Federal de Goiás]. [Doctoral Dissertation]. https://files.cercomp.ufg.br/weby/up/180/o/MAINARA_-TESE_FINAL.pdf
9.
BennettD. E.GosnellH. (2015). Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social-ecological systems framework. Ecological Economics, 116, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.019
BezerraL. A. V.GarcezD. S.Campos da SilvaM.Gurgel-LourençoR. C.PintoL. M.ValentimG. A.BatistaL. B.AvelarV. S.SiqueiraW. L. X.LoiolaS. C.RossiS.Gaspar de FreitasJ.Sánchez-BoteroJ. I. (2025). BRValuation: A systematic comparison of ecosystem services across Brazilian biomes and ecosystems. Environmental Development, 56(3), 101279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2025.10127
12.
BörnerJ.BaylisK.CorberaE.Ezzine-de-BlasD.Honey-RosésJ.PerssonU. M.WunderS. (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development, 96(2), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020
13.
BremerL. L.AuerbachD. A.GoldsteinJ. H.VoglA. L.ShemieD.KroegerT.NelsonJ. L.BenítezS. P.CalvacheA.GuimarãesJ.HerronC.HigginsJ.KlemzC.LeónJ.Sebastián LozanoJ.MorenoP. H.NuñezF.VeigaF.TiepoloG. (2016). One size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American water funds partnership. Ecosystem Services, 17(1), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.006
14.
BremerL. L.HamelP.Ponette-GonzálezA. G.PompeuP. V.SaadS. I.BraumanK. A. (2020). Who are we measuring and modeling for? Supporting multilevel decision-making in watershed management. Water Resources Research, 56(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026011
15.
CalvacheA.BenítezS.RamosA. (2012). Fondos de Agua: Conservando la Infraestructura Verde. Guía de Diseño, Creación y Operación. Alianza Latinoamericana de Fondos de Agua. The Nature Conservancy, Fundación FEMSA y Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (p. 144–p). Bogotá, Colombia. https://www.nature.org/media/freshwater/latin-america-water-funds.pdf.
16.
Calvet-MirL.CorberaE.MartinA.FisherJ.Gross-CampN. (2015). Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: A closer look at effectiveness and equity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14(June), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.001
de Souza PaivaR. F.CoelhoR. C. (2015). O Programa Produtor de Água e Floresta de Rio Claro/RJ enquanto ferramenta de gestão ambiental: o perfil e a percepção ambiental dos produtores inscritos. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 33(1), 36702. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v33i0.36702
22.
EngelS.PagiolaS.WunderS. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011
FioreF. A.BardinidosV. S.S.NovaesR. C. (2017). Monitoramento da qualidade de águas em programas de pagamento por serviços ambientais hídricos: Estudo de caso no município de São José dos Campos/SP. Engenharia Sanitaria e Ambiental, 22(6), 1141–1150. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-41522017165072
26.
FioriniA. C. O.SwisherM.PutzF. E. (2020). Payment for environment services to promote compliance with brazil’s forest code: The case of “Produtores de Agua e Floresta.”. Sustainability, 12(19), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198138
GarciaJ. M.LongoR. M. (2020). Análise comparativa dos programas de Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais hídricos em Extrema/MG e Campinas/SP. Periódico Eletrônico Fórum Ambiental da Alta Paulista, 16(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.17271/1980082716620202663
29.
GebaraM. F. (2019). Understanding institutional bricolage: What drives behavior change towards sustainable land use in the eastern amazon?International Journal of the Commons, 13(1),637–659. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.913
HoonC. (2013). Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 522–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113484969
34.
IorisA. A. R. (2013). Rethinking brazil’s pantanal wetland: Beyond narrow development and conservation debates: Beyond narrow development and conservation debates. The Journal of Environment & Development, 22(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496513493276
35.
JaimeM. A. dos S. (2018). Programa Produtor de Água do Ribeirão Joao Leite, Goiás: Diagnostico e Percepção Ambiental na Sub-bacia do Córrego Das Pedras, Em Ouro Verde de Goiás, GO. [Master Thesis, Centro Universitário de Anápolis]. https://repositorio.aee.edu.br/handle/aee/1861
36.
JardimM. H.BursztynM. A. (2015). Pagamento por serviços ambientais na gestão de recursos hídricos: o caso de Extrema (MG). Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, 20(03), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41522015020000106299
KfouriA.FaveroF. (2011). Projeto conservador das águas passo a passo: uma descrição didática sobre o desenvolvimento da primeira experiência de pagamento por uma prefeitura municipal no Brasil. Série Água, Clima e Floresta, Vol. 4. The Nature Conservancy, Brasilia, p. 60.
39.
KlamtP. M. K.ArendS. C.JohnN. S. (2019). Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais: Normatização e Efetivação do Projeto Protetor das Águas-Vera Cruz, RS. Desenvolvimento Regional: Processos, Políticas e Transformações Territoriais Santa Cruz do Sul, RS, Brasil, 11(13), 2019. https://online.unisc.br/acadnet/anais/index.php/sidr/article/view/19079
40.
KroegerT.KlemzC.BoucherT.FisherJ. R. B.AcostaE.CavassaniA. T.Dennedy-FrankP. J.GarbossaL.BlainskiE.SantosR. C.GibertiS.PetryP.ShemieD.DacolK. (2019). Returns on investment in watershed conservation: Application of a best practices analytical framework to the rio camboriú water producer program, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, 657(3), 1368–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.116
MeloJ. P. F. M. (2013). O Projeto Produtor de Água no Pipiripau (DF) e o Pagamento por Serviços. [Masters Thesis, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz]. https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/36288
MeyerJ.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
45.
MoreiraM. M. C. dos S. (2019). A governança de bens comuns e o Projeto Produtor de Água no Pipiripau: um estudo de governança hídrica no Centro-Oeste. [Masters Thesis, Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público]. https://repositorio.idp.edu.br/handle/123456789/2672
46.
NoblitG. W.HareR. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies: Sage Publications.
47.
NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance: Cambridge University Press.
48.
PaavolaJ.HubacekK. (2013). Ecosystem services, governance, and stakeholder participation: An introduction. Ecology and Society, 18(4), art42. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06019-180442
49.
PagiolaS.PlataisG.SossaiM. (2019). Protecting natural water infrastructure in Espírito Santo, Brazil. Water Economics and Policy, 5(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382624X18500273
PereiraS. N. C. (2010). Payment for environmental services in the Amazon forest: How can conservation and development be reconciled?The Journal of Environment & Development, 19(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496510368047
53.
PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. (Eds.), (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: University of Chicago Press.
54.
RamosD. A. L.AguiarF. R.VillelaL. E. (2016). O projeto Produtores de Água e Floresta em Rio Claro-RJ: uma análise da governança no projeto sob a ótica da gestão social. O Social Em Questão, 19(36), 177–196. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5522/552264396008/html/.
RichardsR. C.RerolleJ.AronsonJ.PereiraP. H.GonçalvesH.BrancalionP. H. S. (2015). Governing a pioneer program on payment for watershed services: Stakeholder involvement, legal frameworks and early lessons from the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Ecosystem Services, 16(5), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.09.002
57.
RoseA. A. B. (2016). Análise de benefícios socioeconômicos para participantes do Projeto Produtor de Água com destaque para o PSA (pagamento por serviços ambientais) – um estudo de caso da bacia do Pipiripau DF/GO. [Masters Thesis, Universidade Católica de Brasília]. https://bdtd.ucb.br:8443/jspui/handle/tede/2096
58.
RousseauD. M.ManningJ.DenyerD. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field’s full weight to scientific knowledge through synthesis. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475–515. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211651
59.
SaffordT. G. (2010). The political-technical divide and collaborative management in Brazil’s taquari basin. The Journal of Environment & Development, 19(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496509355275
60.
SalzmanJ.BennettG.CarrollN.GoldsteinA.JenkinsM. (2018). The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0
SchomersS.MatzdorfB. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services, 6(4), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002
64.
SchulzC.IorisA. A. R.Martin-OrtegaJ.GlenkK. (2015). Prospects for payments for ecosystem services in the Brazilian pantanal: A scenario analysis. The Journal of Environment & Development, 24(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496514548580
65.
ScottW. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities: Sage.
66.
StevensonH.AuldG.AllanJ. I.ElliottL.MeadowcroftJ. (2021). The practical fit of concepts: Ecosystem services and the value of nature. Global Environmental Politics, 21(2), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00587
67.
ToyeF.SeersK.AllcockN.BriggsM.CarrE.BarkerK. (2014). Meta-ethnography 25 years on: Challenges and insights for synthesizing a large number of qualitative studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-80
68.
van NoordwijkM.LeimonaB.JindalR.VillamorG. B.VardhanM.NamirembeS.TomichT. P.KerrJ.MinangP. A. (2012). Payments for environmental services: Evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 389–420. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042511-150526
VianiR. A. G.BracaleH.TaffarelloD. (2019). Lessons learned from the water producer project in the Atlantic forest, Brazil. Forests, 10(11), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10111031
71.
WaylenK. A.Martin-OrtegaJ. (2018). Surveying views on payments for ecosystem services: Implications for environmental management and research. Ecosystem Services, 29(4), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.007
72.
WilburnE.BremerL. L.BraumanK. A.GouldR.SeehusenS.PradoK. A.HamelP. (2017). Voices from the field: Participant perspectives on growth and sustainability opportunities for water producer projects: Natural Capital Project.
WunderS.BörnerJ.Ezzine-De-BlasD.FederS.PagiolaS. (2020). Payments for environmental services: Past performance and pending potentials. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12(1), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094206
75.
ZanellaM. A.SchleyerC.SpeelmanS. (2014). Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil. Ecological Economics, 105(3), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.004
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
