Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A guide to the literature jungle

We analyse a sample of 106 peer-reviewed articles, which is representative of the scientific literature. The sample is distributed in the categories of a published typology to map existing instruments; yet their multidimensionality is challenging. We further find that a great diversity of research methods and evaluation criteria, as well as terms, is used in the literature. It is also observed that a large number of articles does not use scientific methods with new data, but resort to mere advocacy instead. This lack of a common theoretical and empirical framework, as well as consensus or comparative studies that would strengthen their conclusions, makes it difficult for practitioners to draw robust policy-relevant results. Interestingly, the articles presenting positive, negative, and mixed results were in almost similar proportions in our review. Therefore the application of harmonized assessment methods to better defined categories of MBIs with key shared characteristics might support evidence-based policies. For instance funding, incentive and allocation instruments should be more consistently differentiated.