In order to achieve conservation and development, direct strategies, such as Payments for Environmental Services
(PES), have been claimed to be potentially more effective than indirect strategies, like Integrated Conservation
and Development Projects (ICDPs). However, PES have raised some concerns on the commodification
of nature and the potential replacement of non-chrematistic forms of valuing ecosystems. This article evaluates
PES and ICDPs in La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, by analyzing the programs' fund allocation, examining
conservation perceptions based on 731 structured interviews and presenting a detailed assessment of
ICDP/PES preferences in a community with the longest participation in both schemes. People receiving PES
tend to make the future of conservation contingent on monetary and utilitarian reasons, this preference
increasing with the number of years receiving PES. These are preferred for their directness and short-term results,
although raising concerns about the little social capital they generate. ICDPs are appreciated for arising
environmental awareness, being linked with long term conservation, productive capacity and social capital
building. Negative perceptions of ICDPs are related to past economic failures. Our results suggest that the
real issue is not PES vs. ICDPs but how to combine them to find the proper sequence while reinforcing intrinsic
value-based attitudes.