Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs are used to achieve both ecosystem services and human well-being objectives. PES employs various governance structures, from top-down, national programs to local, community-managed initiatives. We compare the land use, ecosystem services and human well-being impacts of Costa Rica's national PES program with local PES programs in the Bellbird Biological Corridor. We found no difference in well-being between local PES participants and the control group; however, national PES participants had significantly larger properties and incomes than non-participants. Although many of the national PES sites contain large forested areas, the program did not incentivize changes in land use and therefore did not generate additionality. Reforestation activities are widespread in the study area and have generated locally-important ecosystem services; however, these activities cannot be attributed to current local PES due to widespread reforestation within the control group. Nonetheless, participants in local PES have planted a greater diversity of tree species, suggesting reforestation under local PES may have improved ecological benefits. Our findings suggest that while the additional, non-economic benefits of PES in this region are limited, local PES has more effectively engaged with those who are less economically prosperous, and reforestation has improved ecosystem services provisioning. •PES governance can influence social and environmental outcomes.•Local PES has facilitated the planting of a greater diversity of tree species.•Top-down PES is generating limited additionality but may have spill-over benefits.•Local PES is better engaging with those that have smaller incomes and properties.•Reforestation activities have had important social and environmental impacts.