The Economics of REDD through an Incidence of Burdens and Benefits Lens

Robinson, Elizabeth; Somerville, Scott; Albers, Heidi J.

doi:10.1561/101.00000108

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the few cases of difference, typically the manager with the landscape perspective focuses small amounts of enforcement in more secondary PAs than does the manager focused only on avoided degradation in the PAs, while they both enforce at high levels in a primary PA. The REDD literature stresses the importance of incorporating leakage in assessing the level of avoided deforestation and forest degradation at the landscape level (Gregersen et al, 2010;Atmadja and Verchot, 2012;Albers and Robinson, 2013;Robinson et al, 2019). Our findings inform that discussion by suggesting that leakage matters less for the location decision of REDD PAs in settings with either active labor markets to absorb labor deterred from REDD PAs or in settings where spatial arbitrage opportunities have already been exploited.…”

Section: Leakage and A Landscape Perspectivesupporting

confidence: 63%

“…The on-going costs of enforcing access restrictions are largely ignored in the REDD and PA siting literatures and in management decisions (Robinson et al, 2019;Albers et al 2017;Rakatama et al, 2016). Börner et al (2014) and Brimont et al (2017) find enforcement costs of 15%-20% of opportunity or compensation costs for Brazil's REDD programs and for a REDD+ pilot project in Madagascar, respectively.…”

Section: Motivating Parameter Choices For Distance and Enforcement Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unless those program benefits are explicitly conditional on avoided forest degradation, they act as compensation rather than as incentives for forest conservation, and can lead to increased demand for forest products through an income effect. Many "integrated conservation-development projects" (ICDPs), which often resemble REDD initiatives implemented as protected areas (Blom et al, 2010;Robinson et al, 2019), fail to create incentives for conservation because of a lack of conditionality or other mechanism to "integrate" villager decisions (Muller and Albers, 2004;Kerr and Jindal, 2007;Blom et al, 2010;Sunderlin and Sills, 2012;Bausch et al, 2014).…”

Section: Combining Pas With Projects That Increase the Wagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Spatial protected area decisions to reduce carbon emissions from forest extraction

Albers

White

Robinson

et al. 2019

Spatial Economic Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected Areas (PA) can mitigate climate change by reducing carbon emissions that result from forest loss. Carbon emissions from forest degradation are a large component of forest loss and are often driven by the extraction decisions of resource-dependent households. PA policies must reflect how villagers use forests to be effective. Here, a spatial Nash equilibrium of extractors' uncoordinated forest extraction pattern decisions establishes a baseline of forest use patterns. Using that baseline, a manager chooses the location and enforcement level of PAs to maximize the avoided forest degradation in the landscape and in the PAs. Optimal PA locations depend on the labor market and the distance between forest patches. A combination of wageimproving projects and appropriately located protected areas increases avoided forest degradation.

show abstract

Section: Leakage and A Landscape Perspectivesupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Motivating Parameter Choices For Distance and Enforcement Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Combining Pas With Projects That Increase the Wagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial protected area decisions to reduce carbon emissions from forest extraction

Albers

White

Robinson

et al. 2019

Spatial Economic Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methods that provide benefits sharing or payments may compensate communities for reduced access to resources in reserves, making people better off, but they do not create incentives for people to reduce their species‐threatening actions in reserves. Creating incentives for conservation requires benefits sharing and payment for ecosystem service (PES) programs that provide benefits conditional on evidence that people avoid illegal activities in the reserve, which requires costly monitoring, in addition to the payments (Albers et al., 2017; Angelsen et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2019; Wunder, 2009). Incentive‐based policies include costs associated with providing benefits and with monitoring for changed behavior, whereas disincentive‐based policies include monitoring costs while imposing costly penalties on illegal activities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anticipating anthropogenic threats in acquiring new protected areas

Albers,

Chang,

Dissanayake

et al. 2023

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity continues to decline despite protected area expansion and global conservation commitments. Biodiversity losses occur within existing protected areas, yet common methods to select protected areas ignore post‐implementation threats that reduce effectiveness. We develop a framework for protected area planning with ongoing anthropogenic threats, considering planners who account for threats to species within protected areas and planners who consider costly threat‐mitigating activities. Accounting for threats and implementing threat‐mitigating activities increases benefits from protected areas without increasing budgets. Threat information can be valuable even without enforcement, especially on landscapes with randomly distributed threats. Benefits from including threat information and the ability to enforce are largest when human threats peak in areas of high species richness and lowest where human threats are negatively associated with species richness. Because acquiring information on threats and using threat‐mitigating activities are costly, our findings guide decision‐makers regarding in which settings to pursue these steps in planning.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

“…In Xishangbanna, in an effort to protect forest resources, a large number of people have been forced to return farmland for reconversion to forestland. This has affected farmers’ incomes negatively, and thus, their enthusiasm for protecting forestry has decreased [ 94 , 95 , 96 ]. In view of this, the government should establish an effective connection mechanism between farmers returning farmland to forests and the market to resolve the ironic contradictions that farmers typically face in this regard.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Socio-Economic Impacts as the Main Drivers of Carbon Stocks in China’s Tropical Rainforests: Implications for REDD+

Liu

Ren

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Active incentives or compensation measures plus conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (denoted together as “REDD+”) should be adopted in developing countries to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation. Identification and analysis of the driving forces behind carbon stocks are crucial for the implementation of REDD+. In this study, the principal component model and the stepwise linear regression model were used to analyze the social and economic driving forces of stocks in three important types of forest change: deforestation, forestland transformation, and forest degradation in China’s tropical rainforests of Xishuangbanna, based on the combination of satellite imagery and the normalized difference vegetation index. The findings show that there are different key driving forces that lead to carbon stock changes in the forest land conversion of Xishuangbanna. In particular, the agricultural development level is the main cause of emissions from deforestation, whereas poor performance of protection policies is the main cause of emissions from forest degradation. In contrast, the rural economic development interventions are significantly positive for emissions from forestland transformation. It is crucial to pay attention to distinguishing the driving forces behind carbon stock changes from forest degradation, deforestation, and transformation for optimizing REDD+ implementation and ensuring the effectiveness of REDD+.

show abstract

The Economics of REDD through an Incidence of Burdens and Benefits Lens

Cited by 8 publications

References 48 publications

Spatial protected area decisions to reduce carbon emissions from forest extraction

Spatial protected area decisions to reduce carbon emissions from forest extraction

Anticipating anthropogenic threats in acquiring new protected areas

Identification of Socio-Economic Impacts as the Main Drivers of Carbon Stocks in China’s Tropical Rainforests: Implications for REDD+

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About