Win-win REDD+ approaches belie carbon-biodiversity trade-offs
By J. Phelps, Daniel A. Friess, E. Webb. 2012
158 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5e9737c3d52b0543114d4fda6bd19fb22639eb71
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
- A. Angelsen
- Sven Wunder
- Erin Sills
- William D. Sunderlin
- Constance L. McDermott
- B. Cashore
- I. Resosudarmo
- S. Engel
In Global and Planetary Change
- A. Angelsen
- Sven Wunder
- William D. Sunderlin
- Erin Sills
- Constance L. McDermott
- B. Cashore
- S. Engel
- P. McElwee
Citations in the corpus
- REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe (2014, background): “A key concern is that preferential targeting of REDD+ in high carbon areas could lead to the displacement of land-use pressure (leakage) into high biodiversity but low carbon areas (Harrison and Paoli 2012) or divert funds for conservation away from high biodiversity areas with lower carbon (Phelps ”
- Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates on the breadth of REDD+. (2012, background): “Also, the extent to which REDD+ will achieve biodiversity conservation is not only dependent on its design, but also implementation [24], for example, choosing reforestation with diverse native species versus monocultures of exotic species [12,32].”