Does the opportunity cost approach indicate the real cost of REDD+ ? Rights and realities of paying for REDD+

By H. Gregersen, H. Lakany, Alain Karsenty, A. White. 2010

123 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities (2013, methodology): “Descriptions of the GCS methods and surveys are provided in Sunderlin et al. (2010), Brockhaus et al. (2012), Brockhaus and Di Gregorio (2012), and Verchot et al. (2012).”
Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution (2011, background): “Opportunity costs are not static: they change with market forces and technological changes (Gregersen et al. 2010).”
Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico (2011, background): “, 2010; Heal, 2000) and the problems attached to the opportunity cost approach for establishing it (Gregersen et al., 2010).”
Effects of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) on Deforestation and Poverty in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review (2014, background): “Along similar lines, Gregersen et al. (2010) further problematize opportunity cost analyses by pointing out that some opportunity costs may be illegal or based on informal markets (e.g., illegal timber trade or slash and burn farming), making it especially difficult to establish clear opportunity…”