Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD): an options assessment report
By A. Angelsen, Sandra A. Brown, Winrock International, C. Loisel, L. Peskett, C. Streck, D. Zarin. 2009
261 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/747e0a68dba857f667e66f801dfa150023da03ba
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- J. Milder
- C. Luttrell
- William D. Sunderlin
- L. Loft
- C. Bracer
- M. Gebara
- D. Kweka
- Alain Karsenty
Citations in the corpus
- 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).”
- Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. (2010, background): “…negotiation, and the parties appear poised both to allow carbon offsets from additional types of LULUCF projects, principally by reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), and to create more effective mechanisms for facilitating these activities (Angelsen et al. 2009).”
- Can “fragile states” decide to reduce their deforestation? The inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with respect to the REDD mechanism (2012, background): “Even though such ambitions are part of the so-called “phase 2” of the phased REDD+ approach (Zarin et al., 2009) backed by public funding, this is seen as a transitional stage for swiftly reaching “phase 3”(7) which is “based on performance”.”
- Tropical forest carbon assessment: integrating satellite and airborne mapping approaches (2009, background): “…many tropical countries will rely initially on Tier I levels of accuracy based on average biomass and soil carbon values assigned for biomes and large geographic regions, which will generate large uncertainties and thus potentially lower carbon credits (Gibbs et al 2007, Angelson et al 2009).”