“Carbon rights”, REDD+ and payments for environmental services
By Alain Karsenty, A. Vogel, Frédéric Castell. 2014
135 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b5da40dd5638bdc0dbdb6700bdb439567fa8d239
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
- S. Engel
- William D. Sunderlin
- Adeniyi P. Asiyanbi
- A. Angelsen
- Sven Wunder
- P. McElwee
- E. Milner‐Gulland
In Global and Planetary Change
- S. Engel
- William D. Sunderlin
- M. Brockhaus
- A. Angelsen
- Adeniyi P. Asiyanbi
- Sven Wunder
- P. McElwee
- L. Tacconi
Citations in the corpus
- The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services (2016, background): “For example, if increasing food and bioenergy prices increase the opportunity costs of avoided deforestation strongly in some areas, avoided deforestation in these areas may no longer be a cost-effective approach for carbon emission reductions (Karsenty et al., 2014).”
- Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities (2013, background): “This distinction between cost compensation and net gains (REDD+ rent) is rarely made explicit in the national or project debates around REDD+ (as also noted by Karsenty et al. 2012a), but we believe it is highly relevant.”
- A political ecology of REDD+: property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River (2016, background): “This aligns with the view of carbon right as a bundle of rights with actors having different rights within the bundle (cf. Karsenty et al., 2014).”