Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services
By E. Corbera. 2012
270 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e05e0ebe749b76760a27edcb4f52c7ba815e2b15
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
- G. Atkinson
- J. Dempsey
- E. Milner‐Gulland
- J. Fairhead
- Markus Lederer
- Daniel Suarez
- A. Dunlap
- S. Mourato
In Global and Planetary Change
- J. Dempsey
- E. Milner‐Gulland
- G. Atkinson
- Martin Herold
- E. Turnhout
- J. Fairhead
- Markus Lederer
- Daniel Suarez
Citations in the corpus
- Assessing the Relationship Between Human Well-being and Ecosystem Services: A Review of Frameworks (2014, background): “While such interventions aim to promote economic efficiency, little is known about how they affect well-being, particularly for vulnerable human populations (Milder et al. 2010; Schreckenberg et al. 2010; Corbera 2012; Clements and Milner-Gulland 2014).”
- The Militarisation and Marketisation of Nature: An Alternative Lens to ‘Climate-Conflict’ (2014, background): “This has caused concern as Corbera notes, REDD+ often enhances ‘inequalities in income and access to resources, particularly when pro-poor management measures are not adopted, as well as create[s] economic enclosures through territorialization for biodiversity and carbon conservation’.(93) As mentio”
- Arrested Development? The Promises and Paradoxes of “Selling Nature to Save It” (2016, background): “And even without much “truly” marketbased activity, mechanisms like PES might have the effect of redistributing “‘upward’ rather than ‘downward’” (Dressler, B€uscher, and Fletcher 2014, 248; see also Corbera, Kosoy, and Tuna 2007; Lansing 2010; Corbera 2012; McAfee 2012a, 2012b).”
- Envisioning REDD+ in a post‐Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice (2017, background): “According to many, this is risky because it could result in forests only being valued for their carbon content, a process termed carbonification(37) or carbonization,(36,39,40) thereby neglecting local realities and the needs of forest-dependent communities.(21,41,42) These criticisms resonate with ”