CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Peatlands and Wetlands EcologyForest Management and PolicyLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Estimating the Societal Benefits of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Through Peatland Restoration

Pindilli, Emily, Sleeter, Rachel, Hogan, Dianna·2018·Ecological Economics
DOI 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.002

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Under current management practices, a peatland is a net carbon sink with a sequestration rate of 9.9 MtCO2 over the study period.

    “Under the third and fourth scenarios, the peatland is declared a net carbon sink with significant sequestration rates of 9.9 MtCO 2 and 16.5 MtCO 2 , respectively, over the entire period of study.”

    From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Pindilli et al. 2018

  • Under catastrophic fire under no management, a peatland is a net source of CO2 emissions, emitting 6.5 MtCO2 over the study period.

    “The results derived from this investigation showed that under the first two scenarios the peatland is declared a net source of CO 2 emissions, emitting 2.4 MtCO 2 and 6.5 MtCO 2 , respectively.”

    From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Pindilli et al. 2018

  • Under no management, a peatland is a net source of CO2 emissions, emitting 2.4 MtCO2 over the study period.

    “The results derived from this investigation showed that under the first two scenarios the peatland is declared a net source of CO 2 emissions, emitting 2.4 MtCO 2 and 6.5 MtCO 2 , respectively.”

    From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Pindilli et al. 2018

  • Management activities have a high impact on the carbon sequestration potential of wetland habitats.

    “This illustrates the high impact of management activities on the carbon sequestration potential of wetland habitats (Pindilli et al. 2018).”

    From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Pindilli et al. 2018

  • Under increased management activities, a peatland is a net carbon sink with a sequestration rate of 16.5 MtCO2 over the study period.

    “Under the third and fourth scenarios, the peatland is declared a net carbon sink with significant sequestration rates of 9.9 MtCO 2 and 16.5 MtCO 2 , respectively, over the entire period of study.”

    From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Pindilli et al. 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pindilli, E., Sleeter, R., & Hogan, D.
Affiliations
United States Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
Pindilli, Emily
ORCID
Venue
Ecological Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
154
Pages
145-155
ISSN
0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.002
OpenAlex
W2885695114
Cited by
21
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Ecological Economics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Geological Survey
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
peatland restoration, carbon sequestration, ecosystem services valuation, social cost of carbon, net ecosystem carbon balance, wildfire emissions, forest management scenarios, net present value, CO2 equivalent

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review