Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services

Open access
Birch, Jennifer C., Newton, Adrian C., Aquino, Claudia Alvarez, Cantarello, Elena, Echeverría, Cristian, Kitzberger, Thomas, Schiappacasse, Ignacio, Garavito, Natalia Tejedor·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Although ecological restoration is widely used to combat environmental degradation, very few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this approach. We examine the potential impact of forest restoration on the value of multiple ecosystem services across four dryland areas in Latin America, by estimating the net value of ecosystem service benefits under different reforestation scenarios. The values of selected ecosystem services were mapped under each scenario, supported by the use of a spatially explicit model of forest dynamics. We explored the economic potential of a change in land use from livestock grazing to restored native forest using different discount rates and performed a cost–benefit analysis of three restoration scenarios. Results show that passive restoration is cost-effective for all study areas on the basis of the services analyzed, whereas the benefits from active restoration are generally outweighed by the relatively high costs involved. These findings were found to be relatively insensitive to discount rate but were sensitive to the market value of carbon. Substantial variation in values was recorded between study areas, demonstrating that ecosystem service values are strongly context specific. However, spatial analysis enabled localized areas of net benefits to be identified, indicating the value of this approach for identifying the relative costs and benefits of restoration interventions across a landscape.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1003369107

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Birch, J. C., Newton, A. C., Aquino, C. A., Cantarello, E., Echeverría, C., Kitzberger, T., Schiappacasse, I., & Garavito, N. T.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-11-24
Volume
107
Issue
50
Pages
21925-21930
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1993453889
Cited by
263
References
4
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1003369107
The paper
Birch, J. C., Newton, A. C., Aquino, C. A., Cantarello, E., Echeverría, C., Kitzberger, T., Schiappacasse, I., & Garavito, N. T. (2010). Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003369107

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.