Modeling trade-offs across carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and equity in the distribution of global REDD+ funds
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Deforestation is a key driver of climate change. The program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is one of the major attempts to tackle climate change mitigation in developing countries. The program intends to provide result-based incentives to countries that reduce deforestation. We model various future scenarios of the distribution of REDD+ funds and assess how each scenario would contribute to reducing carbon emissions and to conserving biodiversity under different distributional equity rules. Results help to understand how the inclusion of distributional equity affects biodiversity and climate objectives under REDD+, and they provide insights about potential synergies and trade-offs between environmental and equity targets in broader policy arenas such as those related to the Sustainable Development Goals.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Regionally adapted restoration activities have large potential to support climate change mitigation while simultaneously reducing climate change impacts on ecosystems and people, with added benefits for multiple ecosystem services.
“These analyses demonstrate that regionally adapted restoration activities have large potential to support climate change mitigation while simultaneously reducing climate change impacts on ecosystems and people, with added benefits for multiple ecosystem services.”
From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [99]
The paper’s summary and its section on synergies between forest-based carbon emission reduction and biodiversity conservation describe modeled REDD+ scenarios with climate-mitigation and biodiversity benefits. They do not establish that regionally adapted restoration reduces climate-change impacts on ecosystems and people or provides benefits across multiple ecosystem services; the analysis concerns allocation of REDD+ funds, not those restoration outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research
Klinsky, S., Roberts, T., Huq, S., Okereke, C., Newell, P., Dauvergne, P., O’Brien, K., Schroeder, H., Tschakert, P., Clapp, J., et al. (2017) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.08.002 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- B. S. Halpern et al., Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 6229-6234 (2013).
- W. Steffen et al., Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
- N. S. Diffenbaugh, M. Burke, Global warming has increased global economic in- equality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 9808-9813 (2019).
- IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, New York, NY, 2013), p. 1535.
- G. Kindermann et al., Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 10302-10307 (2008).
- S. Nakhooda et al., Climate Finance: Is It Making a Difference. A Review of the Ef- fectiveness of Multilateral Climate Funds (Overseas Development Institute, London, 2014).
- A. Chhatre et al., Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: A review of the adja- cent possible. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 654-660 (2012).
- S. N. Panfil, C. A. Harvey, REDD+ and biodiversity conservation: A review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 REDD+ projects. Conserv. Lett. 9, 143-150 (2016).
- E. Turnhout et al., Envisioning REDD+ in a post-Paris era: Between evolving ex- pectations and current practice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 8, e425 (2017).
- O. Venter et al., Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 326, 1368 (2009).
- H. Schroeder, C. McDermott, Beyond carbon: Enabling justice and equity in REDD+ across levels of governance. Ecol. Soc. 19, 31 (2014).
- Y. Dujardin, I. Chadès, Solving multi-objective optimization problems in conservation with the reference point method. PLoS One 13, e0190748 (2018).
- C. J. Brown et al., Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, E4342 (2015).
- C. White, B. S. Halpern, C. V. Kappel, Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 4696-4701 (2012).
- L. R. Gerber, Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 3563-3566 (2016).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K.-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W. A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2021) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
- Authors
- Palomo, I., Dujardin, Y., Midler, E., Robin, M., Sanz, M. J., & Pascual, U.
- Affiliations
- Basque Centre for Climate Change (ES)
- Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (FR)
- Osnabrück University (DE)
- École Nationale Supérieure des Sciences Agronomiques de Bordeaux-Aquitaine (FR)
- Ikerbasque (ES)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2019-10-21
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 45
- Pages
- 22645-22650
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC6842634
- OpenAlex
- W2981787605
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Communities in ADDI (Universidad del Pais Vasco) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion)
- Hispana (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (IJCI-2016-28475, MDM‐2017‐0714)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Keywords
- REDD+, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, social equity, fund allocation, deforestation, forest degradation, climate change mitigation, trade-offs, international climate finance, emission reduction targets, forest carbon sink
- MeSH terms
- Conservation of Natural Resources, Financial Management, Trees, Models, Econometric, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Carbon Sequestration, Forests
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
