Cited by 24Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Rights and ReformsForest Management and Policy

Small-scale farmers' needs to end deforestation: insights for REDD+ in S�o Felix do Xingu (Par�, Brazil)

Schneider, C., Coudel, E., Cammelli, F., Sablayrolles, P.·2015·International Forestry Review

Abstract

REDD+ has been perceived in Brazil as a way of complementing an effective command-and-control policy to help small-scale farmers transition out of deforestation. A large array of incentives have been suggested within the REDD+ framework, involving trade-offs between efficiency and equity. However, few studies have so far addressed the adaptation of these incentives to the needs of the farmers. In order to develop this perspective, our work aims at understanding how small-scale farmers perceive deforestation and what would make them engage in a transition towards sustainable alternatives. Interviews were conducted in São Felix do Xingu, where The Nature Conservancy has been developing a REDD+ pilot programme. The three discourses identified following the application of Q methodology reveal differing needs to reduce deforestation. If equity is defined as the opportunity for all to engage in a transition, a differentiated REDD+ initiative targeting the farmers' needs may be more equitable than standardized support options.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1505/146554815814668963

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Economically vulnerable actors may carry the burden of transparency due to an absence of visibility of all actors of the supply chain.

    “Thus, economically vulnerable actors may carry the burden of transparency due to an absence of visibility of all actors of the supply chain (Schneider et al., 2015;Weber and Partzsch, 2018;Jakku et al., 2019).”

    From Making deforestation risk visible. Discourses on bovine leather supply chain in Brazil (2020) · cites this paper as Schneider et al., 2015

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneider, C., Coudel, E., Cammelli, F., & Sablayrolles, P.
Affiliations
  • Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (FR)
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
  • Groupe de Recherches et d'Echanges Technologiques (FR)
Venue
International Forestry Review
Published
2015-03-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
124-142
ISSN
1465-5489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016926229
Cited by
24
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 6
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The International Forestry Review (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
  • Agritrop (Cirad) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
REDD+, smallholder farmers, deforestation, farmer perceptions, sustainable livelihoods, equity-efficiency trade-off, Q methodology, São Félix do Xingu, The Nature Conservancy, pilot project, command-and-control policy

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