Cited by 46Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesSocioeconomics of Resources and Conservation

Preserving Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in West African Forest, Watersheds, and Wetlands: A Review of Incentives

Open access
Ola, Oreoluwa, Benjamin, Emmanuel·2019·Forests

Abstract

While biodiversity and ecosystem services derived from the natural environment are the backbones of West African rural livelihood, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, conflicts, and climate change threaten the continued provision of ecosystem services. This threat creates an urgent need to safeguard the integrity of the environment. Evaluating the effectiveness of environmental conservation projects is central towards designing and scaling-up successful conservation projects. Using secondary literature and project reports, we reviewed ongoing and completed conservation projects in the West African sub-region. Scientific work on incentives for ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa typically focuses on Southern and Eastern Africa, leaving Western Africa underserved. This study fills this literature gap by compiling lessons from conservation projects in West Africa to offer region-specific incentives that should inform the design of conservation projects in the region. The study shows that the way forward is a holistic, sustainable development approach that mirrors and meets strategies outlined in Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, and 17: No Poverty, End Hunger and Promote Sustainable Agriculture, Gender Equality, Decent Work and Economic Growth, Climate Action, and Partnerships for the Goals, respectively.

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 · 10.3390/f10060479

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • The pygmy hippopotamus is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

    “This includes animals listed as Endangered in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, such as the pygmy hippopotamus (Choeropsis liberiensis; Ransom et al. 2015, Ola & Benjamin 2019).”

    From Forest loss during 2000–2019 in pygmy hippopotamus (<i>Choeropsis liberiensis</i>) habitats was driven by shifting agriculture (2024) · cites this paper as Ola & Benjamin 2019

    Section 3, “West African Wetlands, Watersheds, and Forests” (page not provided), names the pygmy hippopotamus among the most threatened mammalian species. It does not state that the species has the specific IUCN Red List classification of Endangered. (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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Bolt, K.; Cranston, G.; Maddox, T.; McCarthy, D.; Vause, J.; Vira, B.; Pearce-Higgins, J. Biodiversity at the Heart of Accounting for Natural Capital: The Key to Credibility; Cambridge Conservation International: Cambridge, UK, 2016.
  2. Mbow, M.; Skole, D.; Dieng, M.; Justice, C.; Kwesha, D.; Mane, L.; El Gamri, M.; Von Vordzogbe, V.; Virji, H. Challenges and Prospects for REDD+ in Africa: Desk Review of REDD+ Implementation in Africa; GLP Report No. 5. GLP-IPO; GLP International Project Office: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012.
  3. Bond, I.; Grieg-Gran, M.; Wertz-Kanounikoff Hazlewood, P.; Wunder, S.; Angelsen, A. Incentives to Sustain Forest Ecosystem Services A Review and Lessons for REDD; Natural Resouce Issues No. 16; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
  4. Booth, A.; Anthea, S.; Diana, P. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2016.
  5. Robison, R.; Findlay Brooks, R. West Africa: The Climate of Change Climate Change Impacts, Awareness and Preparedness across West Africa; University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership: Cambridge, UK, 2010.
  6. Masiga, M. Payments for Environmental Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: Taking stock and generating evidence for increased investment and development of PES. In Payment for Environmental Services Laying the Ground Work; Mogaka, H., Okeyo-Owuor, J., Kipkoech, A., Eds.; ASARECA: Entebbe, Uganda, 2011; pp. 83-105.
  7. FAO. A Review of Carbon Sequestration Projects; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 2004.
  8. Katoomba. Sweetening the Deal for Shade-Grown Cocoa: A Preliminary Review of Constraints and Feasibility of 'Cocoa Carbon' in Ghana; The Katoomba Group: Accra, Ghana, 2009.
  9. Appiah, M.; Fagg, M.; Pappinen, A. A review of reforestation approaches in Ghana: Sustainability and genuine local participation lessons for implementing REDD+ Activities. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2015, 131, 70-99.
  10. Chiramba, T.; Mugoi, S.; Martinez, I.; Jones, T. Payment for Environmental Services pilot project in Lake Naivasha Basin-A viable mechanism for watershed services that delivers sustainable natural resource management and improved livelihoods. In Proceedings of the UN-Water International Conference on Water in the Green Economy in Practice: Towards Rio, Zaragoza, Spain, 3-5 October 2011; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011; Volume 20.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ola, O., & Benjamin, E.
Affiliations
Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Ola, Oreoluwa
  • Benjamin, Emmanuel
Venue
Forests
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-05-31
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
479
ISSN
1999-4907 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946910675
Cited by
46
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Forests (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Technische Universität München
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
Keywords
biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, conservation incentives, West Africa, forest conservation, watershed management, wetland conservation, rural livelihoods, natural resource exploitation, climate change impacts, Sustainable Development Goals, sustainable development

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