CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementSocial Sciences and HumanitiesForest Management and Policy

REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies

Open access
Pokorny, Benno, Scholz, Imme, de Jong, Wil·2013·Ecology and Society
DOI 10.5751/es-05458-180203
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Pokorny, B., I. Scholz, and W. de Jong. 2013. REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies. Ecology and Society 18(2): 3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05458-180203

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 · 10.5751/es-05458-180203

Cites

2 of 2 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 dominant agendas aimed at supply chain sustainability in the Amazon are neglectful of actors not involved in large-scale agricultural sectors.

    “However, it currently does so more despite than helped by the dominant agendas aimed at supply chain sustainability in the Amazon, which typically are neglectful of actors not involved in largescale agricultural sectors (Pokorny et al., 2013;Milhorance and Bursztyn, 2018;Londres et al., 2021).”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Pokorny et al., 2013

    The “Reasons for failure” section says market-oriented environmental and development projects widely ignore local practices and capacities. “Forestry development projects” says certification tends to marginalize small producers. These passages support the claim about neglect of smaller Amazonian actors, but the paper does not specifically characterize dominant supply-chain sustainability agendas as focused on large-scale agriculture. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 85

  1. Agrawal, A. 2007. Forests, governance, and sustainability: common property theory and its contributions. International Journal of the Commons 1(1):111-136.
  2. Altieri, M., F. Funes-Monzote, and P. Petersen. 2012. Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32(1): 1-13. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s13593-011-0065-6 · DOI
  3. Angelsen, A., and D. Kaimowitz, editors. 2001. Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation. CABI Publishing, Ecology and Society 18(2): 3 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art3/
  4. Wallingford, Oxon, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9780851- 994512.0000 · DOI
  5. Arts, B. and M. Buizer. 2009. Forests, discourses, institutions. A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 11:340-347. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.004 · DOI
  6. Benneker, C. 2008. Dealing with the State, the Market and NGOs: The Impact of Institutions on the Constitution and Performance of Community Forest Enterprises (CFE) in the Lowlands of Bolivia. PhD thesis. University of Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
  7. Börner J., and S. Wunder. 2008. Paying for avoided deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: from cost assessment to scheme design. International Forestry Review 10 (3):496-511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/ifor.10.3.496 Brazil's National Press. 2005. Lei n°11. 284/06. Diário Oficial da União. (O livro branco da grilagem de terras no Brasil). INCRA, Brasília, Brazil. · DOI
  8. Brondizio, E. S., C. A. M. Safar, and A. D. Siqueira. 2002. The urban market of açaí fruit (Euterpe oleracea Mart. ) and rural land use change: ethnographic insights into the role of price and land tenure constraining agricultural choices in the Amazon estuary. Urban Ecosystems 6:67-97. http://dx.doi. org/10.1023/A:1025966613562 · DOI
  9. Bunker, S. 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern State. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL, USA.
  10. Bursche, A. 2012. The Implementation of REDD+ Safeguards in Bilateral German Development Cooperation. An Application of Street-level Bureaucracy. MSc. thesis. University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
  11. Cano, W. 2012. Formal Institutions, Local Arrangements and Conflicts in the Northern Bolivian Communities after Forest Governance Reforms. Phd thesis. Scientific Series 15. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  12. Cerbu, G. A., B. M. Swallow, and D. Y. Thompson. 2010. Locating REDD: a global survey and analysis of REDD readiness and demonstration activities. Environmental Science and Policy 14(2):12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2010.09.007 · DOI
  13. De Jong, W., J. Börner, P. Pacheco, B. Pokorny, C. Sabogal, C. Benneker, W. Cano, C. Cornejo, K. Evans, S. Ruiz, and M. Zenteno. 2010. Amazon forests at the crossroads: pressures, responses, and challenges. Pages 283-298 in R. Alfaro, M. Kanninen, M. Lobovikov, G. Mery, B. Swallow, and J. Varjo, editors. Future of Forests -Responding to Global Changes. IUFRO, Vienna, Austria.
  14. De Jong, W., and S. Ruiz. 2012. Strangers among trees: Territorialisation and forest policies in the northern Bolivian Amazon. Forest Policy and Economics 16:65-70. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.02.004 · DOI
  15. Den Elzen, M., M. Roelfsema, A. Hof, H. Böttcher, and G. Grassi. 2012. Analysing the Emission Gap Between Pledged Emission Reductions under the Cancún Agreements and the 2°C Climate Target. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague/Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Ecology and Society 18(2): 3 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art3/
  16. De Schutter, O. 2011. How not to think of land-grabbing. Three critiques of large-scale investments in farmland. Peasant Studies Journal 38(2):249-279. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/03066150.2011.559008 · DOI
  17. Donovan, J., D. Stoian, and N. Poole. 2008. A global review of rural community enterprises. Rural Enterprise Development Collection 2. CATIE, Turialba, Costa Rica. European Tropical Forest Research Network (EFTRN). 2004. National forest programmes. EFTRN News 41-42.
  18. Ehringhaus, C. 2005. Post-victory Dilemmas: Land Use, Development Policies, and Social Movement in Amazonian Extractive Reserves. PhD thesis. Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT, USA.
  19. Erler, D., S. Frank, J. Hein, H. Hotz, A. Santacruz Melgarejo, and F. Zelli. 2011. Inclusión social en el proceso REDD en el Perú: una perspectiva de gobernanza en múltiples niveles. DIE/BMU/GIZ, Lima, Peru. [online] URL: http://www. die- gdi. de Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2010. Climate-smart agriculture. Policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation. Background paper for the Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change, held 31 October to 5 November 2010. FAO, Rome, Italy.
  20. Finnemore, M., and K. Sikkink. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52 (44):887-917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Fearnside, P. M. 2005. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology 19 (3):680-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00697. · DOI
  22. x · DOI
  23. Gasche, J. 2010. La ignorancia reina, la estupidez domina y la conchudez aprovecha. Engorde neo-liberal y dieta bosquesina. Revista Espaço Pedagógico 17(2):279-305.
  24. Hall, A. 2008. Better RED than dead: paying the people for environmental services in Amazonia. Biological Sciences 363 (1498):1925-1932. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.0034 · DOI
  25. Hecht, S. 2011. The Scramble for the Amazon and the "Lost Paradise" of Euclides da Cunha. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/97802- 26322834.001.0001 · DOI
  26. Herrera, J. A. 2011. Desenvolvimento capitalista e realidade da produção agropecuária familiar na Amazônia Paraense. PhD thesis. UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.
  27. Hoch, L., B. Pokorny, and W. de Jong. 2009. How successful is tree growing for smallholders in the Amazon? International Forestry Review 11(3):299-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/ ifor.11.3.299 · DOI
  28. Hoch, L., B. Pokorny, and W. de Jong. 2012. Financial attractiveness of smallholder tree plantations in the Amazon: bridging external expectations and local realities. Agroforestry Systems 84(3):361-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9480-1 · DOI
  29. Homma, A. K. O. 2006. Agricultura familiar na Amazônia: a modernização da agricultura itinerante. Pages 37-60 in I. S. F. Sousa, editor. Agricultura familiar na dinâmica da pesquisa agropecuária. Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, Brasília, Brazil. Ecology and Society 18(2): 3 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art3/
  30. Humphreys, D. 2008. The politics of 'avoided deforestation': historical context and contemporary issues. International Forestry Review 10(3):433-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/ ifor.10.3.433 · DOI
  31. Humphries, S. S., and K. A. Kainer. 2006. Local perceptions of forest certification for community-based enterprises. Forest Ecology and Management 235(1-3):30-43. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.07.027 · DOI
  32. Ibarra, E., M. Romero, and S. Gatter. 2008. Análisis del marco legal para el manejo forestal por pequeños productores rurales en la Amazonia ecuatoriana. SFA, Macas, Ecuador. · DOI
  33. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007. The physical science basis. Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. · DOI
  34. Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity without Growth. Economics for a Finite Planet. Earthscan, London, UK. · DOI
  35. Kanowski, P., C. McDermott, and B. W. Cashore. 2011. Implementing REDD+: lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environmental Science and Policy 14:111-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.007 · DOI
  36. Karsenty, A., A. Vogel, and F. Castell. In press. Carbon rights, REDD+ and payments for environmental services. Environmental Science and Policy. doi. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j. envsci.2012.08 013. · DOI
  37. Keen, B., and K. Haynes. 2009. A History of Latin America. · DOI
  38. th edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/980700 · DOI
  39. Larson, A., and F. Soto. 2008. Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33:213-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.environ.33.020607.095522 · DOI
  40. Le Quéré, C., M. R. Raupach, J. G. Canadell, G. Marland et al. 2009. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature Geoscience 2:831-836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ ngeo689 · DOI
  41. Masias, K. 2011. Challenges of Company-community Partnerships within REDD+: a Case Study of Brazil Nut Concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru. MSc thesis. University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
  42. McDermott, C., A. Helfgott, H. Schroeder, and L. Coad. 2012. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors, interests and ideas. Environmental Science and Policy 21: 63-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.007 · DOI
  43. Medina, G., B. Pokorny, and J. Weigelt. 2009a. The power of discourse: hard lessons for traditional forest communities in the Amazon. Forest Policy and Economics 11:392-397. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.11.004 · DOI
  44. Medina, G., B. Pokorny, and B. Campbell. 2009b. Loggers and development agents exercising power over Amazonian villagers. Development and Change 40(4):745-767. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01570.x · DOI
  45. Medina G., and B. Pokorny B. 2011. Avaliação financeira do manejo florestal comunitário. Novos Cadernos NAEA 14(2): 25-36.
  46. Milz, J. 1997. Guía para el establecimiento de sistemas agroforestales. 2 nd edition. DED, La Paz, Bolivia.
  47. Nelson, A. and K. M. Chomitz. 2011. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLOIS ONE 6(8):e22722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022722 · DOI
  48. Pacheco, P., E. Ibarra, P. Cronkleton, and P. Amaral. 2008. Politicas públicas que afectan el manejo forestal comunitario. Pages 201-228 in C. Sabogal, W. de Jong, B. Pokorny and B. Louman, editors. Manejo forestal comunitario en América Ecology and Society 18(2): 3 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art3/ tropical: experiencias, lecciones aprendidas y retos para el future. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
  49. Pacheco, P. 2009. Agrarian change, cattle ranching and deforestation: Assessing their linkages in Southern Pará. Environment and History 15:493-520. http://dx.doi. org/10.3197/096734009X12532652872072 · DOI
  50. Pacheco, P., W. de Jong, and J. Johnson. 2010. The evolution of the timber sector in lowland Bolivia: examining the influence of three disparate policy approaches. Forest Policy and Economics 12(4):271-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2009.12.002 · DOI
  51. Pacheco, P., D. Barry, A. Larson, and P. Cronkleton. 2012. The recognition of forest rights in Latin America: progress and shortcomings of forest tenure reforms. Society and Natural Resources 26(6):556-571. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/08941920.2011.574314 · DOI
  52. Padoch, C. and W. de Jong. 1987. Traditional agroforestry practices of native and peasant farmers of the lowland Peruvian Amazon. Pages 179-194, in H. L. Gholz, editor. Agroforestry: realities, possibilities and potentials. Martinus Nijhof Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  53. Padoch, C., E. Brondizio, S. Costa, M. Pinedo-Vasquez, R. R. Sears, and A. Siqueira. 2008. Urban forest and rural cities: multi-sited households, consumption patterns, and forest resources in Amazonia. Ecology and Society 13(2):2. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art2/.
  54. Padoch, C., J. Chota, W. de Jong, and J. Unruh. 1985. Amazonian agroforestry: a market-oriented system in Peru. Agroforestry Systems 3:47-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ · DOI
  55. BF00045738 · DOI
  56. Pantoja, M. D. 2008. Acordos entre empresas e comunidades para o manejo florestal: uma análise crítica do caso das comunidades da Reserva Extrativista Rio Preto-Jacundá em Machadinho da Oeste, Rondônia, Brasil. MSc thesis.
  57. Phillip, M., and B. Pokorny. 2008. Certification of NTFP. Concluding comments. Forest, Trees and Livelihoods 18 (1):91-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2008.9752620 · DOI
  58. Pitman, C. A. N., C. L. M. del Azaldegui, K. Salas, G. Vigo, and A. D. Lutz. 2007. Written accounts of an Amazonian landscape over the last 450 years. Conservation Biology 21 (1):253-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00576. · DOI
  59. x · DOI
  60. Pokorny, B. In press. Smallholders, forest management and rural development in the Amazon. Lessons learned from forestry initiatives with smallholders in the Bolivian, Brazilian, Ecuadorian, and Peruvian Amazon. Routlege, The Earthscan Forest Library, London, UK.
  61. Pokorny, B. and J. Johnson. 2008b. Estrategias de acompañamiento al manejo forestal comunitario. Pages 231- 278 in C. Sabogal, W. de Jong, B. Pokorny, B. Louman, editors. Manejo forestal comunitario en América Latina: experiencias, lecciones aprendidas y retos para el future. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
  62. Pokorny, B., and M. Steinbrenner. 2005. Collaborative monitoring of production and costs of timber harvest operations in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecology and Society 10 (1):3. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol10/iss1/art3/.
  63. Pokorny, B., W. de Jong, J. Godar, P. Pacheco, and J. Johnson. In press. From large to small: reorienting development policies in response to climate change, food security and poverty. Forest Policy and Economics. · DOI
  64. Pokorny, B., J. Johnson, G. Medina, and L. Hoch. 2012. Market-based conservation of the Amazonian forests: revisiting win-win expectations. Geoforum 43(3):387-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.08.002 · DOI
  65. Porro, N., C. Germana, C. López, G. Medina, Y. Ramírez, M. Amaral, and P. Amaral. 2008. Capacidades organizativas para el manejo forestal comunitario frente a las demandas y expectativas oficiales. Pages 163-194 in C. Sabogal, W. de Jong, B. Pokorny, and B. Louman, editors. Manejo forestal comunitario en América Latina: experiencias, lecciones aprendidas y retos para el future. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
  66. Porter-Bolland, L., A. E. Ellis, R. M. Guariguata, I. Ruiz- Mallén, S. Negrete-Yankelevich and V. Reyes-García. 2012. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 268(1):6-17. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Posey, D. A., E. Parker, L. F. da Silva, and J. Frechione. 1983. Resource exploitation in Amazônia: ethnoecological examples from four populations. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 52(8):163-203.
  68. Randers, J. 2012. 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. Report for the Club of Rome. Chelsea Green, Burlington, VT, USA. Ecology and Society 18(2): 3 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art3/
  69. Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., T. van Andel, C. Morsello, K. Otsuki, S. Rosendo, and I. Scholz. 2008. Forest-related partnerships in Brazilian Amazonia: there is more to sustainable forest management than reduced impact logging. Forest Ecology and Management 256(7):1482-1497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. foreco.2008.02.044 · DOI
  70. Rudel, T. K., O. T. Coomes, E. Moran, F. Achard, A. Angelsen, J. Xu, and E. Lambin. 2005. Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environmental Change 15:23-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.gloenvcha.2004.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Sato, R. 2010. Local benefits from payments for environmental services: Exploring the case of bolsa floresta in the Brazilian Amazon. MSc thesis. University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
  72. Scherr, S., A. White, and D. Kaimowitz. 2001. Making Markets Work for Forest Communities. Forest Trends, Washington D. C., USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1505/ IFOR.5.1.67.17423 · DOI
  73. Schmink, M., and C. Wood. 1992. Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA.
  74. Scholz, I. 2005. Environmental policy cooperation among organised civil society, national public actors and international actors in the Brazilian Amazon. European Journal of Development Research 17(4):681-705. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/09578810500367466 · DOI
  75. Silva, E., D. Kaimowitz, A. Bojanic, F. Ekoko, T. Manurung, and I. Pavez. 2002. Making the law of the jungle: the reform of forest legislation in Bolivia, Cameroon, Costa Rica, and Indonesia. Global Environmental Politics 2(3):63-97. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1162/152638002320310536 · DOI
  76. Simmons, S., R. T. Walker, and C. H. Wood. 2002. Tree planting by small producers in the tropics: A comparative study of Brazil and Panama. Agroforestry Systems 56(2):89- 105.
  77. United Nations (UN). 1987. Our Common Future (Brundtland Report). United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  78. Manejo, conservación y utilización de los recursos forestales en el trópico de Cochabamba y en las zonas de transición de los Yungas de La Paz. Fase II. AD/BOL/97/C23. La Paz, Bolivia. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2010. Regional Human Development Report for Latin America and Caribbean 2010: acting on the future breaking the intergene- racional transmission of inequality. UNDP, San José, Costa Rica. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2011. Report of the conference of the parties on its 16th session, held in Cancun 29 November to 10 December 2010. UN, New York.
  79. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2012. Report of the conference of the parties on its 17th session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.
  80. van der Werf, G. R., D. C. Morton, R. S. de Fries, J. G. J. Olivier, P. S. Kasibhatla, R. B. Jackson, G. J. Collatz, and J. T. Randerson. 2009. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience 2:737-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo671 · DOI
  81. Viana, V. 2010. Sustainable Development in Practice: Lessons Learned from Amazonas. Environmental Governance 3. IIED, London, UK. Ecology and Society 18(2): 3 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art3/
  82. Wagner, B. A. A. 2008. Terra de quilombo, terras indígenas, "babaçuais livre", "castanhais do povo", faixinais e fundos de pasto: terras tradicionalmente ocupadas. 2 nd edition. PGSCA/UFAM, Manaus, Brazil.
  83. Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests - what scope for synergies. World Development 19(11):1817- 1833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00070-5 · DOI · Paper page
  84. Zeller, M., and R. L. Meyer, editors. 2002. The triangle of microfiance: financial sustainability, outreach, and impact. The John Hopkins University Press, London, GB.
  85. Zenteno, M. 2012. Community Forest Management Success and Forest Management Plans: a Multidimensional Analysis for an on-going Process. PhD thesis. University of Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pokorny, B., Scholz, I., & de Jong, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • German Institute of Development and Sustainability (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Ecology and Society
Publisher
Resilience Alliance, Inc.
Published
2013
Volume
18
Issue
2
ISSN
1708-3087 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5751/es-05458-180203
OpenAlex
W2324989901
Cited by
125
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 3
FWCI
11.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Ecology and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (510903)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Sciences and Humanities
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
REDD+, pro-poor policy, environmental policy, Amazon, poverty, forest carbon payments, climate change mitigation, social equity, deforestation

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