Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32832067›Full record

ReviewInterface focus2020

Forest policy and management approaches for carbon dioxide removal.

Nicolena vonHedemann, Zachary Wurtzebach, Thomas J Timberlake, Emily Sinkular, Courtney A Schultz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interface focus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicolena vonHedemannDepartment of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, 1401 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1376-7927
Zachary WurtzebachCenter for Large Landscape Conservation, Bozeman, MT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1795-1852
Thomas J TimberlakeDepartment of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, 1401 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3998-2657
Emily SinkularDepartment of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, 1401 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Courtney A SchultzDepartment of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship, Colorado State University, 1401 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9972-7802

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forests increasingly will be used for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a natural climate solution, and the implementation of forest-based CDR presents a complex public policy challenge. In this paper, our goal is to review a range of policy tools in place to support use of forests for CDR and demonstrate how concepts from the policy design literature can inform our understanding of this domain. We explore how the utilization of different policy tools shapes our ability to use forests to mitigate and adapt to climate change and consider the challenges of policy mixes and integration, taking a close look at three areas of international forest policy, including the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and voluntary carbon offset markets. As it is our expertise, we then examine in detail the case of the USA as a country that lacks aggressive implementation of national climate policies but has potential to increase CDR through reforestation and existing forest management on both public and private land. For forest-based CDR to succeed, a wide array of policy tools will have to be implemented in a variety of contexts with an eye towards overcoming the challenges of policy design with regard to uncertainty in policy outcomes, policy coherence around managing forests for carbon simultaneously with other goals and integration across governance contexts and levels.

Indexed as

climate mitigationnatural climate solutionpolicy designpolicy toolsREDD+US Forest Service

Identifiers

PMID32832067
PMCPMC7435043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.