ArticleAmbio2023
Reforming a pre-existing biodiversity conservation scheme: Promoting climate co-benefits by a carbon payment.
Article in Ambio, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Protecting forests provides potential synergies for both biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes are commonly used to promote biodiversity conservation in private forests, and including carbon as another target may be a cost-efficient way to promote both goals. We analyse a hypothetical reform on a forest biodiversity PES scheme by supplementing it with a carbon payment paid to landowners for also providing carbon benefits. With a site selection model, we examine how the proposed scheme could promote biodiversity and carbon values, and what level of the carbon payment would provide the highest synergy gains. We found that introducing the payment promotes both targets, but there is a temporal trade-off between selecting sites with high carbon storage or sites with good sequestration potential. The highest synergy gains are obtained in most cases by a second-best payment level of 10-20 € tCO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.