Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37095960›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Comparative analysis of managing plantation forests: The case of keeping plantation forests for carbon credit and industrial profits in Oromia Region, Ethiopia.

Gizaw Ebissa, Aramde Fetene, Hayal Desta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Gizaw EbissaEnvironmental Planning Ph.D. Program, EiABC, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Aramde FeteneEnvironmental Planning Competence Center, EiABC, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Hayal DestaEnvironmental Planning Competence Center, EiABC, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community-based organizations (CBOs) and individuals primarily engaged in forest management dedicated to carbon credit run both at national and regional levels. After a span of time elapsed in the same, CBOs and individuals aspired to shift the carbon-dedicated forest either into log or timber production based on an informed decision. However, there is no study done so which of these projects is financially more useful to them to make an informed decision. The objective of the study is, therefore, to make comparative analyses of plantation forests for carbon credit, round log and timber. The result has revealed that plantation forest managed for timber production is most attractive and rewarding in year 10 and year 15 both with and without discounting at 3%. Plantation forest managed for timber production enables the creation of a fixed asset than both carbon credit and log production. Plantation forests managed for the carbon credit, log production and timber production have externalities both positive and negative which must be considered while calculating the costs and benefits accrued thereof. There are existing and emerging risks associated with the carbon credit project which shifts from natural (forest) to technological abatement of climate change. The study is critical to understanding the benefits of future plantation forest investment. We, thus, conclude forest managed for timber production is financially more useful for CBOs and individuals than round log and carbon credit. We recommend CBOs and individuals to have adequate information on benefits and risks associated with plantation forests managed for carbon credit, round log and timber production before engaging in the investment.

Indexed as

Carbon creditComparative value of carbonLog productionPlantation forestTimber production

Identifiers

PMID37095960
PMCPMC10121802

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.