ArticleNature communications2023
Uncertainties in deforestation emission baseline methodologies and implications for carbon markets.
Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pivoting forestry and agricultural concessions toward conservation in Southeast Asia.Nature communications · 2026Article
- UAV-based mangrove biomass estimation and carbon potential valuation in North Sumatra, Indonesia.Carbon balance and management · 2026Article
- Learning lessons from over-crediting to ensure additionality in forest carbon credits.Nature communications · 2026Article
- On the potential for strategic behavior in jurisdictional REDD.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Global patterns of commodity-driven deforestation and associated carbon emissions.Nature food · 2026Article
- Transparency, robustness, and consistency in aboveground forest carbon quantification methodologies used for tropical forest carbon projects: a review in Southeast Asia.Carbon balance and management · 2025Review
- An open-access database of nature-based carbon offset project boundaries.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Charting the future of high forest low deforestation jurisdictions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Carbon credits generated through jurisdictional-scale avoided deforestation projects require accurate estimates of deforestation emission baselines, but there are serious challenges to their robustness. We assessed the variability, accuracy, and uncertainty of baselining methods by applying sensitivity and variable importance analysis on a range of typically-used methods and parameters for 2,794 jurisdictions worldwide. The median jurisdiction's deforestation emission baseline varied by 171% (90% range: 87%-440%) of its mean, with a median forecast error of 0.778 times (90% range: 0.548-3.56) the actual deforestation rate. Moreover, variable importance analysis emphasised the strong influence of the deforestation projection approach. For the median jurisdiction, 68.0% of possible methods (90% range: 61.1%-85.6%) exceeded 15% uncertainty. Tropical and polar biomes exhibited larger uncertainties in carbon estimations. The use of sensitivity analyses, multi-model, and multi-source ensemble approaches could reduce variabilities and biases. These findings provide a roadmap for improving baseline estimations to enhance carbon market integrity and trust.
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.