ArticleScientific reports2024
A novel deforestation risk and baseline allocation model for the next generation of nested REDD+ projects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Pivoting forestry and agricultural concessions toward conservation in Southeast Asia.Nature communications · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nature-based solutions that use a counterfactual scenario depend heavily on the methodology used to determine the business as usual (BAU) case, i.e., the "baseline." Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) projects traditionally set baselines using a "reference area" as a control for estimating BAU deforestation and emissions in the treatment (project) area. While the REDD+ market is shifting from project-based to nested approaches as countries increase their efforts to meet nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to the Paris agreement's global climate target, methodologies for allocating national baselines are not yet formalized and tested, despite an urgent need to scale the market. We present a novel method for mapping deforestation risk and allocating national forest reference emission levels (FREL) to projects: baseline allocation for assessed risk (BAAR). This approach provides a spatial predictor of future deforestation using a dynamic vector, and a method for allocating a FREL to differentiated risk areas at the project level. Here, we present BAAR using 34 REDD+ projects in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). We demonstrate the importance of risk-based FREL allocations to balance fitness for purpose and scientific rigor. We show how BAAR can be used by governments to focus voluntary carbon market finance in areas at highest risk of imminent deforestation, while maintaining alignment with nationally determined contribution (NDC) goals.
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.