IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/masfgc/v19y2014i6p621-640.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: a Q methodology application

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Nijnik
  • Albert Nijnik
  • Emmy Bergsma
  • Robin Matthews

Abstract

Making the concept of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) ready to be a mechanism to combat tropical deforestation and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by compensating developing countries for income foregone in reducing their rates of deforestation, requires solutions for outstanding controversies. Existing opinions on REDD+ vary greatly. By using the Q-method as part of an action research approach, this paper investigates experts’ attitudes towards REDD+. Based on their responses to 41 statements, four attitudinal groups were identified, characterized as pragmatists, sceptics, conventionalists and optimists. Opinions between groups differed as to the level of application, credibility, eligibility, economic effectiveness, and public acceptability of REDD+ policy instruments. Three of the four groups were supportive of international REDD+ type policy interventions, but there was disagreement on the more concrete design issues of REDD+ projects, such as the allocation of responsibilities, the distribution of burdens and benefits, and whether or not co-benefits could be expected, or should be required. As the potential of REDD+ is shaped not only by international climate policy but also by national and regional policies and stakeholder perceptions, this paper suggests that participatory forms of decision-making may help to develop tailor-made solutions that are supported by the many different actors that are necessarily involved in REDD+ projects. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Nijnik & Albert Nijnik & Emmy Bergsma & Robin Matthews, 2014. "Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: a Q methodology application," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 621-640, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:19:y:2014:i:6:p:621-640
    DOI: 10.1007/s11027-013-9529-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11027-013-9529-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11027-013-9529-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth M. Chomitz, 2002. "Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: how do forestry and energy projects compare?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 35-49, March.
    2. G. C. van Kooten, 2004. "Climate Change Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3424.
    3. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2013. "The State of Food and Agriculture, 2013," Working Papers id:5511, eSocialSciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adams, Marshall Alhassan & Carodenuto, Sophia, 2023. "Stakeholder perspectives on cocoa’s living income differential and sustainability trade-offs in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    2. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Nijnik, Maria & Nijnik, Anatoliy & Sarkki, Simo & Muñoz-Rojas, Jose & Miller, David & Kopiy, Serhiy, 2018. "Is forest related decision-making in European treeline areas socially innovative? A Q-methodology enquiry into the perspectives of international experts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 210-219.
    4. Rodríguez-Piñeros, Sandra & Martínez-Cortés, Oscar & Villarraga-Flórez, Liz & Ruíz-Díaz, Alejandra, 2018. "Timber market actors' values on forest legislation: A case study from Colombia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Jin-Myong Lee & Hyo-Jung Kim & Jong-Youn Rha, 2017. "Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Robin Matthews & Meine Noordwijk & Eric Lambin & Patrick Meyfroidt & Joyeeta Gupta & Louis Verchot & Kristell Hergoualc’h & Edzo Veldkamp, 2014. "Implementing REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation): evidence on governance, evaluation and impacts from the REDD-ALERT project," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 907-925, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nijnik, Maria & Bizikova, Livia, 2008. "Responding to the Kyoto Protocol through forestry: A comparison of opportunities for several countries in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 257-269, February.
    2. Maria Nijnik & Guillaume Pajot, 2014. "Accounting for uncertainties and time preference in economic analysis of tackling climate change through forestry and selected policy implications for Scotland and Ukraine," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 677-690, June.
    3. Lars Christian Gansel & David R Plew & Per Christian Endresen & Anna Ivanova Olsen & Ekrem Misimi & Jana Guenther & Østen Jensen, 2015. "Drag of Clean and Fouled Net Panels – Measurements and Parameterization of Fouling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Gómez, Miguel I. & Ricketts, Katie D., 2013. "Food value chain transformations in developing countries: Selected hypotheses on nutritional implications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 139-150.
    5. D'Souza, Anna & Tandon, Sharad, 2015. "Using Household and Intrahousehold Data To Assess Food Insecurity: Evidence from Bangladesh," Economic Research Report 262207, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2004. "Economics of Forest and Agricultural Carbon Sinks," Working Papers 18160, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    7. Jing You & Katsushi S. Imai & Raghav Gaiha, 2014. "Decoding the Growth-Nutrition Nexus in China: Inequality, Uncertainty and Food Insecurity," Discussion Paper Series DP2014-28, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, revised Dec 2014.
    8. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    9. Florencia G. Palis & Arelene J. B. Malabayabas & Grant R. Singleton & Mohammed A. Mazid & David E. Johnson, 2016. "Early harvest of monsoon rice to address seasonal hunger in northwest Bangladesh," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(2), pages 443-457, April.
    10. Nijnik, Maria & Pajot, Guillaume & Moffat, Andy J. & Slee, Bill, 2013. "An economic analysis of the establishment of forest plantations in the United Kingdom to mitigate climatic change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 34-42.
    11. Anna-Lisa Noack & Nicky Pouw, 2015. "A blind spot in food and nutrition security: where culture and social change shape the local food plate," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(2), pages 169-182, June.
    12. Obisesan, Adekemi, 2021. "Households’ Demand for Fruits and Vegetables in Nigeria: Panel QUAIDS Approach," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315858, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Olutumise, A. I. & Abiodun, T. C. & Ekundayo, B. P., 2021. "Diversification Of Livelihood And Food Security Nexus Among Rural Households In Ondo State, Nigeria," Journal of Rural Economics and Development, University of Ibadan, Department of Agricultural Economics, vol. 23(1), September.
    14. Gonzalo Gamboa & Zora Kovacic & Marina Di Masso & Sara Mingorría & Tiziano Gomiero & Marta Rivera-Ferré & Mario Giampietro, 2016. "The Complexity of Food Systems: Defining Relevant Attributes and Indicators for the Evaluation of Food Supply Chains in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-23, May.
    15. World Bank, 2006. "Poverty, Growth, and Environment in Brazil : Spatial Insights for Policymaking," World Bank Publications - Reports 12852, The World Bank Group.
    16. Kamel, Salah & El-Sattar, Hoda Abd & Vera, David & Jurado, Francisco, 2018. "Bioenergy potential from agriculture residues for energy generation in Egypt," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 28-37.
    17. Ruel, Marie T. & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Balagamwala, Mysbah, 2017. "Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: What have we learned and where do we go from here?:," IFPRI discussion papers 1681, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Younis, Sherif A. & Kim, Ki-Hyun & Shaheen, Sabry M. & Antoniadis, Vasileios & Tsang, Yiu Fai & Rinklebe, Jörg & Deep, Akash & Brown, Richard J.C., 2021. "Advancements of nanotechnologies in crop promotion and soil fertility: Benefits, life cycle assessment, and legislation policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    19. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Sohngen, Brent, 2007. "Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 237-269, September.
    20. Elinor Ostrom, 2014. "A Polycentric Approach For Coping With Climate Change," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 15(1), pages 97-134, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:masfgc:v:19:y:2014:i:6:p:621-640. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.