IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04037153.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using publicly available remote sensing products to evaluate REDD + projects in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriela Demarchi

    (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier, CIFOR - Center for International Forestry Research - CGIAR - Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR])

  • Julie Subervie

    (INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Thibault Catry

    (UMR 228 Espace-Dev, Espace pour le développement - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - UPVD - Université de Perpignan Via Domitia - AU - Avignon Université - UR - Université de La Réunion - UNC - Université de la Nouvelle-Calédonie - UG - Université de Guyane - UA - Université des Antilles - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Isabelle Tritsch

    (UPR Forêts et Sociétés - Forêts et Sociétés - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Cirad-ES - Département Environnements et Sociétés - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement)

Abstract

Ensuring the perpetuity and improvement of REDD initiatives requires rigorous impact evaluation of their effectiveness in curbing deforestation. Today, a number of global and regional remote sensing (RS) products that detect changes in forest cover are publicly available. In this study, we assess the suitability of using these datasets to evaluate the impact of local REDD projects targeting smallholders in the Brazilian Amazonb] Firstly, we reconstruct the forest loss of 21,492 farms located in the Transamazonian region for the period 2008 to 2018, using data from two RS products: Global Forest Change (GFC) and the Amazon Deforestation Monitoring Project (PRODES). Secondly, we evaluate the consistency between these two data sources and find that the deforestation estimates at the farm level vary considerably between datasets. Despite this difference, using microeconometric techniques that use pre-treatment outcomes to construct counter-factual patterns of REDD program participants, we estimate that about two hectares, or about four percent of the forest area, were saved on average on each of the 350 participating farms during the first years of the program, regardless of the data-source used. Moreover, we find that deforestation decreased on plots surrounding participating farms during the very first years of the program, suggesting that the program may have had a positive effect on neighboring farms as well. Finally, we show that participants returned to their business-as-usual pattern of clearing one to three hectares per year at the end of the program. The environmental gain generated by the program, however, was not offset by any catch-up behavior, as the two hectares saved on each farm before 2017 were not cleared in 2018. By calculating the monetary gain of the delayed carbon dioxide emissions, we find that the program's benefits were ultimately greater than its costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriela Demarchi & Julie Subervie & Thibault Catry & Isabelle Tritsch, 2023. "Using publicly available remote sensing products to evaluate REDD + projects in Brazil," Post-Print hal-04037153, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04037153
    DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102653
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04037153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diego Herrera & Alexander Pfaff & Juan Robalino, 2019. "Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: Comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(30), pages 14916-14925, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Mohebalian, Phillip M. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2018. "Beneath the Canopy: Tropical Forests Enrolled in Conservation Payments Reveal Evidence of Less Degradation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 64-73.
    4. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Sven Wunder & Paul J. Ferraro, 2010. "Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 254-274, Summer.
    5. Abadie, Alberto & Diamond, Alexis & Hainmueller, Jens, 2010. "Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(490), pages 493-505.
    6. Smith, Nigel J. H. & Falesi, Italo C. & Alvim, Paulo de T. & Serrao, Emmanuel Adilson S., 1996. "Agroforestry trajectories among smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon: innovation and resiliency in pioneer and older settled areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 15-27, July.
    7. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    8. Blackman, Allen, 2013. "Evaluating forest conservation policies in developing countries using remote sensing data: An introduction and practical guide," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 1-16.
    9. Oliveira Fiorini, Ana Carolina & Mullally, Conner & Swisher, Marilyn & Putz, Francis E., 2020. "Forest cover effects of payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from an impact evaluation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gabriela Demarchi & Subervie Julie & Thibault Catry & Isabelle Tritsch, 2020. "Using publicly available remote sensing products to evaluate REDD+ projects in Brazil," Working Papers hal-02898225, HAL.
    2. Gabriela Simonet & Julie Subervie & Driss Ezzine-De-Blas & Marina Cromberg & Amy Duchelle, 2015. "Paying smallholders not to cut down the amazon forest: impact evaluation of a REDD+ pilot project," Working Papers 1514, Chaire Economie du climat.
    3. Robalino, Juan & Pfaff, Alexander & Sandoval, Catalina & Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. Arturo, 2021. "Can we increase the impacts from payments for ecosystem services? Impact rose over time in Costa Rica, yet spatial variation indicates more potential," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    4. Kelly J. Wendland & Matthias Baumann & David J. Lewis & Anika Sieber & Volker C. Radeloff, 2015. "Protected Area Effectiveness in European Russia: A Postmatching Panel Data Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 149-168.
    5. Gwenolé Le Velly & Céline Dutilly, 2016. "Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Sébastien Costedoat & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Jordi Honey-Rosés & Kathy Baylis & Miguel Angel Castillo-Santiago, 2015. "How Effective Are Biodiversity Conservation Payments in Mexico?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Chervier, Colas & Costedoat, Sébastien, 2017. "Heterogeneous Impact of a Collective Payment for Environmental Services Scheme on Reducing Deforestation in Cambodia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 148-159.
    8. Jeffrey R. Vincent, 2016. "Impact Evaluation of Forest Conservation Programs: Benefit-Cost Analysis, Without the Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 395-408, February.
    9. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    10. Carrilho, Cauê D. & Demarchi, Gabriela & Duchelle, Amy E. & Wunder, Sven & Morsello, Carla, 2022. "Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ project (Pará, Brazil)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Martin Persson, U. & Alpízar, Francisco, 2013. "Conditional Cash Transfers and Payments for Environmental Services—A Conceptual Framework for Explaining and Judging Differences in Outcomes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 124-137.
    13. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Blackman, Allen & Goff, Leonard & Rivera Planter, Marisol, 2018. "Does eco-certification stem tropical deforestation? Forest Stewardship Council certification in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 306-333.
    15. Jones, Kelly W. & Muñoz Brenes, Carlos L. & Shinbrot, Xoco A. & López-Báez, Walter & Rivera-Castañeda, Andrómeda, 2018. "The influence of cash and technical assistance on household-level outcomes in payments for hydrological services programs in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 208-218.
    16. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    17. Guido W. Imbens, 2022. "Causality in Econometrics: Choice vs Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2541-2566, November.
    18. Huseynov, Samir & Palma, Marco A., 2018. "Does California’s LCFS Reduce CO2 Emissions?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274200, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.
    20. Blackman, Allen, 2015. "Strict versus mixed-use protected areas: Guatemala's Maya Biosphere Reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 14-24.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-04037153. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.