IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04745816.html

Distinguishing potential and effective additionality of forest conservation interventions

Author

Listed:
  • Philippe Delacote

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, CEC - Chaire Economie du Climat - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres)

  • Gwenolé Le Velly

    (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)

  • Gabriela Simonet

    (Independent Researcher)

Abstract

The additionality of forest conservation interventions is frequently questioned. In particular, they are often considered to be located in places where forests are not threatened, which points to the existence of location biases. Revisiting this location bias concept, we conceptually distinguish potential and effective additionality and theoretically consider how the objectives of the implementer affect the siting choice of the forest conservation interventions and their additionality. Our theoretical intuition is that the choices of the implementers are influenced by the quality of institutions. Our results show that (1) the implementer's objective and local institutions may lead the implementer to select a site with low development potential and low forest threat, and (2) the selection of a site with low development potential, which is frequently presented as a location bias, does not necessarily preclude additionality.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippe Delacote & Gwenolé Le Velly & Gabriela Simonet, 2024. "Distinguishing potential and effective additionality of forest conservation interventions," Post-Print hal-04745816, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04745816
    DOI: 10.1017/S1355770X24000202
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04745816v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04745816v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1017/S1355770X24000202?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ollivier, Hélène, 2012. "Growth, deforestation and the efficiency of the REDD mechanism," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 312-327.
    2. H. J. Albers & L. Preonas & T. Capitán & E. J. Z. Robinson & R. Madrigal-Ballestero, 2020. "Optimal Siting, Sizing, and Enforcement of Marine Protected Areas," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 229-269, September.
    3. Alexander Pfaff & Juan Robalino, 2012. "Protecting forests, biodiversity, and the climate: predicting policy impact to improve policy choice," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 164-179, Spring.
    4. Paula Cordero Salas & Brian E. Roe & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Additionality When REDD Contracts Must be Self-Enforcing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(1), pages 195-215, January.
    5. Adina M. Merenlender, 2006. "Habitat and Open Space at Risk of Land-Use Conversion: Targeting Strategies for Land Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 28-42.
    6. Groom, Ben & Palmer, Charles, 2010. "Cost-effective provision of environmental services: the role of relaxing market constraints," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 219-240, April.
    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. Carrilho, Cauê D. & Chervier, Colas & Sills, Erin O., 2026. "What influences the effectiveness of forest conservation interventions in tropical regions? A systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    2. Weinhold, Diana & Andersen, Lykke, 2026. "Adversarial procurement in two-value space: insights and evidence for conservation siting," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 138837, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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. Philippe Delacote & Gwenolé Le Velly & Gabriela Simonet, 2020. "Distinguishing potential and effective additionality to revisit the location bias of REDD+ project," Working Papers hal-01954923, HAL.
    2. Wolfersberger, Julien & Amacher, Gregory S. & Delacote, Philippe & Dragicevic, Arnaud, 2022. "The dynamics of deforestation and reforestation in a developing economy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 272-293, June.
    3. Philippe Delacote & Gwenolé Le Velly & Gabriela Simonet, 2018. "A tale of REDD+ projects. How do location and certification impact additionality?," Working Papers 1808, Chaire Economie du climat.
    4. Laing, Timothy & Palmer, Charles, 2015. "Economy-wide impacts of REDD when there is political influence," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 107-126.
    5. Andersen, Lykke E. & Groom, Ben & Killick, Evan & Ledezma, Juan Carlos & Palmer, Charles & Weinhold, Diana, 2017. "Modelling Land Use, Deforestation, and Policy: A Hybrid Optimisation-Heterogeneous Agent Model with Application to the Bolivian Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 76-90.
    6. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & Wolff, Hendrik, 2014. "Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests," IZA Discussion Papers 8179, IZA Network @ LISER.
    7. 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.
    8. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2011. "Estimation of cost functions for preserving biodiversity in Swedish forests," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114596, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso & Guci, Ledia, 2018. "An estimator for discrete-choice models with spatial lag dependence using large samples, with an application to land-use conversions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 77-93.
    10. John F. Chamblee & Peter F. Colwell & Carolyn A. Dehring & Craig A. Depken, 2011. "The Effect of Conservation Activity on Surrounding Land Prices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 453-472.
    11. Delacote, Philippe & Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z. & Roussel, Sébastien, 2016. "Deforestation, leakage and avoided deforestation policies: A spatial analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 192-210.
    12. Thiel, Kristen & Cho, Seonghoon & Armsworth, Paul, 2016. "Effects of Protected Area Size on Conservation Return on Investment with Spatial Spillovers," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235767, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Baylis, Kathy & Paulson, Nicholas D. & Piras, Gianfranco, 2011. "Spatial Approaches to Panel Data in Agricultural Economics: A Climate Change Application," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 325-338, August.
    14. John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling, 2022. "Conservation Planning for Action: End-User Engagement in the Development and Dual-Centric Weighting of a Spatial Decision Support System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Bhattacharjee, Arnab & Aravena, Claudia & Castillo, Natalia & Ehrlich, Marco & Taou, Nadia & Wagner, Thomas, 2022. "Agroforestry Programs in the Colombian Amazon: Selection, Treatment and Exposure Effects on Deforestation," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 537, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    16. Peng, Hui & Ying, Huanqin & Wang, Xuerui & Lu, Yaobin & Wang, Shouyang, 2025. "Gains or losses: Can grassland ecological compensation policy alleviate the decoupling of welfare from wealth?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 538-555.
    17. Randrianarison, Henintsoa & Ramiaramanana, Jeannot & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "When to Pay? Adjusting the Timing of Payments in PES Design to the Needs of Poor Land-users," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 168-177.
    18. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    19. Gren, Ing-Marie & Baxter, Peter & Mikusinski, Grzegorz & Possingham, Hugh, 2014. "Cost-effective biodiversity restoration with uncertain growth in forest habitat quality," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 77-92.
    20. Mengmeng Liu & Limin Bai & Hassan Saif Khan & Hua Li, 2023. "The Influence of the Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy on Regional Herdsmen’s Income and Its Gap: Evidence from Six Pastoralist Provinces in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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-04745816. 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.