The costs and benefits of REDD+: A review of the literature

No Thumbnail Available
File version
Author(s)
Rakatama, A
Pandit, R
Ma, C
Iftekhar, Sayed
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2017
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
Abstract

The costs and benefits of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) projects are often reported in isolation. There is a lack of comprehensive understanding of the types of REDD+ costs and benefits reported in the literature. In this paper, we conducted a review of 60 unique REDD+ costs and benefits studies. We found that no single study covers all categories of costs and benefits in a comparable form. A total of 56 comparable estimates were available for opportunity costs, 21 for transaction and implementation costs, 23 for total costs, and only four for direct monetary benefits. We found that, on average, the total REDD+ cost ($24.87/tCO2e) was 2.23 times higher than the opportunity cost and the opportunity cost was 3.28 times higher than the transaction and implementation costs. Costs estimates among studies vary widely based on estimation approach used and the scale of the studies. We noted that future REDD+ costs and benefits studies should provide estimates of all relevant costs and benefits, and the distribution of these costs and benefits among project stakeholders. These findings have implications in REDD+ project design and implementation.

Journal Title

Forest Policy and Economics

Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume

75

Issue
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement
Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject

Environment and resource economics

Social Sciences

Science & Technology

Life Sciences & Biomedicine

Economics

Environmental Studies

Persistent link to this record
Citation

Rakatama, A; Pandit, R; Ma, C; Iftekhar, S, The costs and benefits of REDD+: A review of the literature, Forest Policy and Economics, 2017, 75, pp. 103-111

Collections