IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-02898225.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 - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement)

  • Julie Subervie

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

  • 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 - UM - Université de Montpellier - UG - Université de Guyane - UA - Université des Antilles)

  • Isabelle Tritsch

    (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 - UM - Université de Montpellier - UG - Université de Guyane - UA - Université des Antilles)

Abstract

The perpetuity and improvement of REDD+ projects for curbing deforestation require rigorous impact evaluations of the effectiveness of existing on-the-ground interventions. Today, a number of global and regional remote sensing (RS) products are publicly available for detecting changes in forest cover worldwide. In this study, we assess the suitability of using these readily available products to evaluate the impact of REDD+ local projects targeting smallholders (owning plots of less than 100 ha) in the Brazilian Amazon. Firstly, we reconstruct forest loss for the period between 2008 and 2017 of 17,066 farms located in the Transamazonian region, using data derived from two landcover change datasets: Global Forest Change (GFC) and Amazon Deforestation Monitoring Project (PRODES). Secondly, we evaluate the consistency between the two sources of data. Lastly, we estimate the long-term impact of a REDDÅ project using both RS products. Results suggest that the deforestation estimates from the two data-sets are statistically different and that GFC detects systematically higher rates of deforestation than PRODES. However, we estimate that an average of about 2 ha of forest were saved on each participating farm during the first years of the program regardless the source of data. These results suggest that these products may not be suitable for accurately monitoring and measuring deforestation at the farm-level, but they can be a useful source of data on impact assessment of forest conservation projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriela Demarchi & Julie Subervie & Thibault Catry & Isabelle Tritsch, 2020. "Using publicly available remote sensing products to evaluate REDD+ projects in Brazil," Working Papers hal-02898225, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02898225
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02898225v3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02898225v3/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Huang, Lei, 2024. "Green bonds and ESG investments: Catalysts for sustainable finance and green economic growth in resource-abundant economies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Zixin Liu & Shuguang Zhang, 2024. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: How does environmental performance ensured energy transition? Impact of ecological change," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1-27, April.
    3. Bo Zhao, 2024. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Strategic enterprise management in the age of energy transition: a roadmap for sustainable business practices," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1-18, April.

    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

    Keywords

    remote sensing products; deforestation; impact evaluation; Brazilian Amazon.; REDD+;
    All these keywords.

    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:wpaper:hal-02898225. 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.