Abstract
We apply self-determination theory (SDT) to explain how psychological outcomes on participants in ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation’ (REDD +) projects can provide lessons for other forest landscape management programmes. Evidence from REDD + case studies suggests that negative outcomes may result from three design factors. Payment for environmental services (PES) may reduce participants’ motivation and competence in livelihood activities. A large-scale landscape approach to REDD + increases stakeholder heterogeneity which may reduce participants’ ability to liaise and cooperate. Trade-offs between traditional forest uses and conservation goals may reduce participants’ autonomy to develop their livelihoods. By inference, replicating these design factors in comparable forest landscape management programmes or projects may also result in similar negative outcomes. Replacing PES with additional—not substitute—livelihood-based capacity building and reducing the physical landscape to the social landscape which encompasses stakeholders’ capacity to work together may mitigate these outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In Nepal, Dalits are one of the lower social castes.
References
Agrawal A, Nepstad D, Ashwini C (2011) Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:373–396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042009-094508
Airey S, Krause T (2018) Georgetown ain’t got a tree. We got the trees”—Amerindian Power & Participation in Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy. Forests 8: https://doi.org/10.3390/f8030051
Andersson KP, Smith SM, Alston LJ, Duchelle AE, Mwangi E, Larson AM, de Sassi C, Sills EO, Sunderlin WO, Wong GY (2018) Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy 72:510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.012
Andrews J, Mulder MB (2018) Cultural group selection and the design of REDD+: insights from Pemba. Sustain Sci 13:93–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0489-2
Angelsen A, Martius C, De Sy V, Duchelle AE, Larson AM, Pham TT (1918) REDD+ enters its second decade. In: Angelsen A, Martius C, De Sy V, Duchelle AE, Larson AM, Pham TT (eds) Transforming REDD+: lessons and new directions. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 1–16
Atela JO, Quinn CH, Minang PA (2014) Are REDD projects pro-poor in their spatial targeting? Evidence from Kenya. Appl Geogr 52:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.04.009
Atmadja SS, Sills EO (2016) What is a ‘community perception’ of REDD+? A systematic review of how perceptions of REDD+ have been elicited and reported in the future. PLoS ONE 11:e0155636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155636
Baynes J, Herbohn J, Dressler W, Gregorio N (2016) Power relationships: their effect on community forestry in the Philippines. Land Use Policy 54:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.008
Benjamin EO, Oreoluwa O, Buchenrieder G (2018) Does an agroforestry scheme with payment for ecosystem services (PES) economically empower women in Sub-Saharan Africa? Ecosyst Serv 31:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.004
Blanchard CM, Amiot CE, Perreault S, Vallerand RJ (2009) Cohesiveness, coach’s interpersonal style and psychological needs: their effects on self-determination and athletes’ subjective well-being. Psychol Sport Exerc 10:545–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.005
Boer HJ (2018) The role of government in operationalising markets for REDD+ in Indonesia. Forest Policy Econ 86:4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.004
Boer HJ (2019) Deliberative engagement and REDD+ in Indonesia. Geoforum 104:170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.04.025
Börner J, West TAP (2018) National and subnational forest conservation policies: What works, what doesn’t. In: Angelsen A, Martius C, De Sy V, Duchelle AE, Larson AM, Pham TT (eds) Transforming REDD+: lessons and new directions. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 105–116
Braun C, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chomba S, Kariuki J, Lunda JF, Sinclair F (2016) Roots of inequity: how the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land Use Policy 50:202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.021
Cooley CH (1909) Social organization: a study of the larger mind. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, pp 23–31
Cramb RA, Culasero Z (2003) Landcare and livelihoods: the promotion and adoption of conservation farming systems in the Philippine uplands. Int J Agric Sustain 1:141–154
Dawson NM, Mason M, Mwayafuc DM, Dhunganad H, Satyala P, Fisher JA, Zeitouna M, Schroeder H (2018) Barriers to equity in REDD+: deficiencies in national interpretation processes constrain adaptation to context. Environ Sci Policy 88:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.009
Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. Plenum, New York
Deci EL, Ryan RM (2002) Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester
Deci EL, Ryan RM, Gagné M, Leone DR, Usunov J, Kornazheva BP (2001) Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organisation of a former eastern bloc country: a cross-cultural study of self-determination. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27:930–942
Duchelle AE, de Sassi C, Sills EO, Wunder S (2018) Well-being impacts of REDD+ on the ground. In: Angelsen A, Martius C, de Sy V, Duchelle AV, Larson AM, Pham TT (eds) Transforming REDD+: lessons and new directions. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 131–143
Duong NTB, de Groot WT (2018) Distributional risk in PES: exploring the concept in the payment for environmental forest services program. Vietnam For Policy Econ 92:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.008
Eilenberg M (2015) Shades of green and REDD: local and global contestations over the value of forest versus plantation development on the Indonesian forest frontier. Asia Pac Viewp 56:48–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12084
Emery AA, Heath NL, Mills DJ (2016) Basic psychological need satisfaction, emotion dysregulation and non-suicidal self-injury engagement in young adults: an application of self-determination theory. J Youth Adolesc 45:612–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0405-y
Enrici AM, Hubacek K (2018) Challenges for REDD+ in Indonesia: a case study of three project sites. Ecol Soc 23:2–7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09805-230207
Etchart N, Freire JL, Holland M, Jones KW, Naughton-Treves L (2020) What happens when the money runs out? Forest outcomes and equity concerns following Ecuador’s suspension of conservation payments. World Dev 136:105–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105124
Fischer K, Hajdu F (2018) The importance of the will to improve: how ‘sustainability’ sidelined local livelihoods in a carbon-forestry Investment in Uganda. J Environ Plann Policy Manage 20:328–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2017.1410429
Fisher JA, Cavanagh CJ, Sikor T, Mwayafu DM (2018) Linking notions of justice and project outcomes in carbon offset forestry projects: Insights from a comparative study in Uganda. Land Use Policy 73:259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.055
Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, CrevierBraud L, van den Broeck A, Aspeli AK (2015) The multidimensional work motivation scale: validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. Eur J Work Organ Psy 24:178–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892
Garbach K, Lubell M, De Clerck FAJ (2012) Payment for Ecosystem Services: the roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agr Ecosyst Environ 156:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.017
Gauthier M (2018) Mai-Ndombe: Will the REDD+ laboratory benefit indigenous peoples and local communities? Rights and Resources Initiative. Washington DC. www.rightsandresources.org
Gollwitzer PM, Kappes HB, Oettingen G (2012) Needs and incentives as sources of goals. In: Aarts H, Ellio AJ (eds) goal-directed behaviour. Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis, New York
Groom B, Palmer C (2012) REDD+ and rural livelihoods. Biol Cons 154:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.002
Guadalupe VEL, Sotta VF, Santos LJG, Aguiar M, Vieira CP, de Oliveira CP, Siqueira JVN (2018) REDD+ Implementation in a high forest, low deforestation area: constraints on monitoring forest carbon emissions. Land Use Policy 76:414–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.015
Gurung J, Setyowati AB (2012) Re-envisioning REDD+ gender, forest governance and REDD+ in Asia. rightsandresources.org Washinton DC, USA https://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/exported-pdf/brief4gurungsetyowati.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2021
Harada K, Prabowo D, Aliadi A, Ichihara J, Ma HO (2015) How can social safeguards of REDD+ function effectively to conserve forests and improve local livelihoods? A case from Meru Betiri national park, East Java, Indonesia. Land. https://doi.org/10.3390/land40x000x. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land. Accessed 27 Apr 2021
Hayes T, Murtinho F, Camacho LMC, Crespo P, McHugh S, Salmerón D (2015) Can conservation contracts co-exist with change? Payment for ecosystem services in the context of adaptive decision-making and sustainability. Environ Manage 55:69–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1
Hitlin S (2007) Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency. Sociol Theory 25:179–191
Hoang C, Satyal P, Corbera E (2018) ‘This is my garden’: justice claims and struggles over forests in Vietnam’s REDD+. Climate Policy 19:23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1527202
Holmes I, Potvin C, Coombes OT (2018) Early REDD+ implementation: the journey of an indigenous community in Panama. Forests 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8030067
Howard J, Gagné M, Morin AS, Van den Broeck A (2016) Motivation profiles at work: a self-determination theory approach. J Vocat Behav 95:74–89
Howson P (2018) Slippery violence in the REDD+ forests of central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conserv Soc 16:136–146. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_16_150
Ishihara H, Pascual U, Hodge I (2017) Dancing with storks: the role of power relations in payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 139:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.007
Jacob T, Brockington D (2017) Learning from the other: benefit sharing lessons for REDD+ implementation based on CBFM experience in northern Tanzania. Land Use Pol Adv Online Publ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.028
Janki M (2009) Case study: Guyana. In: Costenbader J (ed) Legal frameworks for REDD: design and implementation at the national level. IUCN, Gland
Jespersen K, Gallemore C (2018) The institutional work of payments for ecosystem services: why the mundane should matter. Ecol Econ 146:507–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.013
Jindal R, Ker JM, Carter S (2012) Reducing poverty through carbon forestry? Impacts of the N’hambita community carbon project in Mozambique. World Dev 40:2123–2135
Kansanga MM, Luginaah I (2019) Agrarian livelihoods under siege: carbon forestry, tenure constraints and the rise of capitalist forest enclosures in Ghana. World Dev 113:131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.0020305-750X/2
Khatri DB, Marquardt K, Pain A, Ojha O (2018) Shifting regimes of management and uses of forests: What might REDD+ implementation mean for community forestry? Evidence from Nepal. Forest Policy Econ 92:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.005
Köhl M, Neupane PR, Mundhenk P (2020) REDD+ measurement, reporting and verification – a cost trap? Implications for financing REDD+MRV costs by result-based payments. Ecol Econ 168:106513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106513
Konsager R, Corbera E (2015) Linking mitigation and adaptation in carbon forestry projects: evidence from Belize. World Dev 76:132–146
Korhonen-Kurki KM, Brockhaus M, Muharrom E, Juhola S, Moeliono M, Maharani C, Dwisatrio B (2017) Analyzing REDD+ as an experiment of transformative climate governance: insights from Indonesia. Environ Sci Policy 73:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.014
La Rose J (2013) Guyana: Indigenous peoples and the lack of adequate consultation on REDD+. In: REDD+ safeguards: more than good intentions? Case studies from the Accra Caucus. Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change, pp 8–11
Lepper MR, Greene D, Nisbet RE (1973) Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: a test of the “Overjustification” Hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol 28:129–137
Lestrelin G, Trockenbrodt M, Phanvilay K, Thongmanivong S, Vongvisouk T, Pham TT, Castella J-C (2013) The context of REDD+ in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional Paper 92. CIFOR Bogor
LICADHO (Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights) (2019) Collateral damage: land loss and abuses in Cambodia’s microfinance sector. Accessed 7 October 2019
Luintel H, Bluffstone RA, Scheller RM (2018) An assessment of collective action drivers of carbon storage in Nepalese forest commons. Forest Policy Econ 90:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.012
Lund JF, Sungusia E, Mabele MB, Scheba A (2017) Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Dev 89:124–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.005
Maguire M, Delahunt B (2017) Doing a thematic analysis: a practical step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 8:3351–3364. https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335. Accessed 30 Jan 2020
Massarella K, Sallu SM, Ensor JE, Marchant R (2018) REDD+, hype, hope and disappointment: the dynamics of expectations in conservation and development pilot projects. World Dev 109:375–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.006
McCall MK (2016) Beyond ‘‘landscape” in REDD+: the imperative for ‘‘territory”. World Dev 85:58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.05.001
Moller AC, Deci EL, Ryan RM (2006) Choice and ego-depletion: the moderating role of autonomy. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32:1024–1036
Muradian R, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, Adaman F, Aguilar B, Agarwal B, Corbera E, Ezzine de Blas D, Farley J, Froger G, Garcia-Frapolli E, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gowdy J, Kosoy N, Le Coq JF, Leroy P, May P, Méral P, Mibielli P, Norgaard R, Ozkaynak B, Pascual U, PerezPesche PWMD, Pirard R, Ramos-Martin J, Rival L, Saenz F, Van Hecken G, Vatn A, Vira B, Urama K (2013) Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv Lett 6:274–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x
Muttaqin, MZ, Alviya, I, Lugina, M, Hamdani, FAU, Indartik (2019) Developing community-based forest ecosystem service management to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Forest Policy and Economics. 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.024
Mwayafu, DM, Kisekka, JM (2012) Promoting and implementing REDD+ safeguards at national level in East Africa. REDD-Net. http://www.ugandacoalition.or.ug/sites/default/files/REDD%2B%20safeguards20at%20national%20level%20in%20East%20Africa%20web.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2020
Nantongo MG (2017) Legitimacy of local REDD+ Processes. A comparative analysis of Pilot projects in Brazil and Tanzania. Environ Sci Policy 78:81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.09.005
Nathan I, Pasgaard M (2017) Is REDD+ effective, efficient, and equitable? Learning from a REDD+ project in northern Cambodia. Geoforum 83:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.020
Newby J, Cramb RA (2011) Economic impacts of conservation farming in a marginal environment: the case of ‘Landcare’ in the Philippines. Int J Agric Sustain 9:456–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.583479
Ojha HR, Cameron J, Kumar C (2009) Deliberation or symbolic violence? The governance of community forestry in Nepal. Forest Policy Econ 11:365–374
Pascual P, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A, Gomez-Baggethun E, Muradian R (2014) Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64:1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146
Pearse R, Dehn J (2011) In the redd: Australia’s carbon offset project in Central Kalimantan. Friends of the Earth International, Netherlands
Pedroni L, Dutschke M, Streck C, Porrúa ME (2009) Creating incentives for avoiding further deforestation: the nested approach. Climate Policy 9:207–220. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2008.0522
Pelletier J, Horning N, Laporte N, Samndong RA, Goetz S (2018) Anticipating social equity impacts in REDD+ policy design: an example from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Land Use Policy 75:102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.011
Pokorny B, Scholz I, de Jong (2013) REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies. Ecol Soc 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05458-180203
Poudel DP (2018) Are traditional and modern forestry institutions complementary or do they prescribe contradictory rights in Trans-Himalayan Nepal? A lesson to be learned for REDD+ implementation. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography 72:13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1413418
Rakatama A, Pandit R, Ma C, Iftekhar S (2017) The costs and benefits of REDD+: a review of the literature. Forest Policy Econ 75:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.006
Rakatama A, Pandit R, Iftekhar S, Ma C (2018) How to design more effective REDD+ projects – the importance of a targeted approach in Indonesia. J For Econ 33:25–33
Rakatama A, Iftekhar S, Pandit R (2020) Perceived benefits and costs of REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes in Indonesia. Clim Dev 12(5):481–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1642178
Ramcilovic-Suominen S (2019) REDD+ as a tool for state territorialization: managing forests and people in Laos. Journal of Political Ecology 26:263–281. https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/2111/galley/2370/view/. Accessed 6 June 2020
Reineke S, Blum S (2018) Discourses across scales on forest landscape restoration. Sustainability 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030613
Rezvani A, Khosravi P, Dong L (2017) Motivating users toward continued usage of information systems: self-determination theory perspective. Comput Human Behav 76:263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.032
Rosendal GK, Schei PJ (2014) How may REDD+ affect the practical, legal and institutional framework for ‘Payment for ecosystem services’ in Costa Rica? Ecosyst Serv 9:75–82
Russo S, Stattin H (2017) Self-determination theory and the role of political interest in adolescents’ socio-political development. J Appl Dev Psychol 50:71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.03.008
Ryan RM, Connell JP (1989) Perceived locus of causality and internalisation: examining reasons for acting in two domains. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:749–761
Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. Am Psychol 55:58–78
Saeed AR, McDermott C, Boyd E (2018) Examining equity in Ghana’s national REDD+ process. Forest Policy Econ 90:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.006
Saito-Jensen M, Rutt RL, Chhetri BBK (2014) Social and environmental tensions: affirmative measures under REDD+ carbon payment initiatives in Nepal. Hum Ecol 42:683–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9674-4
Samndong RA, Bush G, Vatn A, Chapman M (2018) Institutional analysis of causes of deforestation in REDD+ pilot sites in the Equateur Province: implication for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Land Use Policy (article in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.048
Sandbrook C, Nelson F, Adams WM, Agrawal A (2010) Carbon, forests and the REDD paradox. Oryx 44:330–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000475
Sanders AJP, Hyldmo HS, Prasti RD, Ford HRM, Larson AM, Keenan RJ (2017) Guinea pig or pioneer: translating global environmental objectives through to local actions in central Kalimantan, Indonesia’s REDD+ pilot province. Glob Environ Chang 42:68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.003
Satyal P, Corbera E, Dawson N, Dhungana H (2018) Maskey G (2018) Representation and participation in formulating Nepal’s REDD+ approach. Climate Policy 10(1080/14693062):1473752
Sheng J, Wu Y, Zhang M, Miao Z (2017) An evolutionary mapping approach for designing a contractual REDD+ payment scheme. Ecol Ind 79:286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.010
Shrestha S, Shrestha UB (2017) Beyond Money: does REDD+ payment enhance household’s participation in forest governance and management in Nepal’s community forests? Forest Policy Econ 80:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.005
Sills EO, Mattsson E (2014) Executive summary. In: REDD+ on the ground: a casebook of subnational initiatives across the globe. (eds) Sills EO, Atmadja SS, de Sassi C, Duchelle AE, Kweka DL, Resosudarmo IAP, Sunderlin WD. https://www2.cifor.org/redd-case-book/. Accessed 7 June 2020
Sunderlin WD, Larson M, Duchelle AE, Resosudarmo IAP, Huynh TB, Awono A, Dokken T (2014) How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Dev 55:37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.013
Thompson MC, Baruah M, Carr ER (2011) Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ Sci Policy 14:100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.006
Trougakos JP, Hideg I, Cheng BK, Beal DJ (2014) Lunch breaks unpacked: the role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery after lunch. Acad Manag J 57:405–421. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.1072
Twongyirwe R, Sheil D, Sandbrook C, Sandbrook LC (2015) REDD at the crossroads? The opportunities and challenges of REDD for conservation and human welfare in South West Uganda Int. J Environ Sustain Dev 14:273–298
UN-REDD (2018a) Summaries of information on safeguards. https://unredd.net/documents/global-programme-191/safeguards-multiple-benefits-297/workshops-and-events-1316/zambia-safeguards-technical-working-group-meeting-may-2018/16809-summaries-of-information-on-safeguards.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2021
UN-REDD (2018b) 10th Consolidated Annual Progress Report of the UN-REDD Programme Fund. https://www.unredd.net/documents/programme-progress-reports-785/2018-programme-progress-reports/17258-un-redd-consolidated-2018-annual-report.html. Accessed 17 November 2020
UN-REDD (2020a) About REDD+. https://www.unredd.net/about/what-is-redd-plus.html. Accessed 17 November 2020
UN-REDD (2020b) Safeguards. https://www.unredd.net/knowledge/redd-plus-technical-issues/safeguards.html Accessed 17 November 2020
Vallerand RJ (2000) Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory: a view from the hierarchical map of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychol Inq 11:312–318
Van den Broek A, Ferris DL, Chang CH, Rosen CC (2016) A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J Manag 42:1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
Vatn A, Kajembe G, Mosia E, Nantongo M, Silayo DS (2017) What does it take to institute REDD+? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD+ pilot, Tanzania. Forest Policy Econ 83:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.05.004
Wallbott L, Rosendal GK (2018) Safeguards, standards, and the science-policy interfaces of REDD+: greening land use through forest-based mitigation in Costa Rica? J Environ Dev 27:99–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496517751716
Wallbott L, Siciliano G, Lederer M (2019) Beyond PES and REDD+: Costa Rica on the way to climate-smart landscape management? Ecol Soc 24:24–29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10476-240124
West TAP (2015) Indigenous community benefits from a decentralized approach to REDD+ in Brazil. Climate Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1058238
West TAP, Börner J, Sills EO, Kontoleon A (2020) Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117:24188–24194
Williams DA, Dupuy KE (2019) Will REDD+ safeguards mitigate corruption? Qualitative evidence from Southeast Asia. J Dev Stud 55:2129–2144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1510118
Work C (2018) Forest islands and castaway communities: REDD+ and forest restoration in Prey Lang Forest. Forests 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8020047
Wunder S (2013) When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conserv Lett 6:230–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12034
Yasmi Y, Kelley D, Murdiyarso D, Patel T (2012) The struggle over Asia’s forests: an overview of forest conflict and political implications for REDD+. Int For Rev 14:99–109
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Extracts from 46 REDD + case studies which show positive (italics) or negative (normal font) social outcomes, grouped according to three themes, i.e. the SDT needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy. Extracts for the theme ‘competence’ were coded as reflecting improved opportunities (+ C) or restrictions (− C) to livelihood activities, perceived usefulness of technology supplied to participants (+ T or − T) and the adequacy or inadequacy of financial compensation (+ Fin or − Fin). For the theme of ‘relatedness’, the extracts were coded as reflecting equity or inequity in benefit distribution or participation (+ Eq or − Eq), inclusion or exclusion from project activities (+ Inc or − Inc) or changes to the trust (+ Tr or − Tr) between stakeholders. For the theme ‘autonomy’, extracts were coded as reflecting voluntary participation or coercion to participate (+ Vol or − Vol) and attempts by governments of other stakeholders to improve or reduce participants’ property rights (+ P or − P).
Case study | SDT needs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Competence | Relatedness | Autonomy | |
Groom and Palmer (2012, China) | The SLCP appeared to restrict autonomy in terms of how households allocated their labour. (p.48) (+ C) | A lack of autonomy… over land use… may result in unwelcome and unwanted shifts in livelihoods. (p. 51, China) In some places the program was involuntary… (p.49, China) (− Vol) | |
Jindal et al. (2012, Mozambique) | … the most important threat to permanence is the extremely long contract period. …based in a 100 year contract period… (which) subjects future generations to a rule they may not agree with. (p. 2133) (− Fin) | The existence of the community fund has enabled households to better articulate their development needs. (p.2132) (+ Eq) | Non-participating households may also face increased hardship from a ban on harvesting from the large tract of miombo forest under REDD activities. (p.2132) (− P) |
Konsager and Corbera (2015, Belize) | …projects should have contributed more to surrounding villages by promoting alternative livelihood activities, such as handcrafts… (p. 139) (− Fin) | ||
La Rose (2013, Guyana) | There is much intimidation in getting the leaders to sign the document. (p. 9) (− Eq) …those who dare… are publicly vilified… (p.9), (− Tr) | ||
Airey and Krause (2018 Guyana) | No one really understand about it… We ain’t getting the understanding… (p. 58) (− T) | …we decide what is ours, we decide what is good for us, you don’t come from the coastland telling us that this should be good for you (p. 62) (− Vol) | |
Duong and Groot (2018, Vietnam) | Households on one side of the commune boundary may receive a much lower payment … than those on the other side, even though they may be more active to protect their forest. (p.27) The basic distributional principle… paying the most to households and communities which own the most forest… open to being felt as an injustice… (p.28) (− Eq) | ||
Hoang et al. (2018, Vietnam) | This…is my garden. I have the legal right to ask everyone to leave it, not only you guys, but also the UN-REDD staff (p.529) (− P) | ||
Williams and Dupuy (2019, Vietnam) | Just over a third of our case interviewees… noted that corruption risks relating to rightful landowners not receiving a fair proportion of benefits due to inadequate consultation were high. (p.2139) (− Eq) | ||
Ramcilovic-Suominen (2019, Laos) | By addressing… small-scale drivers such as subsistence agriculture, REDD + directly limits villager’s main source of livelihoods… (p. 277) (− C) | REDD + acts as a tool for state territorialisation… by… regulate village forest uses and users. (p. 263) (− P) (REDD +) advances the Laos political economy, political elite and power establishment. (p. 277) (− Vol | |
Vatn et al. (2017, Tanzania) | Similarly, quite positive… provision of knowledge, creation of awareness emphasis on village development… (p.6) (+ C) | Payments were equal per person… reflect local norms… (p.8) (+ Eq) | …23 out of 240 households had to leave their homes and resettle…there were instances of burned homes. (p.6) (− P) … a large majority felt that they felt free to decide… (+ Vol) |
Lund et al. (2017, Tanzania) | It took my people by surprise to learn how technical and complex REDD + is. (p.132) (− T) | Tenure conflicts… lack of local governance… were key challenges across projects (p.132) (− Eq) | |
Nantongo (2017, Tanzania) | Although there was an early socio-economic study to assess the livelihoods of local people… there was no consultation with the locals… (− Inc) | ||
Andrews and Mulder 2018, Tanzania) | REDD-ready SCC in Pemba vary extensively in the trust that they are viewed by community members… (p.105) (− Tr) | ||
Jacob and Brockington (2017, Tanzania) | The availability of carbon revenues has made a material difference to villagers’ lives… (p.6) (+ Fin) | They (…officials…) attend so many trainings but they don’t share. (p.5) (− Inc) …complaints that supporting a school only benefits families with children… If only there were many other villagers with that sort of internal debate. (p.6) (+ Inc) | |
Massarella et al. (2018, Tanzania) | You can pilot and you can forget. But our idea was to do something and then… repeat from there. (p.383) (− T) | … a feeling of injustice that the project only benefitted a few people… (p.381) (− Inc) | Other actors blamed the ‘top-down’ approach of REDD + ‘convincing people to do whatever they want them to do’. (p.382) (− Vol) |
Saito-Jensen et al. (2014, Nepal) | … some recipients viewed the benefits as burdens… the use of payments for higher-value items such as biogas plants may risk inadvertently indebting recipients… (p,689) (− Fin) | Targeting of specific social groups resulted in contestation at the local level… This approach resulted in shame and denial by some of those who were labelled as poor. (p.689) (− Eq) | |
Shrestha and Shrestha (2017, Nepal) | REDD + payments do not play a significant part in participation… due to the predefined criteria in the REDD + payment mechanism. (p.69) (− C) | ||
Khatri et al. (2018, Nepal) | Providing a loan for a market-based activity can actually impose risks for households with very little resources. (p.4) (− Fin) | … in some cases, the distribution of pilot money to different social groups did not materialise. (p.4) (− Inc) | … it required that the CFUGs invest at least 40% of the payments… as a condition of further payments. (p.4) (− Vol) |
Satyal et al. (2018, Nepal) | Dalits were excluded from decision making… due to… lack of information and communication… (p.9) (− Inc) … women and Dalits have all actively participated… (p.8) (+ Inc) | It has become a passive ‘smile’ type of participation. (p. 10) (− Vol) | |
Luintel et al. (2018, Nepal) | Mutual trust… is found to have no relation with carbon storage. (p.45) (− Tr) | ||
Twongyirwe et al. (2015, Uganda) | … the funding of REDD + is so huge that our corrupt officials cannot relay where it is meant to go (p.284) (− Fin) | … if REDD + imposes further controls on the use of forest resources and rewards others, the Batwa may revolt. (p.289 (− P) | |
Dawson et al. (2018, Nepal and Uganda) | It is clear that no-one has a common understanding of REDD + . (p.3) (− T) | …. The locals don’t agree, the trust isn’t developed … so when you go back after 2–10 or 15 years and see the forest has been burnt down. (p.3) (− Tr) …participants stressed that inclusion criteria … to ensure marginalised groups participate… were meaningless because their quality of participation was negligible. (p.4) (− Eq) | I refer to it as ‘climate colonisation’. (p.3) (− Vol) |
Fisher et al. (2018, Uganda) | …participants are not actively involved in project design… and the project confers restrictions… (p.267) (− C) … and they are paying little money and we have sacrificed our land to… … benefit sharing is a myth… (p.264) (− Fin) | ||
Kansanga and Luginaah (2019, Uganda) | …to get even temporary access to farmland in the forest you have to pass through an influential person using money… (p.138) (− Tr) | As I speak, there is no other land to go to… Yet, the GFC taskforce keeps destroying our farms. (p. 137) (− P) | |
Fischer and Hajdu (2018, Uganda) | …favouring of technical …competence… over local knowledge… (p. 337) (− T) | … some actors have had the power to impose their will on others (p.329) Communities may resist the project since the NFA used force… (p.332) (− Vol) | |
Atela et al. (2014, Kenya) | … this equitable share has not met community expectations because of the opportunity costs imposed by restricted forest access. (p. 247) (− C) The (forest service) staff asserted that REDD + funks linked to the hills would be channelled to central government. (p.246) (− Fin) | Even though non-group members may be excluded… (p.242) (− Inc) Low-wealth respondents perceived that incorporating communal land into the project improved their bargaining power… (p.246) (+ Eq) | |
Chomba et al. (2016, Kenya) | … the big losers were the smallholder farmers who wore the opportunity cost … and received very modest benefits. (p.207) (− Fin) | … the project often led to landowners, despite often being absentee, imposing greater control over their land… (p.210) (− P) … illegal squatters were peacefully removed. (p.210) (− Vol) | |
Pearse and Dehn (2011, Indonesia) | This tension between human rights and economic efficiency is inescapable… (p.21) (− C) …not listening to local knowledge and wisdom… (p.13) (− T) | Project implementation is bringing unrest and internal conflict to the community… (p.17) (− Tr) | The continued lack of respect for… FPIC… and the rights of affected communities… (p.10) (− Vol) |
Harada et al. (2015, Indonesia) | The local NGO built confident relationships with the national park authorities… trust with (local people) was built… (p. 15) (+ Tr) | ||
Eilenberg (2015, Indonesia) | …communicated within elite networks at district level and only sporadic information reached the community level… (p.55) REDD + was seen… as yet another attempt by central government to take control over customary forest (p.57) (–Inc) | REDD + was seen… as yet another attempt by central government to take control over customary forest (p.57) (− P) REDD + initiatives were… appropriated locally based on past experiences of resource struggle, exclusion and dispossession… (p.56) (− Vol)) | |
Sanders et al. (2017, Indonesia) | … we don’t want to accept it because it is too difficult… (p.75) … a lack of learning from local wisdom was a key grievance… (p. 75) (-T) | It seems that we are working for UNDP rather than independently… (p.76) … local actors tended to see themselves as subjects of controlled lab experiments or guinea pigs, rather than having agency of control of their options… (p.76) (− Vol) | |
Howson (2018, Indonesia) | Some farmers do not understand money. When they get it, they spend it on silly things. They get into trouble sometimes. (p.140) (− Fin) | Women were included in the project yet the construction of alternative livelihoods … concreting the essentialist dichotomies of masculinity and femininity. (p.142). (− Eq) | …incentives from a REDD + project… are a sort of ecological ransom… (p.143) (− Vol) |
Enrici and Hubacek (2018, Indonesia) | People that are typically involved in REDD have very little business experience. So… the only people who have succeeded are primarily people who have business experience But I see people here, they get money from the clouds and they spend it, because it’s not theirs. (on-line reference) (− Fin) | You’re going around bothering people all the time… … they are so fatigued… they’re like ‘please go away’. (on-line reference) (− Vol) | |
Boer (2018, Indonesia) | Spatial planning operates as an instrument of… demarcation, specifying zones where certain forest activities are permitted and others prohibited. (p. 8) Forest Management Units operate through a local statutory body that has the authority to plan and regulate all activities in the forest area… (p.8) (− C) | … the state has operated… for political and business elites to exploit forests for private gain. (p. 10) (− P) | |
Muttaqin et al. (2019, Indonesia) | communities face constraints… (1) limited funds; (2) lack of skills and knowledge; (3) limited access to resources (on-line reference) (− C) Traditional forest management institutions need to be formally recognised, enhanced and strengthened (on-line reference) (− T) | ||
Boer (2019, Indonesia) | …lack of inclusion of community input in the project design; and all activities were externally designed and pre-planned with no room for community members to provide feedback (p.176) (− Eq) | ||
Saeedet al. (2018, Ghana) | The technical nature of REDD + … removed from the understanding and involvement of local stakeholders. (p.56) (− T) Ghana’s readiness process has not been able to establish what the risks and benefits are for each stakeholder group. (p.56) (− Fin) | … the FC REDD + unit reportedly goes… out of the way to look for those who have been left out and bring them on-board. (p.52) (+ Inc) | |
Wallbott and Rosendal (2018, Costa Rica) | … pressure for early action… challenges the … knowledge transfer mechanisms… (p.116) (− T) … it is difficult for small property holders to access money on the carbon markets… (p.117) (− Fin) | ||
Guadalupe et al. (2018, Brazil) | The state of Amapa is still struggling with key aspects of REDD + monitoring. (p.1) (− T) | ||
West (2015, Brazil) | Potentially the greatest achievement … was the successful development of a financial mechanism to secure equitable REDD + revenue allocation (p11) (+ Fin) | … the community was found to be mostly engaged with the project’s goals and strategies It is clear that the role played by partner NGOs was fundamental for the design and engagement of the indigenous group… (p.11)(+ Tr) | The 5% of community members who did not support the REDD + projects were mainly from one village that still profited from illegal logging. These individuals also refused to participate in the interviews… (p.11) (− P) |
Nathan and Pasgaard (2017, Cambodia) | We waited so long to get carbon funding, some of my members feel hopeless… and nothing happens… (p.33) … the project proved risky… due to false expectations… (p.33) (− Fin) …the main actual on-the-ground activity was to involve local people in forest patrols… may have helped protect the forested areas… (p.32) (+ C) | … the committee and members who are active will get benefits… (p.34) (− Eq) | There are many benefits from forest management. Many people can access NTFPs… (p.34) (+ P) |
Work (2018, Cambodia) | …not enough money though. It doesn’t replace money we can make doing other things, so it’s hard to get people to patrol. (p.257) (− Fin) | …if we keep the forest they will help us—if not, they won’t. (p.257) (-Vol) | |
Samndong et al. (2018, DR Congo) | The relationship between political and economic actors in the DRC are…client-patron relationships… (p.9) These forestry officers supplement their low salaries through bribery and corruption. (p.9) (− Eq) | ||
Gauthier (2018, DR Congo) | … the minimum objective of not aggravating the situation of indigenous peoples … is not achieved. (p.10) (− C) | … the initiatives pursued will tend to favour the emergence of private actors, reduce the benefits of the poorest people… (p. 10) (− P) | |
Pelletier et al. (2018, DR Congo) | (Tree planting) could eventually limit land for leasing to landless people who depend on it their livelihoods. (p.112) (− Fin) | ||
Holmes et al. (2018, Panama) | I am the one weeding my garden in the hot sun… why should the carbon project renovate the community meeting house (p.235) (− Vol) | ||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baynes, J., Lovell, G.P. & Herbohn, J. Psychological outcomes of REDD + projects: evidence from country case studies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 26, 14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09951-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09951-8