...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Trends in Ecology & Evolution >Seeing only REDD? A response to Law et al.
【24h】

Seeing only REDD? A response to Law et al.

机译：只看到REDD？对劳等人的回应。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Law et al.[1] ignore or misread the substantive points of our article [2]. Their first criticism concerns our apparent failure to distinguish REDD from REDD+, a distinction that we not only identify, but also expand upon. We additionally emphasize thepotential wider benefits of REDD+ over and above that of REDD specifically. We know that agricultural land will not be eligible under REDD. Our point is that REDD+ will (by definition) constrain the conversion of forest land to agriculture and, by doingso, might impact not only the national capacity for agricultural production, but also the revenues and taxes that might have been obtained from such expanded production. Increased agricultural land rent is indeed a possible outcome, but this would benefit existing landowners and probably exclude the landless poor. Increased rent also implies intensification and, hence, a loss of diverse agroforests and associated carbon storage and biodiversity values [3]. We also agree that the economic lure of cities drives migration; we only add that this will be exacerbated if opportunities in rural areas are diminished.
机译：Law等人[1]忽略或误读本文[2]的实质内容。他们的第一个批评是关于我们显然未能将REDD与REDD +区别开来，这一区别我们不仅要确定，而且还要扩大。我们还特别强调了REDD +潜在的更广泛利益。我们知道，农用土地将不符合REDD的资格。我们的观点是，REDD +（根据定义）将限制林地向农业的转化，这样做不仅会影响国家的农业生产能力，而且还会影响从这种扩大的生产中可能获得的收入和税收。增加农业土地租金的确是可能的结果，但这将使现有的土地所有者受益，并可能将无地贫困者排除在外。租金的增加也意味着集约化，因此，多种农林的丧失以及相关的碳储存和生物多样性价值[3]。我们还同意，城市的经济诱惑会推动移民。我们仅补充说，如果农村地区的机会减少，这种情况将会加剧。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号