Forest Restoration in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Literature Cited

1. 1. 

   Mansourian S, Vallauri D, Dudley N 2005. Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond Planting Trees New York: Springer
2. 2. 

   FAO (UN Food Agric. Organ.) 2018. Terms and definitions, FRA 2020 Rep. FAO, Rome:
3. 3. 

   Ramankutty N, Evan AT, Monfreda C, Foley JA. 2008. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22:GB1003
   [Google Scholar]
4. 4. 

   Jin LS, Porras I, Lopez A, Kazis P. 2017. Sloping Lands Conversion Programme, People's Republic of China. Conditional transfers, poverty and ecosystems: national programme highlights Work. Pap., Int. Inst. Environ. Dev. London:
5. 5. 

   Brancalion PHS, Garcia LC, Loyola R, Rodrigues RR, Pillar VD et al. 2016. A critical analysis of the Native Vegetation Protection Law of Brazil (2012): updates and ongoing initiatives. Nat. Conserv. 14:Suppl. 11–15
   [Google Scholar]
6. 6. 

   Rudel TK. 1998. Is there a forest transition? Deforestation, reforestation, and development. Rural Sociol 63:533–52
   [Google Scholar]
7. 7. 

   Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF. 2011. Global forest transition: prospects for an end to deforestation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36:343–71
   [Google Scholar]
8. 8. 

   Kauppi PE, Sandström V, Lipponen A. 2018. Forest resources of nations in relation to human well-being. PLOS ONE 13:5e019248
   [Google Scholar]
9. 9. 

   Lawry S, Samii C, Hall R, Leopold A, Hornby D et al. 2017. The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: a systematic review. J. Dev. Effect. 9:61–81
   [Google Scholar]
10. 10. 

    Miller DC, Ordoñez PJ, Brown SE, Forrest S, Nava NJ et al. 2019. The impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence and gap map. Campbell Syst. Rev. 16:e1066
    [Google Scholar]
11. 11. 

    Snilstveit B, Stevenson J, Langer L, Tannous N, Ravat Z et al. 2019. Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector—the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-methods systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 15:e1045
    [Google Scholar]
12. 12. 

    Adams C, Rodrigues ST, Calmon M, Kumar C. 2016. Impacts of large-scale forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: what we know and do not know. Biotropica 48:731–44
    [Google Scholar]
13. 13. 

    Busch J, Ferretti-Gallon K. 2017. What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis. Rev. Env. Econ. Policy 11:3–23
    [Google Scholar]
14. 14. 

    Wainaina P, Minang PA, Gituku E, Duguma L. 2020. Cost-benefit analysis of landscape restoration: a stocktake. Land 9:465
    [Google Scholar]
15. 15. 

    FAO (UN Food Agric. Organ.) 2020. Global forest resources assessment 2020: main report Rep. FAO, Rome:
16. 16. 

    Fagan ME, Reid JL, Holland MB, Drew JG, Zahawi RA. 2020. How feasible are global forest restoration commitments?. Conserv. Lett. 13:e12700
    [Google Scholar]
17. 17. 

    WRI (World Resour. Inst.) 2011. Global assessment of opportunities for restoration of forests and landscapes: final report to UNEP WCMC. Rep., WRI Washington, DC:
18. 18. 

    Bastin J-F, Finegold Y, Garcia C, Mollicone D, Rezende M et al. 2019. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365:76–79
    [Google Scholar]
19. 19. 

    Campbell JE, Lobell DB, Genova RC, Field CB. 2008. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:5791–94
    [Google Scholar]
20. 20. 

    Cai X, Zhang X, Wang D. 2011. Land availability for biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45:334–39
    [Google Scholar]
21. 21. 

    Fritz S, See L, van der Velde M, Nalepa R, Perger C et al. 2013. Downgrading recent estimates of land available for biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47:1688–94
    [Google Scholar]
22. 22. 

    Binkley CS, Vincent JR. 1988. Timber prices in the U.S. South: past trends and outlook for the future. South. J. Appl. For. 12:15–18
    [Google Scholar]
23. 23. 

    Favero A, Daigneault A, Sohngen B. 2020. Forests: carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both?. Sci. Adv. 6:eaay6792
    [Google Scholar]
24. 24. 

    Churkina G, Organschi A, Reyer CPO, Ruff A, Vinke K et al. 2020. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3:269–76
    [Google Scholar]
25. 25. 

    Brodin M, Vallejos M, Opedal MT, Area MC, Chinga-Carrasco G. 2017. Lignocellulosics as sustainable resources for production of bioplastics: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 162:646–64
    [Google Scholar]
26. 26. 

    Khanna M, Dwivedi P, Abt R. 2016. Is forest bioenergy carbon neutral or worse than coal? Implications of carbon accounting methods. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 10:299–346
    [Google Scholar]
27. 27. 

    Brancalion PHS, Lamb D, Ceccon E, Boucher D, Herbohn J et al. 2017. Using markets to leverage investment in forest and landscape restoration in the tropics. Forest Policy Econ 85:103–13
    [Google Scholar]
28. 28. 

    Malkamäki A, D'Amato D, Hogarth NJ, Kanninen M, Pirard R et al. 2018. A systematic review of the socio-economic impacts of large-scale tree plantations, worldwide. Glob. Environ. Change 53:90–103
    [Google Scholar]
29. 29. 

    Hua F, Wang L, Fisher B, Zheng X, Wang X et al. 2018. Tree plantations displacing native forests: the nature and drivers of apparent forest recovery on former croplands in Southwestern China from 2000 to 2015. Biol. Conserv. 222:113–24
    [Google Scholar]
30. 30. 

    Bopp C, Engler A, Jara-Rojas R, Arriagada R. 2020. Are forest plantation subsidies affecting land use change and off-farm income? A farm-level analysis of Chilean small forest landowners. Land Use Policy 91:104308
    [Google Scholar]
31. 31. 

    Heilmayr R, Echeverría C, Lambin EF. 2020. Impacts of Chilean forest subsidies on forest cover, carbon and biodiversity. Nat. Sustain. 3:701–9
    [Google Scholar]
32. 32. 

    Ainembabazi JH, Angelsen A. 2014. Do commercial forest plantations reduce pressure on natural forests? Evidence from forest policy reforms in Uganda. Forest Policy Econ 40:48–56
    [Google Scholar]
33. 33. 

    Peña‑Lévano LM, Taheripour F, Tyner WE 2019. Climate change interactions with agriculture, forestry sequestration, and food security. Environ. Resour. Econ. 74:653–75
    [Google Scholar]
34. 34. 

    Xu J, Tao R, Xu Z, Bennett MT. 2010. China's sloping land conversion program: Does expansion equal success?. Land Econ 86:219–44
    [Google Scholar]
35. 35. 

    Villoria NB, Liu J. 2018. Using spatially explicit data to improve our understanding of land supply responses: an application to the cropland effects of global sustainable irrigation in the Americas. Land Use Policy 75:411–19
    [Google Scholar]
36. 36. 

    Brancalion PHS, Niamir A, Broadbent E, Crouzeilles R, Barros FSM et al. 2019. Global restoration opportunities in tropical rainforest landscapes. Sci. Adv. 5:eaav3223
    [Google Scholar]
37. 37. 

    Strassburg BBN, Beyer HL, Crouzeilles R, Iribarrem A, Barros F et al. 2019. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3:62–70
    [Google Scholar]
38. 38. 

    Strassburg BBN, Iribarrem A, Beyer HL, Cordeiro CL, Crouzeilles R et al. 2020. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586:724–29
    [Google Scholar]
39. 39. 

    Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, Houghton RA, Lomax G et al. 2017. Natural climate solutions. PNAS 114:11645–50
    [Google Scholar]
40. 40. 

    Lubowski RN, Plantinga AJ, Stavins RN. 2006. Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 51:135–52
    [Google Scholar]
41. 41. 

    Busch J, Engelmann J, Cook-Patton SC, Griscom BW, Kroeger T et al. 2019. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9:463–66
    [Google Scholar]
42. 42. 

    Adger WN, Safra de Campos R, Mortreux C 2018. Mobility, displacement and migration, and their interactions with vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risks. Routledge Handbook of Environmental Displacement and Migration R McLeman, F Gemenne 29–41 Abingdon, UK/New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
43. 43. 

    Cassels S, Curran SR, Kramer R. 2005. Do migrants degrade coastal environments? Migration, natural resource extraction and poverty in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Hum. Ecol 33:329–63
    [Google Scholar]
44. 44. 

    López-Carr D, Burgdorfer J. 2013. Deforestation drivers: population, migration, and tropical land use. Environ. Sci. Policy 55:3–11
    [Google Scholar]
45. 45. 

    Imai N, Furukawa T, Tsujino R. 2018. Factors affecting forest area change in Southeast Asia during 1980–2010. PLOS ONE 13:e0197391
    [Google Scholar]
46. 46. 

    Oldekop JA, Sims KRE, Whittingham MJ. 2018. An upside to globalization: international outmigration drives reforestation in Nepal. Glob. Environ. Change 52:66–74
    [Google Scholar]
47. 47. 

    Kröger M. 2014. The political economy of global tree plantation expansion: a review. J. Peasant Stud. 41:235–61
    [Google Scholar]
48. 48. 

    Hecht S, Yang AL, Basnett BS, Padoch C, Peluso NL. 2015. People in motion, forests in transition: trends in migration, urbanization, and remittances and their effects on tropical forests Occas. Pap. 142, Cent. Int. For. Res. Bogor, Indones:.
49. 49. 

    Leblond JP, Pham TH. 2014. Recent forest expansion in Thailand: a methodological artifact?. J. Land Use Sci. 9:211–41
    [Google Scholar]
50. 50. 

    Boulay A, Tacconi L, Kanowski P. 2013. Financial performance of contract tree farming for smallholders: the case of contract eucalypt tree farming in Thailand. Small-Scale For 12:165–80
    [Google Scholar]
51. 51. 

    Levitt P. 1999. Social remittances: a local-level, migration-driven form of cultural diffusion. Int. Migr. Rev. 32:926–49
    [Google Scholar]
52. 52. 

    Montefrio MJF, Ortiga YY, Josol MRCB. 2014. Inducing development: social remittances and the expansion of oil palm. Int. Migr. Rev. 48:216–42
    [Google Scholar]
53. 53. 

    Malthus TR 1798 [1998]. An Essay on the Principle of Population Bellingham, WA: Electr. Sch. Publ. Proj http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/malthus.pdf (accessed Feb. 15, 2021 )
54. 54. 

    Scott JC. 2017. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
55. 55. 

    Southgate EW. 2019. People and the Land Through Time: Linking Ecology and History New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
56. 56. 

    Curran SR 2021. A micro perspective: elaborating demographic contributions to a livelihoods framework. International Handbook on Population and Environment C Gray, L Hunter, J Veron Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
57. 57. 

    Carr D. 2009. Population and deforestation: why rural migration matters. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 33:355–78
    [Google Scholar]
58. 58. 

    Bardsley DK, Hugo GJ. 2010. Migration and climate change: examining thresholds of change to guide effective adaptation decision-making. Popul. Environ. 32:238–62
    [Google Scholar]
59. 59. 

    Hunter LM, Nawrotski R, Leyk S, Maclaurin GJ, Twine W. 2014. Rural outmigration, natural capital, and livelihoods in South Africa. Popul. Space Place 20:402–20
    [Google Scholar]
60. 60. 

    Kramer DB, Urquhart G, Schmitt K. 2009. Globalization and the connection of remote communities: a review of household effects and their biodiversity implications. Ecol. Econ. 68:2897–909
    [Google Scholar]
61. 61. 

    Bonilla-Moheno M, Aide TM, Clark ML 2012. The influence of socioeconomic, environmental, and demographic factors on municipality-scale land-cover change in Mexico. Reg. Environ. Change 12:543–57
    [Google Scholar]
62. 62. 

    Caldas MM, Goodin D, Sherwood S, Campos Krauer JM, Wisely SM 2015. Land-cover change in the Paraguayan Chaco: 2000–2011. J. Land Use Sci. 10:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
63. 63. 

    Baptista SR, Rudel TK. 2006. A re-emerging Atlantic forest? Urbanization, industrialization and the forest transition in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Environ. Conserv. 33:195–202
    [Google Scholar]
64. 64. 

    Cai H, Yang X, Wang K, Xiao L 2014. Is forest restoration in the southwest China Karst promoted mainly by climate change or human-induced factors?. Remote Sens. 6:9895–910
    [Google Scholar]
65. 65. 

    Li W, Li X, Tan M, Wang Y. 2017. Influences of population pressure change on vegetation greenness in China's mountainous areas. Ecol. Evol. 7:9041–53
    [Google Scholar]
66. 66. 

    Izquierdo AE, De Angelo CD, Aide TM 2008. Thirty years of human demography and land-use change in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina: an evaluation of the forest transition model. Ecol. Soc. 13:3
    [Google Scholar]
67. 67. 

    Aide TM, Clark ML, Grau HR, López-Carr D, Levy MA et al. 2013. Deforestation and reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001–2010). Biotropica 45:262–71
    [Google Scholar]
68. 68. 

    Lorenzen M, Orozco-Ramírez Q, Ramírez-Santiago R, Garza GG 2020. Migration, socioeconomic transformation, and land-use change in Mexico's Mixteca Alta: lessons for forest transition theory. Land Use Policy 95:104580
    [Google Scholar]
69. 69. 

    Ervin D, Lopéz-Carr D, Riosmena F, Ryan SJ. 2020. Examining the relationship between migration and forest cover change in Mexico from 2001 to 2010. Land Use Policy 91:104334
    [Google Scholar]
70. 70. 

    Robson JP, Nayak PK. 2010. Rural out-migration and resource-dependent communities in Mexico and India. Popul. Environ. 32:263–84
    [Google Scholar]
71. 71. 

    De Janvry A, Emerick K, Gonzalez-Navorro M, Sadoulet E. 2015. Delinking land rights from land use: certification and migration in Mexico. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:3125–49
    [Google Scholar]
72. 72. 

    Walters BB. 2016. Migration, land use and forest change in St. Lucia, West Indies. Land Use Policy 51:290–300
    [Google Scholar]
73. 73. 

    Qin H, Flint C. 2012. The impacts of rural labor out-migration on community interaction and implications for rural community-based environmental conservation in Southwest China. Hum. Organ. 71:135–48
    [Google Scholar]
74. 74. 

    Lira MG, Robson JP, Klooster DJ. 2016. Can indigenous transborder migrants affect environmental governance in their communities of origin? Evidence from Mexico. Popul. Environ. 37:464–78
    [Google Scholar]
75. 75. 

    Cole R, Wong G, Brockhaus M. 2015. Reworking the land: a review of literature on the role of migration and remittances in the rural livelihoods of Southeast Asia Work. Pap. 187 Cent. Int. For. Res. Bogor, Indones:.
76. 76. 

    Peluso NL, Purwanto AB. 2018. The remittance forest: turning mobile labor into agrarian capital. Singapore J. Trop. Geogr. 39:6–36
    [Google Scholar]
77. 77. 

    Greiner C, Sakdapolrak P. 2013. Rural-urban migration, agrarian change, and the environment in Kenya: a critical review of the literature. Popul. Environ. 34:524–53
    [Google Scholar]
78. 78. 

    Schewel K. 2020. Understanding immobility: moving beyond the mobility bias in migration studies. Int. Migr. Rev. 54:328–55
    [Google Scholar]
79. 79. 

    Barr CM, Sayer JA. 2012. The political economy of reforestation and forest restoration in Asia–Pacific: critical issues for REDD+. Biol. Conserv. 154:9–19
    [Google Scholar]
80. 80. 

    Gutiérrez Rodríguez L, Hogarth NJ, Zhou W, Xie C, Zhang K et al. 2016. China's conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects. Environ. Evid. 5:21
    [Google Scholar]
81. 81. 

    Treacy P, Jagger P, Song C, Zhang Q, Bilsborrow RE. 2018. Impacts of China's Grain for Green Program on migration and household income. Environ. Manag. 62:489–99
    [Google Scholar]
82. 82. 

    Démurger S, Wan HW. 2012. Payments for ecological restoration and internal migration in China: the Sloping Land Conversion Program in Ningxia. IZA J. Migr. 1:10
    [Google Scholar]
83. 83. 

    Zhang Q, Bilsborrow RE, Song C, Tao S, Huang Q. 2018. Determinants of out-migration in rural China: effects of payments for ecosystem services. Popul. Environ. 40:182–83
    [Google Scholar]
84. 84. 

    Pirard R, Dal Secco L, Warman R 2016. Do timber plantations contribute to forest conservation?. Environ. Sci. Policy 57:122–30
    [Google Scholar]
85. 85. 

    Chazdon RL. 2019. Towards more effective integration of tropical forest restoration and conservation. Biotropica 51:463–72
    [Google Scholar]
86. 86. 

    Chazdon RL, Gutierrez V, Brancalion PH, Laestadius L, Guariguata MR. 2020. Co-creating conceptual and working frameworks for implementing forest and landscape restoration based on core principles. Forests 11:706
    [Google Scholar]
87. 87. 

    Jindal R, Swallow B, Kerr J. 2008. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: potential benefits and challenges. Nat. Resour. Forum 32:116–30
    [Google Scholar]
88. 88. 

    Aukema JE, Pricope NG, Husak GJ, Lopez-Carr D. 2017. Biodiversity areas under threat: overlap of climate change and population pressures on the world's biodiversity priorities. PLOS ONE 12:e0170615
    [Google Scholar]
89. 89. 

    Robson JP, Klooster DJ. 2019. Migration and a new landscape of forest use and conservation. Environ. Conserv. 46:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
90. 90. 

    Weber R, Faust H, Schippers B, Mamar S, Sutarto E et al. 2007. Migration and ethnicity as cultural impact factors on land use change in the rainforest margins of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Stability of Tropical Rainforest Margins T Tscharntke, C Leuschner, M Zeller, E Guhardja, A Bidin 415–34 Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
91. 91. 

    Wolde A, Amsalu T, Mekonnen M. 2016. Social and economic impacts of community managed reforestation and natural regeneration of forestry development, the case of Humbo District, Ethiopia. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res 6:36–50
    [Google Scholar]
92. 92. 

    Curtis PG, Slay CM, Harris NL, Tyukavina A, Hansen MC. 2018. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361:1108–11
    [Google Scholar]
93. 93. 

    Ashton MS, Kelty MJ. 2018. The Practice of Silviculture: Applied Forest Ecology Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
94. 94. 

    Curran LM, Trigg SN, McDonald AK, Astiani D, Hardiono YM et al. 2004. Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science 303:1000–3
    [Google Scholar]
95. 95. 

    Etter A, McAlpine C, Wilson K, Phinn S, Possingham H. 2006. Regional patterns of agricultural land use and deforestation in Colombia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114:369–86
    [Google Scholar]
96. 96. 

    Tyukavina A, Hansen MC, Potapov P, Parker D, Okpa C et al. 2018. Congo Basin forest loss dominated by increasing smallholder clearing. Sci. Adv. 4:peaat2993
    [Google Scholar]
97. 97. 

    Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. PNAS 108:3465–72
    [Google Scholar]
98. 98. 

    Ravikumar A, Sears RR, Cronkleton P, Menton M. 2016. Is small-scale agriculture really the main driver of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon? Moving beyond the current narrative. Conserv. Lett. 10:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
99. 99. 

    Holl KD, Brancalion PHS. 2020. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368:580–81
    [Google Scholar]
100. 100. 

     Chazdon RL. 2014. Second Growth: The Promise of Tropical Forest Regeneration in an Age of Deforestation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
101. 101. 

     Poorter L, Bongers F, Aide TM, Zambrano AMA, Balvanera P et al. 2016. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530:211–14
     [Google Scholar]
102. 102. 

     Jones IL, DeWalt SJ, Lopez OR, Bunnefeld L, Pattison Z et al. 2019. Above-and belowground carbon stocks are decoupled in secondary tropical forests and are positively related to forest age and soil nutrients respectively. Sci. Total Environ. 697:133987
     [Google Scholar]
103. 103. 

     Rozendaal DM, Bongers F, Aide TM, Alvarez-Dávila E, Ascarrunz N et al. 2019. Biodiversity recovery of Neotropical secondary forests. Sci. Adv. 5:eaau3114
     [Google Scholar]
104. 104. 

     Cole LE, Bhagwat SA, Willis KJ. 2014. Recovery and resilience of tropical forests after disturbance. Nat. Commun. 5:3906
     [Google Scholar]
105. 105. 

     Engel VL, Parrotta JA. 2001. An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central Sao Paulo state, Brazil. Forest Ecol. Manag 152:169–81
     [Google Scholar]
106. 106. 

     Cole RJ, Holl KD, Keene CL, Zahawi RA. 2011. Direct seeding of late-successional trees to restore tropical montane forest. Forest Ecol. Manag. 261:1590–97
     [Google Scholar]
107. 107. 

     Freitas MG, Rodrigues SB, Campos-Filho EM, do Carmo GHP, da Veiga JM et al. 2019. Evaluating the success of direct seeding for tropical forest restoration over ten years. Forest Ecol. Manag. 438:224–32
     [Google Scholar]
108. 108. 

     Savadogo P, Tigabu M, Odén PC. 2010. Restoration of former grazing lands in the highlands of Laos using direct seeding of four native tree species: seedling establishment and growth performance. Mt. Res. Dev. 30:232–43
     [Google Scholar]
109. 109. 

     Lamb D. 1998. Large-scale ecological restoration of degraded tropical forest lands: the potential role of timber plantations. Restor. Ecol. 6:271–79
     [Google Scholar]
110. 110. 

     Kanninen M 2010. Plantation forests: global perspectives. Ecosystem Goods and Services from Plantation Forests J Bauhus, PJ van der Meer, M Kanninen 1–15 London/Washington DC: Earthscan
     [Google Scholar]
111. 111. 

     Jones ER, Wishnie MH, Deago J, Sautu A, Cerezo A. 2004. Facilitating natural regeneration in Saccharum spontaneum (L) grasslands within the Panama Canal Watershed: effects of tree species and tree structure on vegetation recruitment patterns. Forest Ecol. Manag. 191:171–83
     [Google Scholar]
112. 112. 

     Wishnie MH, Dent DH, Mariscal E, Deago J, Cedeno N et al. 2007. Initial performance and reforestation potential of 24 tropical tree species planted across a precipitation gradient in the Republic of Panama. Forest Ecol. Manag. 243:39–49
     [Google Scholar]
113. 113. 

     van Breugel M, Hall JS, Craven DJ, Gregoire TG, Park A et al. 2011. Early growth and survival of 49 tropical tree species across sites differing in soil fertility and rainfall in Panama. Forest Ecol. Manag. 261:1580–89
     [Google Scholar]
114. 114. 

     Kelty MJ. 2006. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry. Forest. Ecol. Manag. 233:195–204
     [Google Scholar]
115. 115. 

     Schnabel F, Schwarz JA, Dănescu A, Fichtner A, Nock CA et al. 2019. Drivers of productivity and its temporal stability in a tropical tree diversity experiment. Glob. Change Biol. 25:4257–72
     [Google Scholar]
116. 116. 

     Erskine PD, Lamb D, Bristow M. 2006. Tree species diversity and ecosystem function: Can tropical multi-species plantations generate greater productivity?. Forest Ecol. Manag. 233:205–10
     [Google Scholar]
117. 117. 

     O'Hara KL. 2014. Multiaged Silviculture: Managing for Complex Forest Stand Structures New York: Oxford Univ. Press
118. 118. 

     Ewel JJ, Mazzarino MJ 2008. Competition from below for light and nutrients shifts productivity among tropical species. PNAS 105:18836–41
     [Google Scholar]
119. 119. 

     Nguyen H, Herbohn J, Lamb D, Clendenning J, Meadows J. 2018. A synthesis of the available evidence to guide the design of mixed-species forest plantings for smallholder and community forestry. Small-Scale For 17:105–23
     [Google Scholar]
120. 120. 

     Elgar AT, Freebody K, Pohlman CL, Shoo LP, Catterall CP. 2014. Overcoming barriers to seedling regeneration during forest restoration on tropical pasture land and the potential value of woody weeds. Front. Plant Sci. 5:200
     [Google Scholar]
121. 121. 

     Cole RJ, Holl KD, Zahawi RA. 2010. Seed rain under tree islands planted to restore degraded lands in a tropical agricultural landscape. Ecol. Appl. 20:1255–69
     [Google Scholar]
122. 122. 

     Holl KD, Reid JL, Chaves-Fallas JM, Oviedo-Brenes F, Zahawi RA. 2017. Local tropical forest restoration strategies affect tree recruitment more strongly than does landscape forest cover. J. Appl. Ecol. 54:1091–99
     [Google Scholar]
123. 123. 

     Parrotta JA, Turnbull JW, Jones N. 1997. Catalyzing native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands. Forest Ecol. Manag. 99:1–7
     [Google Scholar]
124. 124. 

     Cusack D, Montagnini F. 2004. The role of native species plantations in recovery of understory woody diversity in degraded pasturelands of Costa Rica. Forest Ecol. Manag. 188:1–15
     [Google Scholar]
125. 125. 

     Ashton MS, Gunatilleke IAUN, Gunatilleke CVS, Tennakoon KU, Ashton PS. 2014. Use and cultivation of plants that yield products other than timber from South Asian tropical forests, and their potential in forest restoration. Forest Ecol. Manag. 329:360–74
     [Google Scholar]
126. 126. 

     Nguyen TT, Koellner T, Le QB, Lambini CK, Choi I et al. 2014. An economic analysis of reforestation with a native tree species: the case of Vietnamese farmers. Biodivers. Conserv. 23:811–30
     [Google Scholar]
127. 127. 

     Zahawi RA, Reid JL, Holl KD. 2014. Hidden costs of passive restoration. Restor. Ecol. 22:284–87
     [Google Scholar]
128. 128. 

     Strengers BJ, Van Minnen JG, Eickhout B. 2008. The role of carbon plantations in mitigating climate change: potentials and costs. Clim. Change 88:343–66
     [Google Scholar]
129. 129. 

     Brancalion PHS, Meli P, Tymus JRC, Lenti FEB, Benini RM et al. 2019. What makes ecosystem restoration expensive? A systematic cost assessment of projects in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 240:108274
     [Google Scholar]
130. 130. 

     Cubbage F, Kanieski B, Rubilar R, Bussoni A, Morales Olmos V et al. 2020. Global timber investments, 2005 to 2017. Forest Policy Econ 112:102082
     [Google Scholar]
131. 131. 

     Philipson CD, Cutler MEJ, Brodrick PG, Asner GP, Boyd DS et al. 2020. Active restoration accelerates the carbon recovery of human-modified tropical forests. Science 369:838–41
     [Google Scholar]
132. 132. 

     Evans SG, Ramage BS, DiRocco TL, Potts MD. 2015. Greenhouse gas mitigation on marginal land: a quantitative review of the relative benefits of forest recovery versus biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49:2503–11
     [Google Scholar]
133. 133. 

     Chazdon RL. 2008. Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320:1458–60
     [Google Scholar]
134. 134. 

     Cook-Patton SC, Leavitt SM, Gibbs D, Harris NL, Lister K et al. 2020. Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585:545–50
     [Google Scholar]
135. 135. 

     Reid JL, Fagan ME, Lucas J, Slaughter J, Zahawi RA. 2019. The ephemerality of secondary forests in southern Costa Rica. Conserv. Lett. 12:e12607
     [Google Scholar]
136. 136. 

     Nunes S, Oliveira L Jr., Siqueira J, Morton DC, Souza CM Jr. 2020. Unmasking secondary vegetation dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:034057
     [Google Scholar]
137. 137. 

     Qian C, Shao L, Hou X, Zhang B, Chen W et al. 2019. Detection and attribution of vegetation greening trend across distinct local landscapes under China's Grain to Green Program: a case study in Shaanxi Province. Catena 183:104182
     [Google Scholar]
138. 138. 

     Zhao A, Zhang A, Liu J, Feng L, Zhao Y. 2019. Assessing the effects of drought and “Grain for Green” Program on vegetation dynamics in China's Loess Plateau from 2000 to 2014. Catena 175:446–55
     [Google Scholar]
139. 139. 

     Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang J-C. 2003. Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforest. Syst. 57:173–86
     [Google Scholar]
140. 140. 

     van Noordwijk M, Leimona B, Jindal R, Villamor GB, Vardhan M et al. 2012. Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37:389–420
     [Google Scholar]
141. 141. 

     Reij C, Garrity D. 2016. Scaling up farmer-managed natural regeneration in Africa to restore degraded landscapes. Biotropica 48:834–43
     [Google Scholar]
142. 142. 

     Mayers J. 2000. Company-community forestry partnerships: a growing phenomenon. Unasylva 200 51:33–41
     [Google Scholar]
143. 143. 

     Gonçalves JLM, Ferraz AV, Rocha JHT, Peressin M, Alvares CA. 2020. Forest outgrower schemes in small and medium-sized farmers in Brazil. Forest Ecol. Manag. 456:117654
     [Google Scholar]
144. 144. 

     Race D, Desmond H. 2002. Forestry out-grower schemes: a review from selected countries. J. Sustain. For. 15:79–98
     [Google Scholar]
145. 145. 

     Nawir AA, Santoso L. 2005. Mutually beneficial company-community partnerships in plantation development: emerging lessons from Indonesia. Int. For. Rev. 7:177–92
     [Google Scholar]
146. 146. 

     Permadi DB, Burton M, Pandit R, Walker I, Race D. 2017. Which smallholders are willing to adopt Acacia mangium under long-term contracts? Evidence from a choice experiment study in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 65:211–23
     [Google Scholar]
147. 147. 

     Erbaugh JT, Pradhan N, Adams J, Oldekop  JA, Agrawal A et al. 2020. Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4:1472–76
     [Google Scholar]
148. 148. 

     RRI (Right Resour. Initiat.) 2020. Estimate of the area of land and territories of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and Afro-descendants where their rights have not been recognized Tech. Rep., RRI Washington, DC:
149. 149. 

     Yin RS, Zulu L, Qi JG, Freudenberger M, Sommerville M. 2016. Empirical linkages between devolved tenure systems and forest conditions: challenges, findings, and recommendations. Forest Policy Econ 73:294–99
     [Google Scholar]
150. 150. 

     Eastwood R, Lipton M, Newell A 2010. Farm size. Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 4 PL Pingali, RE Evenson 3323–97 North Holland: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
151. 151. 

     Sharma BN, Lawry S, Paudel NS, McLain R, Adhikary A et al. 2020. Operationalizing a framework for assessing the enabling environment for community forest enterprises: a case study from Nepal. Small-Scale For 19:83–106
     [Google Scholar]
152. 152. 

     McLain R, Lawry S, Guariguata MR, Reed J. 2021. Toward a tenure-responsive approach to forest landscape restoration: a proposed tenure diagnostic for assessing restoration opportunities. Land Use Policy 104:103748
     [Google Scholar]
153. 153. 

     Goldstein M, Houngbedji K, Kondylis F, O'Sullivan M, Selod H 2018. Formalization without certification? Experimental evidence on property rights and investment. J. Dev. Econ. 132:57–74
     [Google Scholar]
154. 154. 

     Huntington H, Shenoy A. 2021. Does insecure land tenure deter investment? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. J. Dev. Econ. 150:102632
     [Google Scholar]
155. 155. 

     McLain R, Kassa H, Lawry S, Yazew B. 2019. Fostering tenure security for forest landscape restoration in Ethiopia: creating enabling conditions for the 2018 Forest Proclamation Info Brief 267 Cent. Int. For. Res. Bogor, Indones:.
156. 156. 

     Nguyen QN, Wildemeersch D, Masschelein J. 2015. The five million hectare reforestation programme in Vietnam—lessons and policy implications. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 14:40–55
     [Google Scholar]
157. 157. 

     Nguyen TT, Bauer S, Uibrig H. 2010. Land privatization and afforestation incentive of rural farms in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam. Forest Policy Econ 12:518–26
     [Google Scholar]
158. 158. 

     Yi Y, Köhlin G, Xu J. 2013. Property rights, tenure security and forest investment incentives: evidence from China's Collective Forest Tenure Reform. Environ. Dev. Econ. 19:48–73
     [Google Scholar]
159. 159. 

     Liu C, Liu H, Wang S. 2017. Has China's new round of collective forest reforms caused an increase in the use of productive forest inputs?. Land Use Policy 64:492–510
     [Google Scholar]
160. 160. 

     Adamowicz W, Calderon-Etter L, Entemb A, Fenichel EP, Hall JS et al. 2019. Assessing ecological infrastructure investments. PNAS 116:5254–61
     [Google Scholar]
161. 161. 

     Grosjean P, Kontoleon A. 2009. How sustainable are sustainable development programs? The case of the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China. World Dev 37:268–85
     [Google Scholar]
162. 162. 

     Jayachandran S, de Laat J, Lambin EF, Stanton CY, Audy R et al. 2017. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357:267–73
     [Google Scholar]
163. 163. 

     Oliva P, Jack BK, Bell S, Mettetal E, Severen C. 2020. Technology adoption under uncertainty: take-up and subsequent investment in Zambia. Rev. Econ. Stat. 102:617–32
     [Google Scholar]
164. 164. 

     Wünscher T, Wunder S. 2017. Conservation tenders in low-income countries: opportunities and challenges. Land Use Policy 63:672–78
     [Google Scholar]
165. 165. 

     Wang X, Bennett J, Xu J, Zhang H. 2012. An auction scheme for land use change in Sichuan Province, China. J. Environ. Plann. Manag 55:1269–88
     [Google Scholar]
166. 166. 

     Jack BK. 2013. Private information and the allocation of land use subsidies in Malawi. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 5:113–35
     [Google Scholar]
167. 167. 

     Jindal R, Kerr JM, Ferraro PJ, Swallow BM. 2013. Social dimensions of procurement auctions for environmental service contracts: evaluating tradeoffs between cost-effectiveness and participation by the poor in rural Tanzania. Land Use Policy 31:71–80
     [Google Scholar]
168. 168. 

     Andeltová L, Catacutan DC, Wünscher T, Holm-Müller K. 2019. Gender aspects in action- and outcome-based payments for ecosystem services—a tree planting field trial in Kenya. Ecosyst. Serv. 35:13–22
     [Google Scholar]
169. 169. 

     Liu C, Mullan K, Liu H, Zhu W, Rong Q. 2014. The estimation of long term impacts of China's key priority forestry programs on rural household incomes. J. Forest Econ. 20:267–85
     [Google Scholar]
170. 170. 

     Yin R, Liu H, Liu C, Lu G. 2018. Households' decisions to participate in China's Sloping Land Conversion Program and reallocate their labour times: Is there endogeneity bias?. Ecol. Econ. 145:380–90
     [Google Scholar]
171. 171. 

     UNEP (UN Environ. Progr.), FAO (UN Food Agric. Organ.) 2020. The UN decade on ecosystem restoration 2021–2030. UNEP/FAO Factsheet June. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30919/UNDecade.pdf?sequence=11
     [Google Scholar]
172. 172. 

     Nambiar EKS. 2019. Re-imagining forestry and wood business: pathways to rural development, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation in the tropics. Forest Ecol. Manag. 448:160–73
     [Google Scholar]
173. 173. 

     World Bank 2020. State and trends of carbon pricing 2020 Rep., World Bank Washington, DC:
174. 174. 

     Löfqvist S, Ghazoul J. 2019. Private funding is essential to leverage forest and landscape restoration at global scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3:1612–15
     [Google Scholar]
175. 175. 

     Binkley CS, Stewart F, Power S. 2020. Pension-fund investment in forestry EFI Insight–Finance Rep., World Bank Washington, DC:
176. 176. 

     DESA (UN Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff.) 2020. World economic situation and prospects: public finances after COVID-19: Is a high-debt, low-growth trap looming for developing countries? Brief. 142, DESA New York:
177. 177. 

     Norton A, Seddon N, Agrawal A, Shakya C, Kaur N, Porras I. 2020. Harnessing employment-based social assistance programmes to scale up nature-based climate action. . Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B375 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0127
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
178. 178. 

     OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2019. Aid in support of environment Rep., OECD Paris: