Can REDD+ succeed? Occurrence and influence of various combinations of interventions in subnational initiatives

In a sample of 17 (out of 377) REDD+ initiatives active in Southern countries, the authors of a study published in the journal Global Environmental Change identified the combinations of interventions actually deployed and asked households to assess the impact of these interventions on their forest land-use decisions.
They found that 71% of the households in their sample had participated in a number of forestry interventions, ranging from one to ten. About a quarter of these households were offered conditional direct benefits, most often in combination with non-conditional direct benefits. Almost half of the households received only non-conditional direct benefits. Many of these households were also subject to restrictions of various kinds.

Thus, rather than abandoning the well-established IPDC approach in favour of the conditional incentives that conceptually define REDD+, most proponents of the initiative have opted for the deployment of multiple interventions. Their approach is validated by the finding that the likelihood of a household reporting that interventions led them to adopt land-use changes that could be classified as reducing carbon emissions is positively and significantly related to the number of interventions they have undergone, but is not affected by whether one of these interventions is conditional or not.
The authors also find that restrictions play an important role: 37% of households experienced at least one negative intervention, and these households were significantly more likely to report that the interventions had induced land-use changes that could be classified as reducing carbon emissions.