東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Analyzing the administration of REDD...

DeShazo, Jessica L.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Analyzing the administration of REDD, FSC, PEFC in terms of efficiency, equity, and transparency.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Analyzing the administration of REDD, FSC, PEFC in terms of efficiency, equity, and transparency./
Author:	DeShazo, Jessica L.
Description:	162 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-09(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International75-09A(E).
Subject:	Political science. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3621087
ISBN:	9781303919268

Analyzing the administration of REDD, FSC, PEFC in terms of efficiency, equity, and transparency.
DeShazo, Jessica L.

Analyzing the administration of REDD, FSC, PEFC in terms of efficiency, equity, and transparency. - 162 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-09(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northern Arizona University, 2014.

This research analyzes and compares three market schemes for achieving sustainable forestry in terms of their consideration of costs, benefits, and transparency. The first is Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), from both the United Nations and World Bank. The other two schemes are for sustainable forest certification: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). There are two research propositions. The first research proposition is that private systems are more likely to pay attention to costs and benefits. PEFC, being the most private scheme, is more likely to pay attention to costs and benefits. The second research proposition is that private systems are more likely to be transparent because of the importance of information in market transactions. PEFC, as the most private scheme, is more likely to pay attention to transparency.

ISBN: 9781303919268Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.

Analyzing the administration of REDD, FSC, PEFC in terms of efficiency, equity, and transparency.
LDR:02426nmm a2200289 4500 001 2065932
005 20151205152852.5
008 170521s2014 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781303919268
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3621087
035 $a AAI3621087
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a DeShazo, Jessica L. $3 3180688
245 1 0 $a Analyzing the administration of REDD, FSC, PEFC in terms of efficiency, equity, and transparency.
300 $a 162 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 75-09(E), Section: A.
500 $a Advisers: Zachary A. Smith; Yeon-Su Kim.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northern Arizona University, 2014.
520 $a This research analyzes and compares three market schemes for achieving sustainable forestry in terms of their consideration of costs, benefits, and transparency. The first is Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), from both the United Nations and World Bank. The other two schemes are for sustainable forest certification: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). There are two research propositions. The first research proposition is that private systems are more likely to pay attention to costs and benefits. PEFC, being the most private scheme, is more likely to pay attention to costs and benefits. The second research proposition is that private systems are more likely to be transparent because of the importance of information in market transactions. PEFC, as the most private scheme, is more likely to pay attention to transparency.
520 $a After the documents were analyzed, only one part of a research proposition can be supported, which is PEFC pays the most attention to benefits in its documents. Part of this research proposition can be supported because PEFC ranks the highest for benefits. For the second part of this proposition, the part about costs, UN REDD ranks the highest. UN REDD also ranks the highest in terms of transparency, so the first proposition is rejected. Ultimately, the public would be better off choosing UN REDD to achieve sustainable forestry and thus mitigate climate change.
590 $a School code: 0391.
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a Environmental management. $3 535182
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0474
710 2 $a Northern Arizona University. $b Politics and International Affairs. $3 2096993
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 75-09A(E).
790 $a 0391
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2014
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3621087