Systematic review examines combined effectiveness of incentives and spatial planning for low-carbon development, highlighting implementation challenges.
<ns5:p>Integrating incentive policies, spatial planning, and community forest management is increasingly promoted for low-carbon development, yet evidence on their combined effectiveness remains fragmented. This systematic review synthesises empirical evidence across diverse geographic and institutional contexts. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched Scopus, Springer, and ScienceDirect using a search string combining low-carbon, community, incentives, planning, and forest management. Studies published between 2016 and 2026 in English, open access, and reporting empirical research were included. After title-abstract (n = 503) and full-text screening (n = 58), 13 studies from 11 countries were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Thematic synthesis was conducted based on the PEO framework (Population, Exposure, Outcome). Incentive mechanisms (REDD+, carbon credits, PES, tax relief ) and community forest management (CFMGs, agroforestry, NTFP commercialisation) are widely implemented, but spatial planning remains weakly integrated. Success factors include participatory governance, transparent benefit-sharing, flexible long-term schemes, and trusted local advisory support. Persistent barriers distrust in government, high transaction costs, short-term policies, gender inequities, weak state authority, elite capture, and leakage consistently undermine outcomes. Risk of bias assessment revealed moderate-to-low risk across most studies, with common limitations being lack of researcher reflexivity and reliance on secondary data. Technical carbon interventions cannot succeed without addressing power asymmetries, strengthening local institutions, and placing communities at the centre of decision-making. Policies should prioritise flexible, long-term incentive design, gender-responsive approaches, secure land tenure, and cross-sectoral coordination.</ns5:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saiyuli et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: