Since the establishment of REDD+, hundreds of projects have emerged around the globe. Much attention has been given to REDD+ projects in the literature, but the conditions under which they are likely to be effective are still not well known. In particular, the location bias concept states that projects are more likely to be implemented in remote areas, where development pressure is low, hence questioning the additionality of these projects. In this article, we examine this concept, assessing how the status of REDD+ project proponents and the project certification influence the choice of location and the project's additionality. Using a sample of six REDD+ projects in Brazil, we show that these two dimensions can impact location choice toward areas with higher or lower opportunity costs and that this choice can impact additionality. We also show that the selection of an area with low opportunity costs, which is frequently presented as a location bias, does not necessarily preclude additionality.