CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesOil Palm Production and Sustainability

Addressing contextual and location biases in the assessment of protected areas effectiveness on deforestation in the Brazilian Amazônia

Open access
Kere, Eric Nazindigouba, Choumert, Johanna, Combes Motel, Pascale, Combes, Jean Louis, Santoni, Olivier, Schwartz, Sonia·2017·Ecological Economics
DOI 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.018
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.018

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two more recent studies found that indigenous areas faced more deforestation pressure and thus provided greater additionality compared to remotely located protected areas and less stringent sustainable use areas.

    “But two more recent studies found that indigenous areas faced more deforestation pressure and thus 476 provided greater additionality compared to remotely located protected areas and less stringent 477 sustainable use areas [130,131].”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [131]

    Section 3.2.1 reports more avoided deforestation in indigenous lands than in sustainable-use and integral-protection areas. The Concluding remarks link high deforestation pressure to *recent* protected areas, not specifically to indigenous lands; Section 3.2.2 says that analysis excludes indigenous lands. The paper therefore does not establish the claimed pressure-based explanation for indigenous areas’ greater additionality over remote protected areas. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Aakvik, A., 2001. Bounding a matching estimator: The case of a Norwegian training program. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63, 115-143.
  2. Angrist, J. D., 2001. Estimation of Limited Dependent Variable Models with Dummy Endogenous Regressors: Simple Strategies for Empirical Practice. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 19, 2- 16.
  3. Angrist, J. D. and Pischke J., 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. Angelsen A., 2001. Playing Games in the Forest: State-Local Conflicts of Land Appropriation. Land Economics, 77(2), 289-299.
  5. Anselin, L. (2002). Under the hood: Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agricultural Economics, 2(27), 247-267.
  6. Cattaneo, M. D., 2010. Efficient semiparametric estimation of multi-valued treatment effects under ignorability. Journal of Econometrics Vol.155, 138-154.
  7. Cattaneo, M. D., D. M. Drukker, and Holland A. D., 2013. Estimation of multivalued treatment effects under conditional independence. Stata Journal, Vol 13, 407-450.
  8. Cropper, M., Puri, J. and Griffiths, C., 2001. Predicting the location of deforestation: The role of roads and protected areas in north Thailand. Land Economics, 77 (2), 172-186.
  9. Dehejia, R., Wahba, S., 2002. Propensity score-matching methods for non-experimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 84, 151-161.
  10. Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Todd, E., 1998. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 65, 261-294.
  11. Li, F., Landrum, M., and Zaslavsky, A. (2013). Propensity score weighting with multilevel data. Statistics in Medicine, 32(19), 3373-3387.
  12. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W., 1959. Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data from Retrospective Studies of Disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(4), 719-748.
  13. Manski, C. F., 1993. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies 60(3), 531-542.
  14. Mundlak, Y., 1978. On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46(1), 69-85.
  15. Rabe-Hesketh, S. and Skrondal, A., 2008. Review of multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata, second edition. Stata Journal 8(4), 579-582.
  16. Rosenbaum, P.R., 2002. Observational Studies, New York: Springer.
  17. Rosenbaum, P., Rubin, D. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, Vol. 70, 41-55.
  18. Wendland, Kelly J., Lewis, D. J., Alix-Garcia, J., Ozdogan, M., Baumann, M., & Radeloff, V. C. (2011). Regional-and district-level drivers of timber harvesting in European Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1290-1300.
  19. Wooldridge, J. M., 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kere, E. N., Choumert, J., Combes Motel, P., Combes, J. L., Santoni, O., & Schwartz, S.
Affiliations
Université Clermont Auvergne (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Ecological Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
136
Pages
148-158
ISSN
0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.018
OpenAlex
W2260474956
Cited by
35
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Ecological Economics (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
LABEX IDGM+ (ANR-10-LABX-14-01)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
Keywords
protected areas, deforestation, protected area effectiveness, Brazilian Amazon, location bias, contextual bias, multilevel models, propensity score weighting, Indigenous Protected Areas, protected area governance, agricultural potential

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review