The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 32 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Nature threads the very fabric of human lives in remote forest areas of developing countries. Unfortunately, we do not fully understand how ecosystem services (such as human health benefits) could be secured by conserving natural capital. Thus, we analyze a rich dataset on disease, climate, demography, land uses, and conservation policies in the Brazilian Amazon. Unsurprisingly, we find that the health dividends vary across conservation policies and are small relative to the overall burden of these diseases. However, interventions targeted specifically at preserving biodiversity (strict protected areas) generate health cobenefits. Thus, given a chance, nature does its part for human (health) capital, especially for the poor and politically voiceless.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Combining municipal panel data from about 700 Brazilian Amazon municipalities (2003–2006), this paper finds strict protected areas are negatively correlated with malaria, acute respiratory infection (ARI), and diarrhea, while roads and sustainable-use protected areas have mixed associations. Scenario estimates suggest that expanding strict protected areas between 1990 and 2010 by 63% reduced malaria, diarrhea, and ARI by 6%, 2%, and 1.5%, respectively, in an average municipality.
Key findings
- Strict protected areas are negatively correlated with malaria, diarrhea, and ARI; as expected for negative controls, strict protected areas are not correlated with AIDS, dengue, arthritis, or leukemia.
- Sustainable-use protected areas are not associated with diarrhea and ARI and are positively correlated with malaria; indigenous reserves are negatively correlated only with diarrhea.
- Roads are associated with higher malaria but lower diarrhea and ARI, consistent with dual effects on ecosystem disturbance and healthcare access.
- Quantile regressions show relationships vary by disease level: strict protected areas are negatively correlated with malaria at the 75th and 90th quantiles but with ARI only at the 90th, and with diarrhea at all points except the 90th; roads are positively correlated with malaria only at the upper end, but with diarrhea and ARI at all levels.
Methods
- Municipal-level panel dataset for the Brazilian Amazon covering 4 years (2003–2006) and about 700 municipalities, with 25 variables including malaria, dengue, AIDS, arthritis, and leukemia cases in the population and diarrhea and ARI cases in children under 2 years of age; health program coverage; weather; demographics; socioeconomic factors; and land-use drivers (strict, sustainable-use, and indigenous protected areas, roads, and mining).
- Random-effects/error-components panel models and quantile regressions (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th quantiles), with standardized coefficients presented for key land-use drivers and negative-control diseases used as falsification tests for protected-area effects.
- Data sources include DATASUS, the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, the Ministry of the Environment, and IMAZON for road length.
Limitations
- The paper states that regression results may be biased by omitted confounders, observed or unobserved; that more rigorous causal impact analysis would require longer time-series data; that negative controls may not be valid for all land-use drivers because those drivers have multiple impact channels (e.g., roads could increase AIDS); and that the analysis does not consider the full range of benefits or costs of protected areas, mining, or roads.
- Evident from the text: the analysis is observational and reports correlations rather than causal estimates; the panel covers only 4 years; diarrhea and ARI are measured in children under 2 years of age, not the whole population; and municipal aggregation may mask individual-level behaviors and exposure.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own result · 19 Sources not found · 8 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given · 4 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“strict PAs are negatively correlated with malaria in the 75th and 90th quantiles but with ARI only in the 90th quantile.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 1 also shows that municipalities with more roads have higher rates of malaria but lower rates of diarrhea and ARI.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“First, we find mixed evidence on the influence of roads: They are associated with increases in malaria and decreases in diarrhea and ARI cases.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“natural water bodies are positively correlated with all three diseases, altitude is negatively correlated with malaria, and in the summer higher temperature and rainfall (which could, for example, flush pathogens down river) are negatively correlated with all three diseases (23,42,43).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [42]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“strict PAs are negatively correlated with diarrhea at all points of the distribution, except at the 90th quantile.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“natural water bodies are positively correlated with all three diseases, altitude is negatively correlated with malaria, and in the summer higher temperature and rainfall (which could, for example, flush pathogens down river) are negatively correlated with all three diseases (23,42,43).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [42]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“natural water bodies are positively correlated with all three diseases, altitude is negatively correlated with malaria, and in the summer higher temperature and rainfall (which could, for example, flush pathogens down river) are negatively correlated with all three diseases (23,42,43).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [42]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that sustainable-use PAs, which allow for human use and/or occupation, are not associated with diarrhea and ARI and are positively correlated with malaria.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“roads are positively correlated with malaria only at the upper end of the distribution, whereas roads are positively correlated with diarrhea and ARI at all levels of the distribution.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results vary by disease for other types of protected areas (PAs), roads, and mining.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 1 also shows that municipalities with more roads have higher rates of malaria but lower rates of diarrhea and ARI.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“First, we find mixed evidence on the influence of roads: They are associated with increases in malaria and decreases in diarrhea and ARI cases.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that sustainable-use PAs, which allow for human use and/or occupation, are not associated with diarrhea and ARI and are positively correlated with malaria.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 1 also shows that municipalities with more roads have higher rates of malaria but lower rates of diarrhea and ARI.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“First, we find mixed evidence on the influence of roads: They are associated with increases in malaria and decreases in diarrhea and ARI cases.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
In the paper
“The number of migrants is positively correlated with each disease, which was expected because many of those migrants had little previous exposure and therefore lower natural immunity (41).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“Malaria, diarrhea, and ARI are positively related to the number of migrants, likely through both the indirect link from migration to deforestation to diseases and the direct link of migrants being particularly vulnerable and infectious.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that only strict PAs reduce the incidence of all three diseases, probably because, in addition to slowing deforestation, they effectively discourage interaction between forest and susceptible people.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relationships between diseases and land-use change drivers also vary by quantile of the disease distribution.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“These results show that at different levels of disease incidence, there are different associations: the size, sign, and significance of the estimated coefficients vary.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“strict PAs are negatively correlated with malaria in the 75th and 90th quantiles but with ARI only in the 90th quantile.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that malaria, acute respiratory infection (ARI), and diarrhea incidence are significantly and negatively correlated with the area under strict environmental protection.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“We find that strict PAs are negatively correlated with the three major diseases: malaria, diarrhea, and acute respiratory infection (ARI).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“we find evidence of health cobenefits from strict PAs that have been implemented for the primary purpose of preserving ecosystems but also have statistically significant negative correlations with malaria, ARI, and diarrhea.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that sustainable-use PAs, which allow for human use and/or occupation, are not associated with diarrhea and ARI and are positively correlated with malaria.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“roads are positively correlated with malaria only at the upper end of the distribution, whereas roads are positively correlated with diarrhea and ARI at all levels of the distribution.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also find that indigenous reserves are negatively correlated only with diarrhea, possibly reflecting differences in health outcomes among the indigenous populations who live in those reserves.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“roads are positively correlated with malaria only at the upper end of the distribution, whereas roads are positively correlated with diarrhea and ARI at all levels of the distribution.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Population is negatively correlated with diseases because it partly reflects the protective effect of urban services (public health, sewage, piped water, electricity) and partly the effect of wealth and education, over and above our other proxies for these factors.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effects of land-use drivers on various diseases, based on random-effects regression results reported in SI Appendix, TableS6and calculated as standardized coefficients, which offer a quick way to assess the relative importance of different predictors within a model.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Statistical Methods.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The unexplained residual variation in the health outcome (the error) is unrelated to the land-use drivers.
In the paper
“Ecosystem degradation and infectious diseases are central elements of a vicious cycle of rural poverty traps in the developing topics (11)(12)(13).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites (11)(12)(13)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The claim that nature delivers health benefits rests on a thin empirical evidence base.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites (5)(6)(7)(8)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“from the perspectives of malaria, ARI, and diarrhea, our results suggest that the public health benefits of strict PAs may offset some of their local costs.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find statistically significant relationships with strict PAs and roads, even while controlling for a range of covariates that capture the influences of rural population, migration, rainfall, and temperature.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, interventions targeted specifically at preserving biodiversity (strict protected areas) generate health cobenefits.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we conclude that interventions to preserve natural capital can deliver cobenefits by also increasing human (health) capital.”
- Also stated in: § Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon · plain
“Although the relationships are complex, we conclude that interventions to preserve natural capital can deliver cobenefits by also increasing human (health) capital.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also find that different policy levers for reducing deforestation have different net effects on disease, suggesting a variety of impact channels worthy of further investigation.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, because the land-use drivers have multiple impact channels, these negative controls may not be valid for all of them.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Materials and Methods
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This may be because of the combined effects of reduced deforestation and reduced exposure, which mean that strict PAs can serve as a barrier to disease transmission (SI Appendix, Table S1).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites SI Appendix, Table S1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, behaviors such as migration and use of treated bednets and improved cookstoves are classic confounders because they muddle the links between disease reduction (in the environment) and disease exposure (in the human host), especially for infectious diseases (34).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, strict PAs are likely to decrease exposure more than sustainableuse PAs (31).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we confirm these effects by finding no evidence of such links between ecosystem change and negative control diseases.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The four negative control diseases (AIDS, dengue, arthritis, and leukemia) are not theoretically related to landscape-level ecological changes.
In the paper
“In such population-health-environment settings, environmental changes could trigger a dynamic set of behavioral interactions between families and the community that play out at multiple scales and, in turn, degrade the natural environment (35).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [35]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, these relationships may vary at different levels of health or disease (3).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Statistical Methods.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, observations on the same municipality over the 4 years in our panel are clearly correlated and thus provide less”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Statistical Methods.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Turning to our negative controls, we find that as expected, strict PAs are not correlated with AIDS, dengue, arthritis, or leukemia.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unsurprisingly, we find that the health dividends vary across conservation policies and are small relative to the overall burden of these diseases.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we reestimate all models by dropping the most urban municipios, we find the population coefficient to be either statistically insignificant or positive and significant.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As reported in Results, we do not identify spurious relationships between PAs and these health outcomes, confirming that our strategy is reasonable.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Statistical Methods.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Arthritis and leukemia have no known conceptual or empirical links to conservation actions.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roads increase mobility and hence both the spread of disease and access to medical services.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, these negative controls are best viewed as falsification tests only for the health impacts of PAs.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Materials and Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Informal mining is associated with water pollution as well as working and living conditions that increase exposure to mosquitos.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of these policies can be manipulated to reduce deforestation, which in turn reduces air and water pollution from forest fires, erosion, and agriculture.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our estimates suggest that this expansion reduced ARI, diarrhea, and malaria by 1.5%, 2%, and 6%, respectively, in an average municipality.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Dengue is transmitted primarily in urban areas, where it has expanded rapidly in Brazil (49).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Materials and Methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Underlying drivers of deforestation and land use more generally include mining (36), roads (53), and PAs (54).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Materials and Methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [53]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Brazilian Amazon is an appropriate setting to explore the health impacts of ecosystem changes because it has undergone both rapid land-use change, including conversion of nearly a fifth of the original forest cover to other land uses, and significant conservation efforts, including establishment of PAs covering 44% of the region (39).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Recent approximations attribute as much as 24% of the global burden of disease (GBD) to poor environmental quality, including land-use patterns (9,10).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To check whether the estimated coefficients in models of malaria, ARI, and diarrhea could reflect underlying correlations between public health and placement of PAs, we also estimate models of dengue, AIDS, arthritis, and leukemia as negative controls that theory suggests are not related to landscape-level ecosystem change.”
- Also stated in: § Statistical Methods. · plain
“To assess whether our results could be due to some omitted variables that influence both land-use policies and public health, we estimate models of negative controls that have no theoretical relationship with rural ecosystems: dengue, arthritis, leukemia, and AIDS.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Materials and Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Arthritis and leukemia have no known conceptual or empirical links to conservation actions.
- Also stated in: § Statistical Methods. · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Reduced deforestation can also prevent the proliferation of mosquito breeding sites and microclimates conducive to anopheline development and growth, and conserve biodiversity including mosquito predators and species that dilute the transmission of malaria itself (13,40).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [40]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conservation scenarios based on estimated regression results suggest that malaria, ARI, and diarrhea incidence would be reduced by expanding strict PAs, and malaria could be further reduced by restricting roads and mining.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Health is a universal development concern (one of three components of human development indices) and very likely to be directly affected by land use and land-use policy (3).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This supports the contention that roads can plausibly both damage ecosystems and improve access to formal health services.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Prior research has found the PSF to be effective at decreasing mortality rates among infants and children (50)(51)(52).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Materials and Methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [50]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [52]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Standardized coefficients have been more widely used in other social sciences (55) and recommended for use in ecology (56).”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Statistical Methods.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [56]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The PSF could also be positively correlated with disease outcomes, as it might reflect the government's response to high disease rates in some regions.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Materials and Methods
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The four negative control diseases (AIDS, dengue, arthritis, and leukemia) are not theoretically related to landscape-level ecological changes.
“we model four diseases that serve as negative controls for the link between PAs and disease because they are not theoretically related to landscape level ecological changes: AIDS, dengue, arthritis, and leukemia (Materials and Methods).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Even less evidence exists on how specific conservation policies affect multiple health outcomes.
“Even less evidence exists on how specific conservation policies affect multiple health outcomes.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The unexplained residual variation in the health outcome (the error) is unrelated to the land-use drivers.
“We assume that the unexplained residual variation in the health outcome (the error) is unrelated to the landuse drivers, which largely reflect federal government decisions (about placement of roads and PAs) and the distribution of mineral resources.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Arthritis and leukemia have no known conceptual or empirical links to conservation actions.
“Arthritis and leukemia have no known conceptual or empirical links to conservation actions.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon
“For example, our results suggest that the expansion of the strict PAs between 1990 and 2010 reduced the incidence of all diseases considered, most notably malaria.”
§ Public health impacts of ecosystem change in the Brazilian Amazon > Results
“Turning to our negative controls, we find that as expected, strict PAs are not correlated with AIDS, dengue, arthritis, or leukemia.”
Citations
Cites
Global Consequences of Land Use
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1111772 · Cited by 13,272
Koenker, R. W., & Hallock, K. F. (2001) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.143 · Cited by 4,554
Impact of regional climate change on human health
Patz, J. A., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Holloway, T., & Foley, J. A. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04188 · Cited by 3,103
Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients
Schielzeth, H. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00012.x · Cited by 3,027 · cited 1×
“Standardized coefficients have been more widely used in other social sciences (55) and recommended for use in ecology (56).”
BackgroundClimate change and human health: present and future risks
McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68079-3 · Cited by 2,585
The economic and social burden of malaria
Sachs, J., & Malaney, P. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415680a · Cited by 2,248 · cited 1×
“Environ Health Prev Med 13(4):183–186.”
Global Climate and Infectious Disease: The Cholera Paradigm
Colwell, R. R. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.274.5295.2025 · Cited by 1,296
Climate change and human health: Impacts, vulnerability and public health
Haines, A., Kovats, R. S., Campbell-Lendrum, D., & Corvalan, C. (2006) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2006.01.002 · Cited by 1,041
The Future of the Brazilian Amazon
Laurance, W. F., Cochrane, M. A., Bergen, S., Fearnside, P. M., Delamônica, P., Barber, C., D’Angelo, S., & Fernandes, T. L. D. N. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.291.5503.438 · Cited by 896
Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation
Haines, A., Kovats, S. R., Campbell-Lendrum, D. H., & Corvalán, C. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68933-2 · Cited by 568
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- SK Pattanayak, , Evaluating the health impacts of climate change and conservation policies using applied CGE. BE J Econ Anal Poli 9, 6 (2009).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A. G., de Souza Dias, B. F., Ezeh, A., Frumkin, H., Gong, P., Head, P., et al. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60901-1 · Cited by 2,998
Self-citationNatural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice
Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus, M., Bateman, I. J., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112 · Cited by 1,017
Ellwanger, J. H., Kulmann‐Leal, B., Kaminski, V. D. L., Valverde-Villegas, J. M., da Veiga, A. B. G., Spilki, F. R., Fearnside, P. M., Caesar, L., Giatti, L. L., Wallau, G. L., et al. (2020) · Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências · doi:10.1590/0001-3765202020191375 · Cited by 457
Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world
Naidoo, R., Gerkey, D., Hole, D. G., Pfaff, A. S. P., Ellis, A. M., Golden, C. D. W., Herrera, D., Johnson, K., Mulligan, M. P., Ricketts, T. H., et al. (2019) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav3006 · Cited by 409
Does biodiversity protect humans against infectious disease?
Wood, C. L., Lafferty, K. D., DeLeo, G., Young, H. S., Hudson, P. J., & Kuris, A. M. (2014) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/13-1041.1 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Bauch, S. C., Birkenbach, A. M., Pattanayak, S. K., & Sills, E. O.
- Affiliations
- Inter-American Development Bank (US)
- Duke University (US)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-06-15
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 7414-7419
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4475939
- OpenAlex
- W2125132456
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 9.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Public Health and Environmental Issues
- Keywords
- ecosystem change, public health, protected areas, conservation policy, land use change, malaria, acute respiratory infections, diarrhea, environmental protection, roads, mining, natural capital, health co-benefits, Brazilian Amazon
- MeSH terms
- Brazil, Conservation of Natural Resources, Diarrhea, Humans, Malaria, Public Health, Regression, Psychology, Respiratory Tract Infections, Incidence, Infection Control, Ecosystem
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
