Cited by 250Malaria Research and ControlConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementMosquito-borne diseases and control

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Amazon deforestation drives malaria transmission, and malaria burden reduces forest clearing

Open access
MacDonald, Andrew J., Mordecai, Erin A.·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Widespread human impacts on the environment are expected to harm human health, which may in turn alter our interactions with the environment. However, evidence for impacts of environmental changes on health, and for feedbacks between environmental change and health, remains locally specific and context dependent. Using a large, geospatial dataset encompassing the Brazilian Amazon rainforest across 13 y, we identify strong evidence for a feedback between deforestation and malaria: Deforestation significantly increases malaria transmission, while high malaria burden simultaneously reduces forest clearing. Our results put into broader context the contradictory effects of deforestation on malaria found in earlier studies and provide evidence useful to land use policy and public health interventions that provide win–win solutions for conservation and health.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using 2003–2015 data from 795 Brazilian Amazon municipalities and instrumental-variable econometrics, the paper finds deforestation increases malaria incidence while malaria burden reduces forest clearing. These bidirectional effects are strongest in interior/frontier areas and attenuate where forest has already been cleared.

Key findings

  • Deforestation significantly increased malaria incidence (β = 0.327, SE = 0.145, P = 0.024); the IV model predicted a 10% increase in deforestation (∼1,567 additional km² cleared Amazon-wide in 2008) would cause a 3.27% increase in malaria incidence (∼9,980 additional cases in 2008).
  • The effect was larger in the interior and absent in outer Amazonian states: for *P. falciparum* in the interior, β = 0.716, SE = 0.323, P = 0.027; in outer states, β = 0.020, SE = 0.014, P = 0.136.
  • Malaria burden significantly reduced forest clearing (β = −1.410, SE = 0.654, P = 0.031); a 1% increase in malaria incidence (∼3,024 additional cases in 2008) was expected to reduce deforestation by ∼1.41% (∼219 fewer km² lost in 2008).
  • The negative effect of malaria on deforestation was consistent in the interior but disappeared in outer Amazonian states; malaria incidence also increased with precipitation and optimal dry-season temperature and decreased with population density and per capita GDP.

Methods

  • Observational geospatial panel of 795 municipalities across the Brazilian Amazon from 2003 to 2015, using annual malaria incidence from SIVEP-Malaria, annual forest loss/cover from the Hansen Global Forest Change dataset, and covariates including population density, per capita GDP, temperature, and precipitation.
  • Econometric analysis used OLS, least-squares dummy variable models with municipality and year fixed effects, and instrumental-variable/2SLS regression to address omitted-variable and simultaneity bias; deforestation was instrumented with dry-season aerosol pollution, and malaria was instrumented with optimal dry-season transmission temperature.
  • Robustness checks included total, *P. vivax*, and *P. falciparum* malaria models; interior versus outer Amazonian state subsets; total forest loss versus loss near settlements; alternative temperature windows, precipitation measures, aerosol timing, and comparison with PRODES deforestation data.

Limitations

  • The paper states that municipality-year aggregate data may mask local-scale and intraannual heterogeneity in environmental conditions and malaria transmission, and that the broad spatial-temporal scale trades off with resolution.
  • The paper states that, as with all observational studies, it cannot be certain all possible confounding factors are captured, and the results do not directly identify the underlying mechanisms; local mechanistic studies are needed.
  • Evident from the text: causal interpretation depends on the instrument exogeneity assumptions—that dry-season aerosol pollution affects malaria only through deforestation and that optimal transmission temperature is not otherwise related to deforestation—which the paper argues for but cannot fully prove.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1905315116

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

16 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 10 Own result · 8 Sources not found · 1 No basis given

Show all 25 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 12
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 9
20 of 20
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Aerosol pollution is a valid instrument for deforestation (correlated with deforestation but not independently correlated with malaria).

    “The model that used aerosol pollution as an instrument for deforestation predicted that, on average, a 10% increase in deforestation (∼1,567 addi- tional km 2 cleared across the Amazon in 2008, the midpoint of the study, for example) would result in a 3.27% increase in malaria incidence (∼9,980 additional cases overall in 2008) (SI Appendix, Table S1).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Optimal transmission temperature is plausibly exogenous to the larger economic and policy context that determines deforestation, making it a valid instrument for malaria.

    “Our instrument for malaria, optimal transmission temperature, is plausibly exogenous to the larger economic and policy context that determines deforestation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Aerosol pollution in September does not affect annual malaria incidence except through deforestation.

    “unlikely to independently drive malaria transmission”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Optimal temperature for transmission in the dry season is not otherwise related to deforestation.

    “but not otherwise related to deforestation.”
    “which is highly correlated with annual malaria incidence, as an instrument for malaria (see diagnostics in SI Appendix, Tables S15, S22-S24, and S27), but not otherwise related to deforestation.”
4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–250 of 250

Metadata

Authors
MacDonald, A. J., & Mordecai, E. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-10-14
Volume
116
Issue
44
Pages
22212-22218
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2980466780
Cited by
250
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 1
FWCI
25.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1611767, DEB-1518681)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mosquito-borne diseases and control
Keywords
deforestation, malaria transmission, malaria burden, forest clearing, environmental health, environmental change and health, Amazon rainforest, land use policy
MeSH terms
Brazil, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Malaria, Rainforest

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