The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Deforestation in the Amazon has reached record highs in 2019 and poses a serious threat to climate change. In Brazil, about 2 million hectares of indigenous land are still awaiting homologation, and thus do not have their full property rights. We find that granting property rights significantly reduces the levels of deforestation inside indigenous territories, and the results are of significant orders of magnitude. Our local effects indicate that areas of land right inside a territory with full property rights experience significantly less deforestation than those right outside of the border. Collective property rights might thus provide an effective way to reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using satellite data and a regression discontinuity design, the paper finds that granting full collective property rights (homologation) to indigenous territories in the Brazilian Amazon significantly reduces deforestation inside their borders. The effect is absent in territories without full property rights, suggesting homologation is a cost-effective forest-preservation tool.
Key findings
- Observations inside territories with full property rights show a significant decrease in deforestation, while the effect does not exist in territories without full property rights.
- Homologation is associated with about a 2-percentage point decrease in deforestation right at the border; against baseline deforestation of around 3%, this represents a 75% decrease. After homologation, deforestation in the RDD buffer fell from 3% to 1%.
- Nonhomologated territories show no significant discontinuity; before-homologation estimates are much smaller than after-homologation estimates (e.g., in Table 1, before homologation 4th-order optimal bandwidth estimate −0.17 vs after homologation −1.99).
- The paper estimates that the standstill in homologation under Temer and Bolsonaro could be responsible for an extra 1.5 million hectares of deforestation per year.
Methods
- Uses NASA VCF5KYR fractional vegetation cover data at ~4 km × 4 km resolution, yearly 1982–2016, creating a panel of 30,699 pixels and 1,074,465 observations across 245 indigenous territories.
- Combines a geographic regression discontinuity design around territory borders (12-km buffer inside/outside) with the orthogonal timing of homologation, comparing before/after and inside/outside, and using nonhomologated territories as controls/placebo.
- Main estimates use RDD with fourth-order polynomial and MSE-optimal bandwidth, robust standard errors clustered at indigenous territory level; robustness checks vary covariates, bandwidths, functional forms, time windows, and the BenYishay et al. sample.
Limitations
- Paper-stated: estimates are local average treatment effects; the design cannot rule out leakage, and the authors cannot make causal claims about total deforestation levels in the Amazon as a whole. They report limited evidence of leakage inside buffers: the difference in deforestation right outside borders before and after homologation is less than 0.2 percentage points, compared with the 2-percentage point reduction.
- Paper-stated: VCF5KYR has lower spatial resolution than Hansen data; years 1994 and 2000 are missing and imputed as the average of adjacent years; spatially explicit poverty/population covariates are limited (nightlights from 1990s, population from 2000 in 5-y intervals), so main models use mainly geological/physical covariates, with robustness checks including nightlights and GPW yielding somewhat smaller but significant results.
- Evident from text: the RDD is boundary-local and balance tests show a jump at the cutoff for elevation (though other geographic variables appear balanced and covariates are included); territories in the first demarcation step lack geocoded boundaries, reducing the number analyzed.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
13 Own interpretation · 12 Own result · 11 Own method · 7 No full text of the sources · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Partly supported · 2 Sources not found · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They find that titling reduces clearing by more than three-quarters in a 2-y period after the title is awarded (25); we find a similar 75% reduction in deforestation within our study buffers.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] Blackman A., Corral L., Lima E. S., Asner G. P., Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 4123–4128 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion and Hypotheses reports that titling reduces forest clearing by more than three-quarters over a two-year window. But that window spans the year the title is awarded and the following year, not a two-year period after the award; the Results likewise reports an 80% average annual reduction across those two years. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“First, we use Hansen and Song (34) data to assess the question of the efficacy of indigenous land rights at curbing deforestation. This provides us with an unprecedented time span (1982–2016) and a more accurate measure of deforestation than papers that use Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] Song X.-p., et al. , Global land change 1982-2016. Nature 560, 639–643 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper says its tree-cover product is “thematically more advanced than vegetation indices” because it distinguishes changes in tree cover from changes in other vegetation. The Methods define tree-canopy loss but caution that tree-canopy cover is not equivalent to forest cover; our copy does not establish that the dataset measures deforestation more accurately than NDVI-based papers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“while we are able to confirm the results found in Soares-Filho et al. (22), Blackman et al. (25), and Nolte et al. (5) on the effectiveness of indigenous territories at curbing deforestation”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [22] Soares-Filho B., et al. , Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 10821–10826 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
In Results and Discussion, the paper reports that indigenous lands inhibited deforestation after designation as protected areas. It identifies indigenous lands as the most effective protected-area category, supporting the finding attributed to it. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [25] Blackman A., Corral L., Lima E. S., Asner G. P., Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 4123–4128 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Discussion and Hypotheses reports that titling indigenous communities in the Peruvian Amazon reduced forest clearing soon after title was awarded. This supports the cited point that indigenous territories can curb deforestation, within the study’s short-term Peruvian setting. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [5] Nolte C., Agrawal A., Silvius K. M., Britaldo S. S. F., Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 4956–4961 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Results report that indigenous lands achieved the greatest avoided deforestation in the aggregate. The Discussion also says they were particularly effective at curbing deforestation under high pressure, while noting less consistent results at low pressure. Page numbers were not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
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 difference in deforestation rates right outside of the borders before and after homologation is less than 0.2 percentage points”
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
“The coefficients of the RDD for territories with full property rights (After Homologation and After Hom, Cov) are significantly larger and more precisely estimated than those for observations before homologation and those in nonhomologated territories.”
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The potential outcomes of deforestation are continuous at the indigenous territory border, so pixels just inside and outside the border are comparable except for property rights.
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
“Considering that the baseline levels of deforestation in our sample are around 3%, this represents a 75% decrease in deforestation.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“After homologation, the area of indigenous territories within the buffer used in the RDD estimation saw a decrease in deforestation of 75% (went from 3% to 1%).”
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The potential outcomes of deforestation are continuous at the indigenous territory border, so pixels just inside and outside the border are comparable except for property rights.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · 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 granting property rights significantly reduces the levels of deforestation inside indigenous territories”
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 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
“Homologation is responsible for about a 2-percentage point decrease in deforestation right at the border.”
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The potential outcomes of deforestation are continuous at the indigenous territory border, so pixels just inside and outside the border are comparable except for property rights.
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 2-percentage point reduction in deforestation we estimate”
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
“We test using different numbers of years before and after, that is, 3 y, 5, 7, and 10 y, and find similar and robust effects for all of these specifications”
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. 16
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Thus, homologation enables indigenous territories to fulfill three of the CPR management requisites: “clearly defined boundaries,” “collective management,” and “recognition of rights to organize” (11–13, 30).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11] Ostrom E., “Analyzing long-enduring, self-organized, and self-governed CPRs” in Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 58–102. [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Ostrom E., Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Assoc. 100, 641–672 (2010). [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] Dietz T., Ostrom E., Stern P. C., The struggle to govern the commons. Science 1907, 1–6 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Could not verifycites [30] Poteete A. R., Janssen M., Ostrom E., Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice (Princeton University Press, 2010). [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The only passage returned from our copy is the book’s title and publication information (front matter; no page given). Searches for “homologation” and the three CPR requisites found no substantive passage, so this copy cannot establish whether the book supports the claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
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 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 observations inside territories with full property rights show a significant decrease in deforestation, while the effect does not exist in territories without full property rights.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“Our results show strong effects of collective property rights on deforestation.”
boosteddirect- 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.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
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 can be seen in Table 1, the fourth-order polynomial estimates are the most conservative”
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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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 see a jump at the cutoff for elevation, but all other geographic variables seem to be balanced.”
hedged- 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
“The number of homologated territories per year varies greatly, from 0 to 70 territories homologated in any given year, and seems to follow no clear pattern”
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.
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
“Although the donut hole analysis does diminish the size of the estimated effects, which could suggest that there is some leakage, the effects remain significant.”
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.
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
“Since our outcomes of interest are environmental and geographic in nature, we also do not see sorting around the boundary”
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no 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
“Robustness checks including nightlights and GPW indicate that our results regarding property rights are somewhat smaller, but remain statistically significant.”
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We use a new dataset (35) which provides a measure of FC derived from tree cover measures, thus making it possible to identify deforestation in a more accurate way.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [35] Hansen M. C., Song X. P., Data from “Vegetation continuous Fields (VCF) yearly global 0.05 deg.” NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC. https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/vcf5kyrv001/. Accessed 12 July 2019.
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
In the paper
“Once homologated, a territory becomes the permanent possession of its indigenous peoples, no third party can contest its existence, and extractive activities carried out by external actors can only occur after consulting the communities and the National Congress.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Rosenn K. S., Brazil’s Constitution of 1988 with Amendments through 2014. Constituteproject.Org. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2014.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2019.
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.
In the paper
“Thus, without homologation, indigenous territories do not have the legal rights needed to protect their territories, their territorial resources are not considered their own, and the government is not constitutionally responsible for protecting them from encroachment, invasion, and external use of their resources.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Rosenn K. S., Brazil’s Constitution of 1988 with Amendments through 2014. Constituteproject.Org. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2014.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2019.
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.
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
“when implemented, indigenous property rights create sustainable areas in the Amazon rainforest, providing an important positive externality for Brazil and the rest of the world in terms of climate change mitigation”
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.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Existing literature has found that proximity to roads, rivers, and mines and elevation and rainfall are significant predictors of deforestation”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Bonilla-Mejía L., Higuera-Mendieta I., Protected areas under weak institutions: Evidence from Colombia. World Dev. 122, 585–596 (2019). [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] BenYishay A., Heuser S., Runfola D., Trichler R., Indigenous land rights and deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86, 29–47 (2017). [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Assunção J., Gandour C., Rocha R., DETERring deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Environmental monitoring and law enforcement. https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DETERring-Deforestation-in-the-Brazilian-Amazon-Environmental-Monitoring-and-Law-Enforcement-Technical-Paper.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2019.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] Fearnside P., Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Oxford Res. Encycl. Environ. Sci. 58, 1–52 (2017). [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] Nepstad D., et al. , Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344, 1118–1123 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] Barber C. P., Cochrane M. A., Souza C. M., Laurance W. F., Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon. Biol. Conserv. 177, 203–209 (2014). [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] Busch J., Ferretti-Gallon K., What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis. Rev. Environ. Econ. Pol. 11, 3–23 (2017). [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
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
“Full property rights are an important requirement for indigenous territories to fulfill the CPR environmental law enforcement requisites.”
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.
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
“Second, we are able to look at all indigenous territories for which there is geographic information, bringing us to a total of 245 territories. Not using all territories, as some papers have done, may lead to selection on unobservables.”
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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
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
“The complete standstill in homologation of indigenous lands which began with the Temer administration and has continued under President Bolsonaro could be responsible for an extra 1.5 million hectares of deforestation per year.”
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no 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
“if CPR management requisites are met, and indigenous peoples are provided property rights over their land, they can better manage their land and protect it from external threats”
plainconditional- 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.
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
“Our results are robust to the inclusion of covariates, different bandwidths, and different time periods—that is, selecting observations 3, 5, and 10 y before and after homologation (SI Appendix, Fig. S7).”
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: The potential outcomes of deforestation are continuous at the indigenous territory border, so pixels just inside and outside the border are comparable except for property rights.
In the paper
“We do not need the more complex geographic distance since we do not face some of the problems identified by Keele and Titiunik, such as compound treatment effects and or differential treatment at different points of the border, so we believe our simple measure of distance is appropriate.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Keele and Titiunik
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
In the paper
“poverty and population have been found to matter as well”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] Busch J., Ferretti-Gallon K., What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis. Rev. Environ. Econ. Pol. 11, 3–23 (2017). [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
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
“further making the more complex design unnecessary in this case”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“BenYishay et al. (27) also rely on the orthogonality in the timing of demarcation, proving that the timing of these processes seems to be somewhat random and not caused by observable characteristics of the territories.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites BenYishay et al. [27] BenYishay A., Heuser S., Runfola D., Trichler R., Indigenous land rights and deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86, 29–47 (2017). [Google Scholar] source
boosted- 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.
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 exploit the orthogonality in the timing of homologation to identify the effect of property rights.”
- Also stated in: § Materials and Methods · hedged
“We thus divide our data into three groups which are as if randomly determined due to the year of homologation variable”
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.
- Also stated in: § Materials and Methods · hedged
The paper relies on this without support.
The potential outcomes of deforestation are continuous at the indigenous territory border, so pixels just inside and outside the border are comparable except for property rights.
“The RDD ensures that we are comparing pixels that are almost identical to each other, other than for the fact that some are inside homologated territories while others are not.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Demarcated but nonhomologated territories are valid control groups for similar demarcated and homologated territories.
“Plots of land that have been demarcated but not homologated serve as good control groups for those similar plots that have been demarcated and homologated.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Possible confounders are continuous around the cutoff; assignment to treatment relies only on the running variable, distance to border, and is orthogonal to any other variable that might be generating deforestation.
“An important assumption of the regression discontinuity model is that possible confounders should be continuous around the cutoff. In other words, assignment to treatment should rely only on the running variable, distance to border, and be orthogonal to any other variable that might be generating the outcome, in this case, deforestation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Observations right inside the territory are similar to observations right outside of the territory.
“Observations right inside the territory are expected to be similar to observations right outside of the territory.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“studies in Brazil [134] and Peru [135] found reductions in 486 deforestation after receiving property titles.”
From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [135]
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
§ Abstract
“The discontinuity is only clear and significant for Fig. 3A, showing that property rights play a major role in the effect of these territories on deforestation.”
§ Abstract
“We find that observations inside territories with full property rights show a significant decrease in deforestation, while the effect does not exist in territories without full property rights.”
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
§ Abstract
“After homologation RDD estimate −2.07** −2.12** −2.66** −2.32** −2.48** −2.07** −1.99** −1.25** (0.024) (0.027) (0.033) (0.038) (0.039) (0.034) (0.035) (0.023) Bandwidth 372 744 569 1,138 1,068 2,136 2,218 4,436 n 17,969 10,574 20,188 17,506 30,716 33,384 51,123 70,328”
§ Abstract
“Bandwidth Linear Quadratic Cubic 4th order H 2h h 2h h 2h h 2h”
Citations
Cites
High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1244693 · Cited by 11,704
Funk, C. C., Peterson, P. J., Landsfeld, M. F., Pedreros, D. H., Verdin, J. P., Shukla, S., Husak, G. J., Rowland, J., Harrison, L., Hoell, A., et al. (2015) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2015.66 · Cited by 6,719
Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems
Elinor Ostrom, B. (2010) · Lexington Books · doi:10.1080/19186444.2010.11658229 · Cited by 4,819
Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems
Ostrom, E. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.641 · Cited by 4,529
The Struggle to Govern the Commons
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091015 · Cited by 4,209
Global land change from 1982 to 2016
Song, X.-P., Hansen, M. C., Stehman, S. V., Potapov, P. V., Tyukavina, A., Vermote, E. F., & Townshend, J. R. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9 · Cited by 1,946
Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010) · doi:10.1515/9781400835157 · Cited by 1,403
Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains
Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., Bezerra, T., DiGiano, M., Shimada, J., Seroa da Motta, R., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1248525 · Cited by 1,202
Why high-order polynomials should not be used in regression discontinuity designs
Gelman, A., & Imbens, G. (2019) · Journal of Business & Economic Statistics · doi:10.1080/07350015.2017.1366909 · Cited by 1,101
Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands
NEPSTAD, D., SCHWARTZMAN, S., BAMBERGER, B., SANTILLI, M., RAY, D., SCHLESINGER, P., LEFEBVRE, P., ALENCAR, A., PRINZ, E., FISKE, G., et al. (2006) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x · Cited by 966
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–229 of 229
Cabarcas, J. D. R. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4173422
Policy principles for sustainable and just land systems
Garrett, R. D., Meyfroidt, P., de Bremond, A., Wartenberg, A. C., Barbieri, L., Fernández‐Llamazares, Á., Acheampong, E., Addoah, T., Adeleye, M., Alexander, P., et al. (2025) · Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) · doi:10.13016/m2gb2f-q12z
Does securing the commons conserve resources and improve well-being?Preprint
Delacote, P., Meyer, J., & Palmer, C. E. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6275392
Beacham, A. (2026) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1093/isq/sqag017
Ten Strategies to Promote Climate Resilience and Sustainability of Global Forests
Wang, L., Tagesson, T., Wei, F., Dong, W., Tian, F., Duan, Z., Luan, H., & Svenning, J. (2026) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.70064
Analyzing the Relationship Between Deforestation and Climate Change Using Satellite Data
AlSheikSalem, O. (2025) · International Conference on Business Intelligence for Technology Innovation (ICBITI) · doi:10.1109/icbiti65527.2025.11500938
Cultural Landscapes as a Heritage Strategy to Empower Local Communities in Indonesia
van Donkersgoed, J. (2026) · Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology/Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-9693-2_11
Harnessing AI for Climate Resilience in the Global South
Gaikwad, A., (c1c3f107-7330-4bdf-a9bd-af37820cb070, K. M., & Mishra, S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7205-1.ch009
The Green Mafia: Environmental Governance and the Criminalization of Care
Dwivedi, A. V. (2026) · International Social Science Journal · doi:10.1111/issj.70053
Castillo, V. S., Polanía, L. R., & Gallego, T. A. C. (2024) · Data & Metadata · doi:10.56294/dm2024335
Spatial multi-criteria decision-making for onshore wind farm site selection in Brazil
Garbellini, L. R., Ke, S., Gummidi, S. R. B., Dong, D., Birkved, M., Cai, G., & Liu, G. (2026) · Transactions in Energy and Sustainability · doi:10.1177/29768632261445736
Environmental risks to useful and traditionally used tree and palm species in the Brazilian Amazonia
de Souza, I. V., & Gomes, V. H. F. (2026) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-026-03427-4
Forest transitions across development stages: Global evidence from a multidimensional frameworkPreprint
Khanal, G., Paija, N., & Zhang, D. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7202948
When nature has agency: Traditional worldviews and contemporary environmental conservation
Bonikowski, B., Jimenez, J. M., Nunn, N., Stuhler, O., & Wasti, S. (2026) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2026.106942
Amazonian community-based conservation catalyzes multidimensional nature contributions to people
Rodrigues, A. C., Brondízio, E. S., Costa, H. C. D. M., Peres, C. A., Ladle, R. J., Malhado, A. C. M., de Oliveira, J. A. P., Gondim, F. D. C., & Campos‐Silva, J. V. (2026) · Frontiers in Conservation Science · doi:10.3389/fcosc.2026.1843326
The Ubiquity of Tiebout Sorting Across Neighborhood BoundariesPreprint
Maheshri, V., & Whaley, K. A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7350341
Who Loses the Forest? Aiming, Screening, and Forest Loss in India's Forest-Clearance PipelinePreprint
Shah, A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7343698
Hu, S., Shan, Y., & Liu, Z. (2026) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2026.103907
da Silva, L. N., & de Souza, B. I. (2026) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-026-02629-4
Land registration and conflict reduction: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon
Shinde, N., Schons, S. Z., Maia, A. G., & Amacher, G. S. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2026.103432
Impacts of the Homologation of Indigenous Lands on Mitigating Deforestation in the Legal Amazon
de Godoy, R. D. F., Macedo, R. D. C., & da Luz, N. B. (2026) · Sociedade & natureza · doi:10.14393/sn-v38-2026-81822x
Cortes, J. P. S. D. [., Rodrigues, P. V. M., Less, D. F. D. S., Vasconcelos, J. C., & Martínez, D. A. (2026) · Confins · doi:10.4000/16vvh
Twenty core challenges to global wood security in the Anthropocene
Bousfield, C. G., Meeks, D., Cerullo, G. R., Betts, M. G., Miao, X., Adams, M. A., Pérez, G., Saiya, H. G., Bryant, R. G., Weiss, J., et al. (2026) · Trends Open · doi:10.1016/j.treopn.2026.08.021
O Território de Uso Comum amazônico: pluriverso ou universalidade insurgente?
Fraser, J. A., Torres, M., Parry, L., Itaborahy, W., Frausin, V., Guerrero, N. R., & Aleixo, J. (2026) · Antípoda Revista de Antropología y Arqueología · doi:10.7440/antipoda.13782
Territorial capture by illicit economies along Brazil’s Amazon BR-319 highway
Ferrante, L., Lisboa, I. D. S., de Souza, B. C., Vilani, R. M., Rajão, R., Garcia, A., Menezes, T., Morellato, L. P. C., Otsuki, K., Messias, C. G., et al. (2026) · Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2026.105656
Guzmán, D. M. P. H., Polanía, L. R., & Castillo, V. S. (2024) · Salud Ciencia y Tecnología · doi:10.56294/saludcyt20241550
Biome Stewardship Councils: Revisiting the Case for Sub-global, Democratic Ecosystem Governance
Rajan, S. C. (2026) · npj Biodiversity · doi:10.1038/s44185-026-00162-5
Regression discontinuity designs in agricultural and environmental economics
Wuepper, D., & Finger, R. (2023) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/erae/jbac023 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Baragwanath, K., & Bayi, E.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Baragwanath, Kathryn
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2020-08-11
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 34
- Pages
- 20495-20502
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC7456116
- OpenAlex
- W3048450790
- Semantic Scholar
- 86ec7677cbf346a32b7915b6f0da0926fe63a695
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 6
- FWCI
- 10.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Keywords
- deforestation, indigenous property rights, indigenous territories, common-pool resources, homologation, land tenure, Amazon rainforest, climate change mitigation, forest conservation, indigenous rights, Brazil
- MeSH terms
- Indigenous Peoples, Brazil, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Human Rights, Ownership, 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).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
