Cited by 41Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and PolicyForest Ecology and Conservation

Machine learning to analyze the social-ecological impacts of natural resource policy: insights from community forest management in the Indian Himalaya

Open access
Rana, Pushpendra, Miller, Daniel C·2019·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

Machine learning promises to advance analysis of the social and ecological impacts of forest and other natural resource policies around the world. However, realizing this promise requires addressing a number of challenges characteristic of the forest sector. Forests are complex social-ecological systems (SESs) with myriad interactions and feedbacks potentially linked to policy impacts. This complexity makes it hard for machine learning methods to distinguish between significant causal relationships and random fluctuations due to noise. In this context, SES frameworks together with quasi-experimental impact evaluation approaches can facilitate the use of machine learning by providing guidance on the choice of variables while reducing bias in estimated effects. Here we combine an SES framework, optimal matching, and Causal Tree-based algorithms to examine causal impacts of two community forest management policies (forest cooperatives and joint state-community partnerships) on vegetation growth in the Indian Himalaya. We find that neither policy had a major impact on average, but there was important heterogeneity in effects conditional on local contextual conditions. For joint forest management, a set of biophysical and climate factors shaped differential policy impacts across the study region. By contrast, cooperative forest management performed much better in locations where existing grazing-based livelihoods were safeguarded. Stronger local institutions and secure tenure under cooperative management explain the difference in outcomes between the two policies. Despite their potential, machine learning approaches do have limitations, including absence of valid precision estimates for heterogeneity estimates and issues of estimate stability. Therefore, they should be viewed as a complement to impact evaluation approaches that, among other potential uses, can uncover key drivers of heterogeneity and generate new questions and hypotheses to improve knowledge and policy relating to forest and other natural resource governance challenges.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/aafa8f

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • ML is providing new solutions to assess the impact of ecological interventions and prevent poaching.

    “ML is providing new solutions to assess the impact of ecological interventions [13,502,664] and prevent poaching [860].”

    From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [664]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rana, P., & Miller, D. C.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Rana, Pushpendra
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2019-02-01
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
024008
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2905942726
Cited by
41
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • McIntire-Stennis project (1012149)
  • USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project (1009327)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
community forestry, natural resource policy, social-ecological systems, causal impact evaluation, forest cooperatives, joint forest management, vegetation growth, optimal matching, causal trees, forest tenure, local institutions, Indian Himalayas, forest governance

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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