Cited by 535Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and PolicyLand Use and Ecosystem Services

What Drives Deforestation and What Stops It? A Meta-Analysis

Open access
Busch, Jonah, Ferretti-Gallon, Kalifi·2017·Review of Environmental Economics and Policy

Abstract

This article presents a meta-analysis of what drives deforestation and what stops it, based on a comprehensive database of 121 spatially explicit econometric studies of deforestation published in peer-reviewed academic journals from 1996 to 2013. We found that forests are more likely to be cleared in locations where the economic returns to agriculture are higher, due to either more favorable climatologic and topographic conditions or lower costs of clearing forests and transporting products to markets. Timber activity, land tenure security, community forest management, and community demographics are not consistently associated with either higher or lower deforestation. Population is consistently associated with greater deforestation and poverty is consistently associated with lower deforestation. However, in both cases it is difficult to infer a causal link because of endogeneity. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, we suggest promising approaches for stopping deforestation, including reducing the expansion of road networks into remote forested areas, targeting protected areas in regions where forests face a greater threat, and insulating the forest frontier from the demand for agricultural commodities. There is preliminary evidence that enforcing forest protection laws, supporting continued forest management by indigenous peoples, and payments for ecosystem services (PES) may also stop deforestation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/reep/rew013

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Busch, J., & Ferretti-Gallon, K.
Affiliations
  • Center for Global Development (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Busch, Jonah
  • Ferretti-Gallon, Kalifi
Venue
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
3-23
ISSN
  • 1750-6816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-6824
OpenAlex
W2593263814
Cited by
535
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Review of Environmental Economics and Policy (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
deforestation drivers, deforestation prevention, agricultural expansion, land tenure security, community forestry, population pressure, road network expansion, protected areas, forest protection law, indigenous forest management, payments for ecosystem services, forest frontier, agricultural commodity demand

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