ArticlePopulation and environment2017
Family Planning and Deforestation: Evidence from the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Article in Population and environment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Despite an abundant body of literature exploring the relationship between population growth and forest cover change, comparatively little research has explored the forest cover impacts of family planning use, which is a key determinant of the rate of population growth in many developing country contexts. Using data from a farm-level panel survey in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon, this paper addresses whether family planning use impacts forest cover change. Longitudinal model results show that after controlling for household life cycle and land use variables, family planning use did not have an independent effect on deforestation, reforestation, or net forest loss between 1990 and 2008. Forest cover change patterns appear indicative of farm life cycle effects. However, family planning use is associated with reduced subsequent fertility among households, suggesting that the relationship between population growth from births and forest cover change may be limited in this setting.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.