ArticleNature communications2026
Economic costs of global forest protection may be overstated.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protecting the world's remaining forests is central to climate and biodiversity goals, but is often assumed to impose large opportunity costs on forest-land producers. These costs are typically estimated by summing local foregone production, without accounting for market feedback. Here, we applied partial-equilibrium models to three scenarios protecting an additional 471-863 million hectares of forest, assuming a global 30% protection target by 2030. Despite reductions in harvestable area and roundwood production, global net output value in the forestry sector increases modestly, driven by price increases under reduced supply. Most countries experience gains, although some incur losses. Despite broader economic impacts, including consumer welfare, substitution effects, and cross-sector response not being captured in this analysis, these results may indicate that approaches ignoring price adjustments may overestimate producer-side opportunity costs of large-scale forest protection.
Indexed as
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.