Deforestation in the Amazon: A Unified Framework for Estimation and Policy Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deforestation is a matter of pressing global concern, yet surprisingly little is known about the relative efficacy of various policies designed to combat it. This article sets out a framework for measuring the cost effectiveness of alternative policies—both command-and-control and incentive-based—in the Brazilian Amazon. First, I estimate the demand for deforestation on private properties, exploiting regional variation in transportation costs as a means to recover farmers’ responses to permanent policies. Here, rescaling transportation costs using local yields allows me to express changes in farmers’ valuations in dollars per hectare. I then use the estimated demand to infer farmers’ willingness to deforest under different counterfactual policies, such as payments to avoid deforestation and taxes on land use, along with the corresponding potential farmers’ lost surpluses. The results indicate that payment programmes and land use taxes on agricultural land can be highly effective in preserving the rainforest and also be substantially less expensive than command-and-control policies (approximately 8 times less costly). A carbon tax equal to the social cost of carbon could virtually eliminate all agricultural land in the Amazon, given the low agricultural returns there.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".