MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404532222 · doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01845-2

Tree plantations and forest regrowth are linked to poverty reduction in Africa

2024· article· en· W4404532222 on OpenAlexaff
Bowy den Braber, Charlotte Hall, Jeanine M. Rhemtulla, Matthew E. Fagan, Laura Vang Rasmusssen

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsAgroforestryForestryTree (set theory)GeographyPovertyPoverty reductionEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEconomic growthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous countries have adopted large-scale tree planting programs as a climate mitigation strategy and to improve local livelihoods. However, it remains poorly documented how the surge in tree plantations has altered local livelihoods. Here, we assess whether tropical tree plantation expansion and forest regrowth across 18 African countries are associated with local people’s living standards. By combining a recent map that distinguishes tree plantations from regrowth from 2000 to 2012 with multidimensional poverty measures from more than 200,000 households, we find a positive association between people's living standards and areas where tree plantations have expanded or, to a lesser extent, forest regrowth has occurred. Because tree plantations make up a large proportion of recent increases in tropical tree cover – and controversy remains about their potential impacts on both biodiversity and local people – our study provides broad empirical support for the idea that tree plantations and forest regrowth can be linked with reduced poverty in the short term. The expansion of tree plantations and forest regrowth areas is associated with improvements in people’s living standards across 18 African countries, according to an analysis combining the map of tree plantations and regrowth with multidimensional poverty indicators from 200,000 households.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207