hypothesis on deforestation

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Forestry
• About Society of American Foresters
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Addressing the complexities and impacts of deforestation.

• < Previous

Addressing the Complexities and Impacts of Deforestation

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

John Stanturf, Addressing the Complexities and Impacts of Deforestation, Journal of Forestry , Volume 115, Issue 4, July 2017, Pages 319–320, https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.2016-069

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Deforestation, the removal of forest canopy and conversion to another land use, has engendered significant international efforts to stop or reverse loss of tree cover. Seen today, deforestation would appear to be an issue of tropical forests even though the cumulative loss of forestland over the last 5,000 years is estimated globally at 1.8 billion ha. In Global Deforestation , Runyan and D'Odorico provide a thorough analysis of the literature, and to say that their book is broad in scope is perhaps an understatement. It is multidisciplinary, addressing perspectives from the biophysical as well as social sciences and examines processes at multiple spatial and temporal scales. The book addresses the complexity of deforestation, including considering the benefits of deforestation (mostly private and short-term) as well as the costs (social and long-term). A further strength of the book is that effects examined go beyond the deforested area, for example, including the potential regional climatic effects of deforestation and afforestation. This comprehensive approach, which should appeal to researchers and students, may seem a bit too “academic” for managers. The summaries of main points provided by the authors within and at the end of chapters, however, should appeal to all readers.

Global Deforestation is a relatively short book, comprising just six chapters but well referenced, and some figures are reproduced in color at the end. It begins with an introduction to the drivers of deforestation, including a historical perspective that describes the trajectory of clearing and in some cases recovery by region. Potential future drivers (principally meeting food security and dietary preferences of an expanding human population) are introduced in Chapter 1 (“Introduction: Patterns and Drivers”) and explored in-depth in Chapter 6 (“Synthesis and Future Impacts of Deforestation”). The intervening chapters address impacts of deforestation on hydrology and climate, biogeochemistry, ecological irreversibility, and, of course, economic impacts and drivers. Each chapter on impacts has a similar structure, first describing underlying processes (or baseline conditions) and then the effects of deforestation on important aspects of a process. For example, Chapter 2, “Hydrologic and Climatic Impacts,” has sections describing precipitation and forest canopies and infiltration and runoff generation before launching into the effects of deforestation on the hydrologic responses of flood dynamics and water yields. Also considered in this chapter are the effects of forests on groundwater and deforestation on wetlands, evaporation and transpiration and the effects of forests on precipitation and microclimate, and the effects of deforestation on large-scale climate. The chapter effectively presents a minireview of the importance of forests in climate change discussions that venture beyond carbon sequestration.

The chapter on irreversibility and ecosystem impacts ties the previous chapters to current thinking on disturbance and ecosystem resilience and resistance. Specific feedbacks that modify resource availability are presented in terms of operating principles, geographic extent, available observational evidence, modeling techniques to address the complexity, and management implications. The situations considered are potentially where deforestation leads to conditions that cannot support forest vegetation, such as following landslides, wildfire, exposure to freezing events, or increased soil salinity. These are cases where an abrupt transition to a seemingly irreversible state, with loss of economic and ecological functions, has significant implications for restoration efforts. Unfortunately, the authors do not draw out these implications in greater detail; more on this later.

Chapter 5, “Economic Impacts and Drivers of Deforestation,” is where many authors would begin their story; to the credit of Runyan and D'Odorico, however, they lay the biophysical groundwork first before venturing into the very complex social context of land-use decisions. They use the framework that is well established in the literature of immediate (proximate) versus underlying (ultimate) causes and note that agricultural expansion is the primary cause of deforestation, although other factors such as road building that improves access to markets can determine the historical development of reduced forest cover in a region. Two paradoxes of importance to conservation and sustainable development emerge regarding improved agricultural productivity and secure tenure. First, agricultural intensification has been promoted as a way to reduce pressure on native forests (i.e., avoided deforestation). In actuality, yield increases and labor-saving technology may lead to increased deforestation because agriculture is more profitable. Second, insecure land tenure, typical of many areas in the tropics where deforestation is occurring, could lead a farmer to decline to invest in improvements or long-term investments such as forestry; thus, secure tenure could lead to greater emphasis on future benefits from value accumulated in timber. Conversely, secure property rights could induce the farmer to invest in agriculture and use the land as collateral for loans to cover the costs of improvement. In both instances, other sociocultural conditions play a role in which scenario plays out.

On the whole, Global Deforestation is a valuable addition to the literature on an important international issue of great interest to foresters. Although it may be slow going for some readers in parts due to the comprehensive treatment of technical issues, the brief summaries within some chapters and at the end of each provide needed rest from the details and helpful reminders of the larger picture. Considering the benefits to some people and costs to others makes the case that deforestation occurs for economic and social reasons and is not due to moral failure or ignorance. Reversing deforestation, therefore, requires addressing the immediate and underlying drivers, which is shown to be far from a simple task and one that requires more effort at multiple levels of society and not just in communities near tropical forests. I would be remiss as a reviewer if I couldn't identify two shortcomings. Even though the authors define deforestation clearly in the Introduction as involving long-term reduction of forest cover to below 10%, they still treat logging in several places as a general deforestation factor. This will be a burr under the saddle of most foresters. To their credit, the authors place relatively little emphasis on this, however. Finally, I would have appreciated the authors addressing current international efforts to address and reverse deforestation. Even though REDD+ is briefly mentioned, other efforts such as the Bonn Challenge to restore 150 million ha of forested landscapes by 2020 and 350 million ha by 2030 or the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Targets are ignored. Giving some insight into how to ensure these efforts are successful would have been a valuable conclusion to an interesting book.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1938-3746
• Print ISSN 0022-1201
• Copyright © 2024 Society of American Foresters
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Deforestation.

Deforestation is the intentional clearing of forested land.

Biology, Ecology, Conservation

Trees are cut down for timber, waiting to be transported and sold.

Photograph by Esemelwe

Deforestation is the purposeful clearing of forested land. Throughout history and into modern times, forests have been razed to make space for agriculture and animal grazing, and to obtain wood for fuel, manufacturing, and construction.

Deforestation has greatly altered landscapes around the world. About 2,000 years ago, 80 percent of Western Europe was forested; today the figure is 34 percent. In North America, about half of the forests in the eastern part of the continent were cut down from the 1600s to the 1870s for timber and agriculture. China has lost great expanses of its forests over the past 4,000 years and now just over 20 percent of it is forested. Much of Earth’s farmland was once forests.

Today, the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring in tropical rainforests, aided by extensive road construction into regions that were once almost inaccessible. Building or upgrading roads into forests makes them more accessible for exploitation. Slash-and-burn agriculture is a big contributor to deforestation in the tropics. With this agricultural method, farmers burn large swaths of forest, allowing the ash to fertilize the land for crops. The land is only fertile for a few years, however, after which the farmers move on to repeat the process elsewhere. Tropical forests are also cleared to make way for logging, cattle ranching, and oil palm and rubber tree plantations.

Deforestation can result in more carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. That is because trees take in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis , and carbon is locked chemically in their wood. When trees are burned, this carbon returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide . With fewer trees around to take in the carbon dioxide , this greenhouse gas accumulates in the atmosphere and accelerates global warming.

Deforestation also threatens the world’s biodiversity . Tropical forests are home to great numbers of animal and plant species. When forests are logged or burned, it can drive many of those species into extinction. Some scientists say we are already in the midst of a mass-extinction episode.

More immediately, the loss of trees from a forest can leave soil more prone to erosion . This causes the remaining plants to become more vulnerable to fire as the forest shifts from being a closed, moist environment to an open, dry one.

While deforestation can be permanent, this is not always the case. In North America, for example, forests in many areas are returning thanks to conservation efforts.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

February 21, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, understanding the socio-economic causes of deforestation: a global perspective.

• 1 Department of Economics, Czech University of Life Science, Prague, Czechia
• 2 Department of Trade and Finance, Czech University of Life Science, Prague, Czechia

Introduction: This paper investigates the links between deforestation and key economic, social, environmental, and geographical variables. We focus on per capita GDP, total forest cover, and the population across a diverse sample of countries from five continents for the last three decades.

Methods: This study utilizes a regression model using panel data to show the impact of key economic, and social variables on deforestation. Also, set of dummy variables is introduced in the paper. To enable the investigation, we use a set of dummies to capture their influence. The random effect specifications are used in this investigation. The research focuses on a period ranging from 1990 to 2020.

Results: Results show how different socio-economic variables influence deforestation. For example, disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the financial crisis had a negative effect on forest area development across all models. GDP per capita has different impact depending on the size of a country. Former colonies seem to have more deforestation.

Conclusions: The global environmental challenges posed by human activities and their impact on the state of forest have become increasingly evident. It is necessary to undertake policy and governance reforms to establish a solid legal framework, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and foster transparency and accountability. The promotion of sustainable agriculture and agroforestry practices can substantially alleviate pressure on forests. Furthermore, it is necessary to mitigate disruptive events like pandemics by establishing specific strategies and creating contingency plans.

1. Introduction

Deforestation is raising concerns because of its negative consequences for example climate change, decrease in biodiversity, soil degradation, reduction of timber supply, floods, and siltation. Therefore it is a complex process that has impacts on both the environment and the economy ( Van Khuc et al., 2018 ). Any change in forest cover has both positive and negative effects on the local ecosystem and on the global environment ( Silva Junior et al., 2021 ). Destroying and degrading natural ecosystems lead to a decline in global biodiversity ( Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 1999 ). The problem of (a)deforestation is an example of a global externality ( Lawrence et al., 2022 ). Current research claims that it is needed to identify the specific economic factors that drive deforestation and develop effective policies and tools to mitigate its impacts at the global and national level ( Bhatia and Cumming, 2020 ; Ahmed et al., 2023 ).

Figures 1 , 2 offer a depiction of deforestation and afforestation trends. Through a comprehensive examination of global land cover changes for the years 1990 and 2020, the analysis brings to light the diverse and intricate shifts in forest cover. This exploration unveils distinct spatial and temporal fluctuations across various geographical regions. The Figures 1 , 2 effectively underscore the changing rates at which these transformations have emerged, highlighting the cases of rapid deforestation in certain regions juxtaposed with a rejuvenation of forested areas in others. This paper’s primary aim is to identify the underlying drivers that give rise to these contrasting trends.

Figure 1 . Annual change in forest area (1995). Source: FAO (2020) and Our World in Data (2021) .

Figure 2 . Annual change in forest area (2020). Source: FAO (2020) and Our World in Data (2021) .

Various studies have raised arguments and hypotheses on the causes of deforestation. Studies are, however, often focused on smaller regions ( Maretto et al., 2020 ), individual states ( Zeb et al., 2019 ), or entire continents ( Leisher et al., 2013 ). The heterogeneity of countries and regions limits the significance and global impact of the results. As opposed to these studies, our study aims to contribute to the literature by systematic globally oriented research of the socio-economic drivers of deforestation. Previously published global studies are somewhat dated or do not include such a range of investigated variables ( Ehrhardt-Martinez, 1998 ; Ewers, 2006 ; Damette and Delacote, 2012 ; Nguyen et al., 2023 ).

Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the links between deforestation and various economic, social, environmental, and geographical factors, such as per capita GDP, total forest cover, and population. We look at these aspects across multiple countries from five continents over the past 30 years. We carefully select several countries to delve into these connections. We ensured a relatively even distribution of examples across Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America is present. Additionally, we include two instances from South America, chosen based on relevance and available data. The goal was to have a mix of both larger and smaller countries to achieve a diverse range of results.

Also, several major global events are incorporated in the investigation such as COVID-19 pandemic and financial crisis. To account for the impacts of these events on the variables being analysed, various dummy variables were included in the model. In addition to standard environmental and economic indicators, we also utilized dummy variables to account for factors such as a country’s location, EU membership, geographical position, continent, and landlock, in order to examine their potential impacts on deforestation rates. Data sources and the importance of the investigated factors are justified in the Data and Methodology section of this article. By incorporating these additional variables, our analysis seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex factors contributing to deforestation in these selected countries and to help inform policy and decision-making aimed at reducing its impacts. Based on existing research gaps, we established the following research questions: (1) Which distinct factors wield the potential to mold the growth of forested regions? (2) Do relationships exist between deforestation and economic indicators, including their driving forces? and (3) Did significant global occurrences like the 2008–2010 financial crisis and the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic exert influence on variables tied to deforestation?

2. Literature review

The review of existing literature demonstrates that the reasons and catalysts behind deforestation have been extensively explored in the preceding decades. A consensus among numerous contemporary and historical studies is that the primary causes driving deforestation and forest deterioration encompass population upsurge, agricultural expansion, urban proliferation, and intensified fuelwood gathering, particularly within developing nations ( Jallat et al., 2021 ; Ahmed et al., 2023 ). Nonetheless, comprehending the root causes of deforestation is a more intricate undertaking. The distinct characteristics of continents, the varying levels of economic advancement, demographic shifts, and other indicators all contribute to a multifaceted picture.

According to Derouin (2019) , deforestation refers to the deliberate clearing of extensive tree-covered areas, primarily driven by human actions. Derouin (2019) identifies the following as factors contributing to deforestation: (1) Conversion of land for oil palm, soybeans, and other agricultural cultivation; (2) Expansion of farming areas in response to heightened worldwide requests for livestock-based commodities; (3) Advancement of urban zones, the establishment of new transportation networks, and housing projects; and (4) Generation of wood pulp intended for the paper sector, ultimately transformed into paper and cardboard goods.

In a study by Jayathilake et al. (2021) , commercial agriculture emerged as the primary force propelling deforestation in tropical nations, trailed by the expansion of infrastructure and settlement areas. Similarly, Curtis et al. (2018) highlighted land utilization for commodity production, agriculture, and forest fires as the foremost drivers behind worldwide deforestation. To combat this issue, Curtis proposes a solution to extract five million hectares of conversion annually from supply-customer chains, aiming to eliminate deforestation.

Amelung and Diehl (1992) assert that increasing cultivation stands as the primary catalyst for deforestation. These authors also underscore the role of a growing population in this dynamic. The notion that an expanding population contributes to deforestation is supported by various authors (e. g., Allen and Barnes, 1985 ; Cropper and Griffiths, 1994 ; Ehrhardt-Martinez, 1998 ; Mather and Needle, 2005 ). Martínez and Poveda (2021) emphasize that global attainment of economic and societal advancement has often come at the cost of environmental degradation.

Shafron (2019) examines the interplay between deforestation and social aspects of forest management. As highlighted by Ferrer Velasco et al. (2020) , deforestation frequently intertwines with human actions and can wield consequences on vital forest ecosystem services, encompassing carbon sequestration, biodiversity preservation, and water regulation.

Damette and Delacote (2012) found positive correlations between economic development, timber harvesting, demography, prices with deforestation. However, institutional quality was not found to significantly impact deforestation ( Damette and Delacote, 2012 ). In a distinct examination of deforestation’s causes in Vietnam, the authors proposed enhancements to the institutional framework. Their recommendations encompass poverty alleviation, conservation of existing forests, enhanced governance at the provincial level, and effective management of population growth ( Van Khuc et al., 2018 ). McCallister et al. (2022) suggest that institutional and economic factors of deforestation pose greater challenges for identification and control compared to conventional factors like livestock production, agricultural land expansion, and the mining industry.

The theoretical foundation underpinning the link between per capita income and deforestation is encapsulated by the U-shaped Kuznets Curve. This framework posits that in less developed nations, economic growth initially exerts a negative impact on the environment (evidenced by deforestation). However, at a certain threshold of GDP per capita , environmental degradation (including deforestation) reaches a point of saturation, ceasing to escalate with further economic expansion. This phenomenon may even lead to afforestation in more advanced economies ( Culas, 2007 ; Adila et al., 2021 ; Caravaggio, 2022 ).

Destiartono and Ekananda (2023) assessed GDP per capita in relation to deforestation across Southeast Asia, identifying a pivotal break-even point at $26,785. This juncture signifies the transition to an advanced stage of economic development and theoretically affirms the fundamental premise of the U-shaped curve. Interestingly, the study designates Brunei Darussalam as the sole Southeast Asian nation to have achieved a higher level of deforestation. Meanwhile, Ajanaku and Collins (2021) validated the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis within Africa during the period spanning 1990 to 2016. Their analysis positioned the break-even point at $3,000.

Nguyen et al. (2023) conducted a study assessing the influence of tourism on forested areas across a diverse collection of 140 economies worldwide. Their findings indicate a favorable short-term impact of tourism, which, however, turns detrimental in the long run. Notably adverse consequences of tourism were particularly pronounced in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Another intriguing factor was explored by Nguyen and Nguyen (2023) . Their examination of a global sample spanning 148 countries from 1991 to 2017 revealed an asymmetrical long-term correlation between the shadow economy and deforestation. Brown and Pearce (2023) in their book examine different causes for tropical areas deforestation albeit most of the data is relatively old. Additionally, González-Eguino (2015) underscores the significance of illicit mining within the informal economy. These unauthorized activities often intertwine with poverty and a malfunctioning labor market ( Santos de Lima et al., 2018 ; Zeb et al., 2019 ).

3. Data and methodology

This study explores a regression model using panel data to show the impact of key economic, and social variables on deforestation. To enable the investigation, we use a set of dummies to capture their influence. The random effect specifications are used in this investigation.

3.1. Countries specification

The characteristics of deforestation trends and causes vary across continents and countries, as outlined in recent studies ( Antonarakis et al., 2022 ; Ma et al., 2023 ). In North America, deforestation rates have generally remained lower compared to other continents, especially in recent years. This can be attributed partially to effective forest management practices, the transition toward a more service-oriented economy, and dedicated reforestation efforts. Localized deforestation in this region can arise from urban expansion, wildfires, and insect infestations ( Zerriffi et al., 2023 ).

On the other hand, South America, which hosts the Amazon rainforest, experiences some of the highest deforestation rates worldwide. This is primarily fueled by agricultural expansion, notably for beef and soy production, alongside mining and infrastructure growth. Deforestation in this context is also influenced by governance issues and insufficient enforcement of environmental regulations ( Silva Junior et al., 2021 ; Stabile et al., 2022 ).

Deforestation rates across Asia are shaped by a diverse array of influences. For instance, in Southeast Asia, the expansion of palm oil plantations stands out as a prominent cause of deforestation ( Miettinen et al., 2014 ; Van Khuc et al., 2018 ). In various other Asian regions, the noteworthy drivers encompass urban sprawl, infrastructure advancement, and timber extraction ( Khalid et al., 2019 ).

Meanwhile, Europe has generally witnessed a growth in its forest cover over recent decades, largely attributable to sustainable forest management practices and concerted reforestation initiatives. While issues like urban expansion and, in certain areas, heightened demand for bioenergy can lead to localized deforestation, the predominant forces behind deforestation in this context include agricultural expansion, urbanization, and timber logging ( Belušić et al., 2019 ; Strandberg and Kjellström, 2019 ).

To comprehensively address the matter and ensure a well-rounded representation, we have selected a minimum of five countries from each continent. This selection process was purposefully designed to encompass nations of varying sizes, thus revealing the inclusion of both substantial and smaller countries. The overarching objective was to achieve a comprehensive cross-section of human development levels across the global spectrum.

Our approach also prioritized the incorporation of both developed and developing countries, along with nations exhibiting a broad range of economic and social development statuses. The guiding principle behind our country selection was based on the purpose to assemble a sample that authentically reflects the complex set of factors influencing economic and social development across different parts of the world, in line with the directives provided by the World Bank (2023) . A detailed list of the countries chosen for our analysis is in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Countries selected for analysis ranked by change in forest cover.

In our research, we introduced colonial countries as a dummy variable to assess their potential influence on deforestation rates within the chosen nations. This inclusion was motivated by the recognition that colonialism has been associated with enduring ramifications on a country’s economic and political structures. Colonialism was potentially influencing subordinate countries’ approaches to managing natural resources.

Drawing from the definition that designates a nation as landlocked if it is surrounded by other countries without direct sea access or if its coastline is located within a closed drainage basin, our team engaged in deliberations regarding the specific landlocked status of a particular country. Upon thorough consideration, we collectively arrived at a consensus and determined the countries that fit the landlocked classification. Currently, the global count stands at 44 landlocked countries, accompanied by 5 partially recognized landlocked territories ( The Fact File, 2022 ). The distribution between landlocked and non-landlocked nations intertwines with trade, economic, climatic, and environmental factors.

Non-landlocked countries, possessing unhindered access to maritime trade routes, enjoy the potential to exploit and export timber and other forest resources, possibly leading to heightened rates of deforestation driven by economic motives. Conversely, landlocked countries, constrained by the absence of direct sea route access, might exhibit reduced incentives for large-scale logging intended for export purposes and increased deforestation.

Nations without direct sea access frequently encounter distinct economic obstacles, such as escalated transportation expenses and increased trade overheads. In response, these countries may resort to the exploitation of natural assets, including forests, as a strategy for economic advancement. Landlocked countries could potentially rely more significantly on land-based resources, notably forests, as integral components of their sustenance. Consequently, this reliance might contribute to elevated deforestation rates, driven by the inhabitant’s utilization of forest resources for necessities like fuel, sustenance, and construction materials.

3.2. Socio-economic indicators

3.2.1. gdp per capita in ppp.

The economic metric of GDP per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) serves as an indicator of a nation’s level of development. Often, countries with elevated GDP per capita possess more resources that can be allocated toward sustainable practices and the preservation of forests ( Ewers, 2006 ). Nonetheless, it’s plausible that countries achieving higher GDP per capita levels might have experienced industrialization processes that could entail deforestation ( Martínez and Poveda, 2021 ). The correlation between GDP per capita and deforestation finds its theoretical framework within the Kuznets curve ( Ajanaku and Collins, 2021 ). This concept was thoroughly explored in our literature review.

The data utilized in this paper pertains to GDP per capita measured through purchasing power parity (PPP), which is converted into international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. This approach considers the fact that equivalent monetary amounts can yield different purchasing capabilities for goods and services in different countries. The dataset originates from the International Comparison Program (ICP) administered by the World Bank and the Eurostat-OECD PPP Program.

This data is gathered on an annual basis and reported in terms of international dollars. The methodology for aggregation involves a weighted average. Specifically, the data’s definition underscores that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at purchaser’s rates comprises the total value added by all domestic producers within the country, along with any taxes on products, while subtracting any subsidies not included in the product’s value. However, this computation does not include the depreciation of manufactured assets or the depletion and deterioration of natural resources. In essence, this dataset yields invaluable insights into the economic welfare of nations, adjusting disparities in prices and expenses across different countries ( World Bank, 2023 ).

3.2.2. Population

Population size plays a pivotal role in both forestation and deforestation dynamics. Larger populations often induce a higher pressure on forest resources, thereby contributing to deforestation. Nonetheless, there are instances where population growth induces reforestation activities, as societies increasingly recognize the significance of forests and implement measures to safeguard and expand them ( Carr et al., 2005 ; Oyetunji et al., 2020 ).

The provided data offers an approximation of the overall population, encompassing all residents within a country, irrespective of their citizenship or legal status. This dataset is sourced from diverse resources, including census records, statistical publications, and demographic modeling undertaken by the United Nations Population Division and the U.S. Census Bureau. The aggregation process involves summing up population estimates across all l.

Fluctuations in population size can wield substantial influences over natural resources and social infrastructure. At the same time, population growth can trigger significant impacts while a reduction in population size may affect governmental services and infrastructure provisioning.

Gender disaggregation of Gender-specific breakdown of population data aids countries in forecasting the demand for social services with a focus on gender-related aspects. The total population data predominantly relies on national population censuses, supplemented by estimates for years preceding and following these censuses, obtained through demographic modeling. The accuracy and reliability of demographic insights are subject to diverse influences, including public confidence in the government, the government’s commitment to thorough and accurate enumeration, and the availability of supplementary data from surveys or registration systems.

Ensuring comparability among population indicators has some limitations due to disparities in concepts, definitions, and estimation methodologies used by different organizations. The intricate matter of international migration significantly contributes to population growth; however, estimating migration proves challenging due to differences in standards and the absence of comprehensive data.

Population projections until 2050 are constructed based on assumptions due to mortality, fertility, and migration, stratified by age and gender. These assumptions draw from the UN Population Division’s World Population Prospects database medium variant ( World Bank, 2023 ).

3.2.3. COVID-19 impact and the financial crisis

Profound global events have a substantial influence over economic activities and, consequently, reverberate through the domains of forestation and deforestation ( Elliott, 2011 ). As an illustration, economic downturns can spur heightened logging activities as nations strive to fortify their economies. During the analysis timeframe, noteworthy global occurrences unfolded, including the 2008–2010 financial crisis and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 ( Uğurlu and Jindřichovská, 2022 ). In order to factor in the repercussions of these events on the variables under examination, the model incorporated dummy variables.

COVID-19 Crisis: The far-reaching impact of the COVID-19 pandemic extends to all forms of existence, including environmental stewardship. This crisis potentially triggered reduced human presence within forested areas, leading to a deceleration in deforestation rates ( Antonarakis et al., 2022 ). Conversely, the economic strains caused by the pandemic might have propelled certain individuals or entities to intensify logging endeavors ( Vale et al., 2021 ; Céspedes et al., 2022 ).

The financial crisis, originating in the United States and spreading across nations, had significant repercussions on the worldwide economy, initiating declines in economic growth, employment levels, and financial stability. To encompass the crisis’s effects, a dummy variable was introduced to encapsulate the years 2008 through 2010, coinciding with the crisis’s most severe impact.

Likewise, the COVID-19 pandemic had a profound influence globally, prompting governments to adopt diverse measures to curb its transmission and alleviate its impact on both the economy and society ( Jindřichovská and Uğurlu, 2021 ). To accommodate these effects, a dummy variable was established to denote the year 2020, which marked the period when the pandemic most significantly influenced the variables under scrutiny ( Our World in Data, 2023 ).

3.3. Forest cover

Ewers (2006) discovered that nations with limited forests and lower income levels exhibit higher deforestation rates, while conversely, higher-income countries tend to maintain their forest coverage and may even plant new forested areas. Notably, the deforestation patterns of countries with substantial forest resources appear to be less influenced by their GDP per capita .

The chosen dataset for this research, representing the environmental condition, focuses on forest land cover. The time span encompasses the years from 1990 to 2020, with measurements in square kilometers. This information is sourced from the World Bank’s online repository. According to the dataset specifications provided by the World Bank, the forest cover under consideration encompasses natural or planted stands of at least 5 meters in height, whether in productive use or not. This definition excludes stands within agricultural production systems like orchards and agroforestry setups, as well as urban parks and gardens.

For our study, deforestation data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was utilized, sourced through their global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) program, an initiative operational since 1946. The FAO periodically assembles and assesses forest cover details at various levels: subregional, regional, and global. The dataset furnishes information regarding forested areas and their temporal changes, albeit without accounting for areas subject to logging, degradation due to fuelwood collection, acid precipitation, or forest fires.

The FAO employs a consistent forest definition, necessitating the presence of trees and the exclusion of dominant land uses, with a minimum tree height of 5 meters. It is important to note that the data might not precisely reflect the actual rate of deforestation in certain countries, as it does not differentiate between natural forests and plantations ( World Bank, 2023 ).

3.4. Methodology

For the purposes of this paper, the authors employ panel regression analysis as the chosen method. The method of panel regression is used for the following reasons. Panel regression offers the capability to manage unobserved variables that exhibit temporal variation but remain consistent across different entities, or those that display entity-specific variation without temporal changes. This proves particularly advantageous in the context of studying deforestation trends across various countries and time periods, considering the potential influence of unobserved factors unique to specific countries or periods. Furthermore, panel regression effectively accommodates individual heterogeneity, a vital consideration when dealing with data from diverse countries, each with distinct characteristics. Unlike linear regression, panel regression yields more informative data, heightened variability, reduced collinearity among variables, increased degrees of freedom, and enhanced efficiency. Scrieciu (2007) endorses panel regression as a suitable tool for examining deforestation factors in international comparisons.

Panel regression constitutes a modeling technique suitable for panel data, also referred to as longitudinal or cross-sectional data. It finds common usage in tracking the behavior of statistical entities (termed panel units) over a temporal trajectory, with these entities corresponding to the countries outlined in Table 1 . This approach allows for the control of both panel unit and time effects while estimating regression coefficients ( Torres-Reyna, 2007 ). In the context of regression analysis involving cross-sectional data, parameter estimation is typically conducted using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method. The Best Linear Unbiased Estimation (BLUE) provides an optimal linear and unbiased estimation. In this paper, panel data encompasses information about a group of countries observed concurrently. The dataset spans T time periods ( t  = 1, 2…, T ) from 1990 to 2020 and includes N units ( I  = 1, 2…, N ), representing 38 countries across 5 continents. This results in a total of N × T observation units within the panel data.

The data used are summarized in the Table 2 .

Table 2 . Variables used in the model.

The Table 2 shows which variables are continuous in nature. These were taken from publicly available sources such as World Bank (2023) or FAO (2020) . Binary variables take the value 1 if it is true or 0 otherwise.

For the analysis, the random effects model was chosen. The rationale behind random effects models is that, unlike fixed effects models, the variation among entities is assumed to be random and unrelated to the predictor or independent variables included in the model.

The random effects model is specified as:

where u it is the inter-entity error, e it presents the intra-entity error, and all remaining variables retain their previous definitions. To determine the most suitable model, the authors performed a series of tests including the F test, the Breusch-Pagan test, and the Hausman test.

As already discussed, this research paper explores the Forest Area variable as the dependent variable, seeking to elucidate the precise factors influencing its development. Firstly, Hausman test was performed, validating the random effects model’s applicability ( p  = 0.157078, Chi-square(12) = 16.8051).

Panel regression findings are detailed in the ensuing tables, with Table 3 presenting the first model (referred as Model 1) encompassing all variables within the complete dataset. The model includes 1,178 observations. During model compilation, certain chosen variables emerged as statistically insignificant, termed superfluous variables, and were consequently removed. These variables include EU/non-EU, Landlocked, Southern Hemisphere, and Africa.

Table 3 . Deforestation: complete data (Model 1).

In the Gretl program-generated model, statistically significant relationships are denoted by stars. One star represents a 10% significance level, two stars signify a 5% level, and three stars indicate a 1% level. The selection of significance level ( p -value) for model evaluation corresponds to the test’s conservativeness – the lower the chosen significance, the more conservative the test. Population totals exhibit statistical significance at the 1% level. As indicated by Model 1, it appears that an increase in population totals is accompanied by a corresponding growth in forest area. Specifically, according to this model, a one-unit rise in population leads to a forest area expansion of 248 m 2 . Similarly, should GDP per Capita in PPP experience a one-unit increase, the forest coverage is projected to expand by 486.740 m 2 . However, it’s worth noting that these variable exhibits statistical significance at the 13% level, which raises concerns about its reliability. Another variable lacking significance in the model is the financial crisis spanning from 2008 to 2010. Furthermore, the COVID-19 crisis, represented by its dummy variable accounting for 2020, is found to have a negative impact significant at the 10% level. This would imply that during COVID-19, deforestation was happening. The historical colonization status of a country appears to exert a noteworthy influence, significant at the 10% level. Colonized nations exhibit a comparatively reduced forest area, measuring 66.491 km 2 , in contrast to countries not subjected to colonization, as defined in the preceding “Data” chapter. To establish the appropriateness of tested models, the Akaike criterion and Hannan-Quinn were employed for model comparisons. The analysis determined that the current model is the most suitable one, and no further refinements could enhance its performance level.

The characteristics and results of the second and third models are depicted in Tables 4 , 5 . Table 4 specifically presents countries with a forest area exceeding 1 million square kilometers. Model 2 includes 186 observations (6 countries), exclusively tied to the development of nations possessing over 1 million km 2 of forest area. Given the relatively modest sample size, certain variables had to be omitted, including EU/non-EU, Colony, Landlocked, Southern hemisphere, as well as Asia, Europe, North America, Africa, and the 2008 Financial crisis.

Table 4 . Estimation for countries with forest area greater than 1 million km 2 (Model 2).

Table 5 . Deforestation of countries with less than 1 million km 2 of forest area (Model 3).

Indonesia stands as the sole country included in both models – encompassing nations with forest areas surpassing 1 million km 2 (Model 2) and those with less than 1 million km 2 (Model 3). The choice to include Indonesia derives from its fluctuating forest cover, spanning from 1,185,450 km 2 in 1990 to 921,332 km 2 in 2020.

The magnitude of forest area in countries with forest covers exceeding 1 million km 2 appears notably influenced by the variables Population and GDP per capita . At a significance level of 1%, the population demonstrates a substantial influence on forest area in countries boasting more than 1 million km 2 of forest coverage. A population increase of 1 unit corresponds to a forest area expansion of 384 m 2 , a value surpassing that observed in Model 1. Counterintuitively, despite expectations of a negative correlation between larger populations and reduced forest areas, these models propose a contrary relationship. This phenomenon is primarily attributed to the pronounced influence of China and India, both marked by substantial populations and extensive forest areas. The Base Forest area variable (shows area in 1990) depicts that since the first measurement, the forest area grew by 911,134 m 2 yearly on average in countries with more than 1 million km 2 of forest area.

At a 5% significance level, the model indicates that an increase in GDP per capita in PPP is associated with a forest area expansion of 44,746 km 2 . Notably, the variable GDP per capita displayed insignificance in the preceding Model 1. Over the course of the global COVID-19 pandemic, which the models incorporate as a dummy variable capturing its effects in 2020, deforestation ensued. Nevertheless, this variable emerges as statistically insignificant. These outcomes may substantially stem from the outsized influence of each country’s data within the dataset, given the inclusion of only 6 countries. This influence is underscored by instances such as Brazil, which experienced an annual change of 11,789 km 2 in 2019/20.

For reasons elucidated in the preceding section, Model 3 is a result of categorizing the chosen countries into two extensive groups based on their forest cover extents. Model 3 is based on the 992 observations bound solemnly to the figures connected to the deforestation of countries with less than 1 million km 2 of forest area. This model estimation results are depicted the Table 5 . The following variables have proven to be statistically largely insignificant (superfluous), so they were not included in the model: GDP per Capita in PPP, EU/non-EU, Landlocked, Southern hemisphere, and Africa.

For the reasons mentioned in the previous section describing Model 2: Indonesia is the only country, which was included in both models – Model 2 and Model 3. According to the model’s results, population, the impact of COVID-19, whether it has been a colony or not and the base forest area are all significant variables on the level of significance 1%. In these countries, the coefficient denoting the positive influence of population on forest area is notably smaller compared to the model involving countries with forest areas exceeding 1 million km 2 . A unit increase in population is associated with a mere 66.6 m 2 growth in the forest area.

The COVID-19 pandemic exhibited an adverse effect on forest area figures. However, it becomes evident that within the comprehensive Model 1, the pronounced coefficient was driven by countries endowed with expansive forest regions. This observation is supported by the coefficient in Model 3 (−7,614.89), which is approximately half that of the global dataset in the Model 1 (−16,676.1), and roughly one-tenth of the coefficient in Model 2 (−86,710.2). In the context of countries with forest areas less than 1 million km 2 , the variable “colony” emerges as significant. Colonized countries, on average, exhibit a smaller forest area per km 2 compared to their non-colonized counterparts. Divergence is evident in the outcomes related to the core forest area variable when compared to the expansive country Model 2. This discrepancy suggests that the pace of forest area growth is more gradual, averaging 877.280 m 2 to 911.134 m 2 annually, in countries with forest areas exceeding 1 million km 2 .

In the formulation of Model 4, 403 observations were employed for countries that experienced deforestation of 5% or more between 1990 and 2020. Results of model estimated are depicted in the Table 6 .

Table 6 . Deforestation of countries that deforested 5% and more from 1990 compared to 2020 (Model 4).

Several variables exhibited large statistical insignificance, prompting their removal from the model: EU/non-EU, Landlocked, Asia, and Europe. The variables Colony and Southern Hemisphere were automatically excluded from the model due to precise collinearity. Several variables have demonstrated significance at the 1% level: Population, GDP per capita in PPP, Africa, and COVID-19. This particular model, among the four incorporated within this study, presents the sole instance suggesting a negative relationship between forest area and GDP per capita in PPP and population. An increase in a country’s population by 1 unit is associated with a forest area reduction of 0.000520798 km 2 (equivalent to 520.8 m 2 ). Similarly, a 1-unit growth in GDP per capita leads to a forest area contraction of approximately 5.6 km 2 . The COVID-19 pandemic also manifests a detrimental influence on forest areas, substantiated at a 5% significance level. Although a discernible effect is observable concerning the 2008 financial crisis variable, it seems to hold limited significance.

From the selected variables, North America and base forest area stand as the sole contributors to a positive impact on a country’s forest area. Notably, North America underscores that countries situated within the region tend to exhibit substantial forest coverage. This phenomenon is driven by the inclusion of the USA and Canada within North America, both of which are sizable countries, thereby fostering larger forest areas in comparison to other nations.

5. Discussion, conclusions, and recommendations

Addressing the central research inquiry regarding the influence of selected socio-economic developmental indicators on deforestation across the chosen countries is not straightforward, given observed variations between smaller and larger nations concerning forest reserves. The impact of GDP remains ambiguous. Nevertheless, estimation outcomes for countries experiencing substantial forest loss align with prevailing literature, quantifying the contrast between economic development and environmental well-being.

Disruptive events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2008 financial crisis resoundingly reverberated, yielding a marked negative effect on forest area development across all models. It’s noteworthy to emphasize that, particularly within countries encompassing forest areas surpassing 1 million km 2 , the impact of the COVID-19 crisis was notably more pronounced than in nations with forest areas below 1 million km 2 .

In the temporal context spanning from 1990 to 2020 on a global scale, our model underscores the statistical significance of the population variable. The initial three models incorporated within this study suggest a positive association between population and forest area, indicating that an increase in one is accompanied by a rise in the other. However, divergent perspectives emerge from other scholars. Amelung and Diehl (1992) identified a negative impact of population growth on forest area. This observation aligns with multiple studies, including Allen and Barnes (1985) , Cropper and Griffiths (1994) , Ehrhardt-Martinez (1998) , and Mather and Needle (2005) . Such findings are also echoed in the conclusive model of countries that experienced deforestation of 5% or more over the preceding three decades. Discrepancies in outcomes might arise from the specific set of countries under examination. Additionally, Brown and Pearce (2023) claim that forest cover is negatively correlated with population.

Throughout the investigation, the authors encountered various studies concentrating on similar topics but confined to narrower geographical contexts. Austin et al. (2019) explored Indonesia, while Barbier and Burgess (2008) focused on tropical regions, and Silva Junior et al. (2021) delved into Amazon deforestation.

GDP per capita has demonstrated its relevance as a significant variable within countries having forest areas exceeding 1 million km 2 . These findings imply that the economic expansion of a nation is associated with a favorable effect on its forest area. However, contrasting findings are presented by Martínez and Poveda (2021) , who contend that global economic and social advancement has been achieved at the expense of environmental well-being. Conversely, divergent outcomes arise from the model exclusively encompassing countries that have experienced deforestation at a scale of 5% or more from 1990 to 2020. Within this context, the results unequivocally assert a negative influence of GDP per capita growth in PPP on the forest area.

In contrast to the conclusions drawn by Antonarakis et al. (2022) , the COVID-19 pandemic has yielded adverse effects on forest cover as evidenced by the models formulated in this study. These observations correspond to the findings of Vale et al. (2021) . As posited by Céspedes et al. (2022) , while numerous studies conducted in 2020 have predominantly concentrated on the immediate repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications for deforestation rates, the focus should now shift toward the recuperation strategies employed by economies and the potential short- to long-term repercussions they may impact on forest cover.

The relevance of whether a country has undergone colonization emerges primarily in the context of countries with forest areas of less than 1 million km 2 . This distinction is rational considering that our dataset primarily encompasses these smaller colonized nations. Consequently, this variable attains significance. In an investigative endeavor, Marchand (2016) explores not only the influence of a colonial legacy on a country’s deforestation patterns but also the variations that exist in the inherited legacies.

This study has yielded a series of recommendations aimed at effectively addressing deforestation and promoting sustainable land management practices. It is imperative to undertake policy and governance reforms to establish a solid legal framework, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and foster transparency and accountability. Engaging local communities and stakeholders in decision-making processes is pivotal to ensuring sustained success. The promotion of sustainable agriculture and agroforestry practices can substantially alleviate pressure on forests. Disciplines like agroecology, organic farming, integrated pest management, as well as the adoption of diversified cropping systems and agroforestry, can enhance productivity while concurrently safeguarding forests. Notably, the implementation of large-scale forest restoration and reforestation initiatives, utilizing indigenous tree species and involving local communities, as seen in instances such as China and India based on our dataset, is advisable. Collaborative efforts with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international entities can strengthen and amplify the impact of these initiatives. Based on this study, it is recommendable that adaptive policies for varied country sizes are developed. These policies should account for the varying impact of socio-economic indicators on deforestation between smaller and larger nations due to differences in forest reserves. Furthermore, it is necessary to mitigate disruptive events like pandemics by establishing specific strategies and creating contingency plans. This will ensure the resilience of forest ecosystems, and promote sustainable resource management during and after crises. Additionally, it is advisable to prioritize post-crisis recovery plans that integrate forest protection and restoration as part of broader economic recovery efforts. These recommendations address the complexity of factors influencing deforestation, including country size, disruptive events, and the need for adaptable policies to balance economic development with environmental conservation. However, this study does acknowledge certain limitations and suggests potential directions for future research. While the current paper has centered on economic, social, environmental, and geographical variables, further investigations could delve into the institutional and political determinants driving deforestation and afforestation. Additionally, the inclusion of qualitative insights from guided interviews with pertinent stakeholders from public, non-profit, and corporate sectors could enrich the analysis.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

PP: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data curation. JA: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JC: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LK: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PS: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DB: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. J-MF: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EJ: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SP: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JS: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This article was supported by the Czech Universtity of Life Science (Faculty of Economics and Management) Internal Grant Agency, project number: 2022B0005.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Adila, D., Nuryartono, N., and Oak, M. (2021). The environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation in Indonesia. Econ. Financ. Indones. 67:195. doi: 10.47291/efi.v67i2.671

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahmed, H., Jallat, H., Hussain, E., Saqib, N. U., Saqib, Z., Khokhar, M. F., et al. (2023). Quantitative assessment of deforestation and forest degradation in Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP): employing landsat data and socio-economic survey. Forests 14:201. doi: 10.3390/f14020201

Ajanaku, B. A., and Collins, A. R. (2021). Economic growth and deforestation in African countries: is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis applicable? Forest Policy Econ. 129:102488. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102488

Allen, J. C., and Barnes, D. F. (1985). The causes of deforestation in developing countries. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 75, 163–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1985.tb00079x

Amelung, T., and Diehl, M. (1992). Deforestation of tropical rainforests: economic causes and impact on development . Kiel, Tübingen: Institut für Weltwirtschaft, JCB Mohr.

Google Scholar

Angelsen, A., and Kaimowitz, D. (1999). Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models. World Bank Res. Obs. 14, 73–98. doi: 10.1093/wbro/14.1.73

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Antonarakis, A. S., Pacca, L., and Antoniades, A. (2022). The effect of financial crises on deforestation: a global and regional panel data analysis. Sustain. Sci. 17, 1037–1057. doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-01086-8

Austin, K. G., Schwantes, A., Gu, Y., and Kasibhatla, P. S. (2019). What causes deforestation in Indonesia? Environ. Res. Lett. 14:024007. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaf6db

Barbier, E. B., and Burgess, J. C. (2008). The economics of tropical deforestation. J. Econ. Surv. 15, 413–433. doi: 10.1111/1467-6419.00144

Belušić, D., Fuentes-Franco, R., Strandberg, G., and Jukimenko, A. (2019). Afforestation reduces cyclone intensity and precipitation extremes over Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 1–11. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab23b2

Bhatia, N., and Cumming, G. S. (2020). Deforestation and economic growth trends on oceanic islands highlight the need for meso-scale analysis and improved mid-range theory in conservation. Ecol. Soc. 25, 1–14. doi: 10.5751/ES-11713-250310

Brown, K., and Pearce, D. W. (Eds.) (2023). The causes of tropical deforestation: the economic and statistical analysis of factors giving rise to the loss of the tropical forests . London: Routledge.

Caravaggio, N. (2022). Economic growth and forest transition in Latin America. Forest Policy Econ. 135:102667. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102667

Carr, D. L., Suter, L., and Barbieri, A. (2005). Population dynamics and tropical deforestation: state of the debate and conceptual challenges. Popul. Environ. 27, 89–113. doi: 10.1007/s11111-005-0014-x

Céspedes, J., Sylvester, J. M., Pérez-Marulanda, L., Paz-Garcia, P., Reymondin, L., Khodadadi, M., et al. (2022). Has global deforestation accelerated due to the COVID-19 pandemic? J. For. Res. 34, 1153–1165. doi: 10.1007/s11676-022-01561-7

Cropper, M., and Griffiths, C. (1994). The interaction of population growth and environmental quality. Am. Econ. Rev. 84, 250–254.

Culas, R. J. (2007). Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: an institutional perspective. Ecol. Econ. 61, 429–437. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.014

Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., and Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111. doi: 10.1126/science.aau3445

Damette, O., and Delacote, P. (2012). On the economic factors of deforestation: what can we learn from quantile analysis? Econ. Model. 29, 2427–2434. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.06.015

Derouin, S.. (2019). Deforestation: Facts, Causes & Effects. Available at: https://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html (Accessed March 25, 2023).

Destiartono, M. E., and Ekananda, M. (2023). Deforestation-induced the EKC framework: the role of corruption control and trade openness in Southeast Asia. Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan 24, 81–99. doi: 10.18196/jesp.v24i1.16798

Ehrhardt-Martinez, K. (1998). Social determinants of deforestation in developing countries: a cross-national study. Soc. Forces 77, 567–586. doi: 10.1093/sf/77.2.567

Elliott, L. (2011). Shades of green in East Asia: the impact of financial crises on the environment. Contemp. Polit. 17, 167–183. doi: 10.1080/13569775.2011.565985

Ewers, R. M. (2006). Interaction effects between economic development and forest cover determine deforestation rates. Glob. Environ. Chang. 16, 161–169. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.12.001

FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Available at: https://fra-data.fao.org/assessments/fra/2020 (Accessed April 4, 2023).

Ferrer Velasco, R., Köthke, M., Lippe, M., and Günter, S. (2020). Scale and context dependency of deforestation drivers: insights from spatial econometrics in the tropics. PLoS One 15:e0226830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226830

González-Eguino, M. (2015). Energy poverty: an overview. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 47, 377–385. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.013

Jallat, H., Khokhar, M. F., Kudus, K. A., Nazre, M., Saqib, N. U., Tahir, U., et al. (2021). Monitoring carbon stock and land-use change in 5000-year-old juniper forest stand of Ziarat, Balochistan, through a synergistic approach. Forests 12, 1–15. doi: 10.3390/f12010051

Jayathilake, H. M., Prescott, G. W., Carrasco, L. R., Rao, M., and Symes, W. S. (2021). Drivers of deforestation and degradation for 28 tropical conservation landscapes. Ambio 50, 215–228. doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01325-9

Jindřichovská, I., and Uğurlu, E. (2021). EU and China trends in trade in challenging times. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 14, 1–19. doi: 10.3390/jrfm14020071

Khalid, N., Ullah, S., Ahmad, S. S., Ali, A., and Chishtie, F. (2019). A remotely sensed tracking of forest cover and associated temperature change in Margalla hills. Int. J. Digit. Earth 12, 1133–1150. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2018.1448008

Lawrence, D., Coe, M., Walker, W., Verchot, L., and Vandecar, K. (2022). The unseen effects of deforestation: biophysical effects on climate. Front. For. Glob. Change 5:49. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115

Leisher, C., Touval, J., Hess, S. M., Boucher, T. M., and Reymondin, L. (2013). Land and forest degradation inside protected areas in Latin America. Diversity 5, 779–795. doi: 10.3390/d5040779

Ma, J., Li, J., Wu, W., and Liu, J. (2023). Global forest fragmentation change from 2000 to 2020. Nat. Commun. 14, 3752–3710. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39221-x

Marchand, S. (2016). The colonial origins of deforestation: an institutional analysis. Environ. Dev. Econ. 21, 318–349. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X1500025X

Maretto, R. V., Fonseca, L. M., Jacobs, N., Körting, T. S., Bendini, H. N., and Parente, L. L. (2020). Spatio-temporal deep learning approach to map deforestation in amazon rainforest. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 18, 771–775. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2020.2986407

Martínez, C. I. P., and Poveda, A. C. (2021). The importance of science, technology and innovation in the green growth and sustainable development goals of Colombia. Environ. Clim. Technol. 25, 29–41. doi: 10.2478/rtuect-2021-0003

Mather, A. S., and Needle, C. L. (2005). The relationships of population and forest trends. Geogr. J. 166, 2–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2000.tb00002.x

McCallister, M., Krasovskiy, A., Platov, A., Pietracci, B., Golub, A., Lubowski, R., et al. (2022). Forest protection and permanence of reduced emissions. Front. For. Glob. Change 5:928518. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.928518

Miettinen, J., Stibig, H. J., and Achard, F. (2014). Remote sensing of forest degradation in Southeast Asia—aiming for a regional view through 5–30 m satellite data. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2, 24–36. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2014.07.007

Nguyen, C. P., and Nguyen, B. Q. (2023). Environmental foe or friend: the influence of the shadow economy on forest land. Land Use Policy 124:106456. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106456

Nguyen, C. P., Nguyen, B. Q., and Tran, D. T. L. (2023). Over two decades of severe deforestation: an economic perspective of tourism development. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 13, 83–104. doi: 10.1007/s13412-022-00802-9

Our World in Data. (2021). Forests and Deforestation. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/forests-and-deforestation (Accessed June 11, 2023).

Our World in Data. (2023). Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus (Accessed April 22, 2023).

Oyetunji, P. O., Ibitoye, O. S., Akinyemi, G. O., Fadele, O. A., and Oyediji, O. T. (2020). The effects of population growth on deforestation in Nigeria: 1991–2016. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 24, 1329–1334. doi: 10.4314/jasem.v24i8.4

Santos de Lima, L., Merry, F., Soares-Filho, B., Oliveira Rodrigues, H., dos Santos Damaceno, C., and Bauch, M. A. (2018). Illegal logging as a disincentive to the establishment of a sustainable forest sector in the Amazon. PLoS One 13, e0207855–e0207821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207855

Scrieciu, S. S. (2007). Can economic causes of tropical deforestation be identified at a global level? Ecol. Econ. 62, 603–612. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.028

Shafron, E. S. (2019). Examining connections between gendered dimensions of inequality and deforestation in Nepal. Available at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=envstheses (Accessed May 20, 2023).

Silva Junior, C. H., Pessôa, A. C., Carvalho, N. S., Reis, J. B., Anderson, L. O., and Aragão, L. E. (2021). The Brazilian Amazon deforestation rate in 2020 is the greatest of the decade. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 144–145. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01368-x

Stabile, M. C., Garcia, A. S., Salomão, C. S., Bush, G., Guimarães, A. L., and Moutinho, P. (2022). Slowing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: avoiding legal deforestation by compensating farmers and ranchers. Front. For. Glob. Change 4:635638. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2021.635638

Strandberg, G., and Kjellström, E. (2019). Climate impacts from afforestation and deforestation in Europe. Earth Interact. 23, 1–27. doi: 10.1175/EI-D-17-0033.1

The Fact File. (2022) Landlocked Countries in the World Listed. Available at: https://thefactfile.org/landlocked-countries-list/ (Accessed March 20, 2023).

Torres-Reyna, O. (2007). Panel data analysis fixed and random effects using Stata (v. 4.2) Data & Statistical Services New Jersey: Priceton University, 112.

Uğurlu, E., and Jindřichovská, I. (2022). Effect of COVID-19 on international trade among the Visegrad countries. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 15, 1–20. doi: 10.3390/jrfm15020041

Vale, M. M., Berenguer, E., de Menezes, M. A., de Castro, E. B. V., de Siqueira, L. P., and Rita de Cássia, Q. P. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to weaken environmental protection in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 255, 108994–108995. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108994

Van Khuc, Q., Tran, B. Q., Meyfroidt, P., and Paschke, M. W. (2018). Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Vietnam: an exploratory analysis at the national level. Forest Policy Econ. 90, 128–141. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.02.004

World Bank. (2023). World Bank Open Data. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator (Accessed May 22, 2023).

Zeb, A., Hamann, A., Armstrong, G. W., and Acuna-Castellanos, D. (2019). Identifying local actors of deforestation and forest degradation in the Kalasha valleys of Pakistan. Forest Policy Econ. 104, 56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.005

Zerriffi, H., Reyes, R., and Maloney, A. (2023). Pathways to sustainable land use and food systems in Canada. Sustain. Sci. 18, 389–406. doi: 10.1007/s11625-022-01213-z

Keywords: deforestation, afforestation, economic development, social development, forest area, GDP

Citation: Prochazka P, Abrham J, Cerveny J, Kobera L, Sanova P, Benes D, Fink J-M, Jiraskova E, Primasova S, Soukupova J and Smutka L (2023) Understanding the socio-economic causes of deforestation: a global perspective. Front. For. Glob. Change . 6:1288365. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2023.1288365

Received: 04 September 2023; Accepted: 05 October 2023; Published: 19 October 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Prochazka, Abrham, Cerveny, Kobera, Sanova, Benes, Fink, Jiraskova, Primasova, Soukupova and Smutka. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Josef Abrham, [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Scientific Reports

Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis

Mauro bologna.

1 Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica-Electrónica, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, Chile

Gerardo Aquino

2 The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK

3 University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

4 Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

In this paper we afford a quantitative analysis of the sustainability of current world population growth in relation to the parallel deforestation process adopting a statistical point of view. We consider a simplified model based on a stochastic growth process driven by a continuous time random walk, which depicts the technological evolution of human kind, in conjunction with a deterministic generalised logistic model for humans-forest interaction and we evaluate the probability of avoiding the self-destruction of our civilisation. Based on the current resource consumption rates and best estimate of technological rate growth our study shows that we have very low probability, less than 10% in most optimistic estimate, to survive without facing a catastrophic collapse.

Introduction

In the last few decades, the debate on climate change has assumed global importance with consequences on national and global policies. Many factors due to human activity are considered as possible responsible of the observed changes: among these water and air contamination (mostly greenhouse effect) and deforestation are the mostly cited. While the extent of human contribution to the greenhouse effect and temperature changes is still a matter of discussion, the deforestation is an undeniable fact. Indeed before the development of human civilisations, our planet was covered by 60 million square kilometres of forest 1 . As a result of deforestation, less than 40 million square kilometres currently remain 2 . In this paper, we focus on the consequence of indiscriminate deforestation.

Trees’ services to our planet range from carbon storage, oxygen production to soil conservation and water cycle regulation. They support natural and human food systems and provide homes for countless species, including us, through building materials. Trees and forests are our best atmosphere cleaners and, due to the key role they play in the terrestrial ecosystem, it is highly unlikely to imagine the survival of many species, including ours, on Earth without them. In this sense, the debate on climate change will be almost obsolete in case of a global deforestation of the planet. Starting from this almost obvious observation, we investigate the problem of the survival of humanity from a statistical point of view. We model the interaction between forests and humans based on a deterministic logistic-like dynamics, while we assume a stochastic model for the technological development of the human civilisation. The former model has already been applied in similar contexts 3 , 4 while the latter is based on data and model of global energy consumption 5 , 6 used as a proxy for the technological development of a society. This gives solidity to our discussion and we show that, keeping the current rate of deforestation, statistically the probability to survive without facing a catastrophic collapse, is very low. We connect such probability to survive to the capability of humankind to spread and exploit the resources of the full solar system. According to Kardashev scale 7 , 8 , which measures a civilisation’s level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy they are able to use, in order to spread through the solar system we need to be able to harness the energy radiated by the Sun at a rate of ≈4 × 10 26 Watt. Our current energy consumption rate is estimated in ≈10 13 Watt 9 . As showed in the subsections “Statistical Model of technological development” and “Numerical results” of the following section, a successful outcome has a well defined threshold and we conclude that the probability of avoiding a catastrophic collapse is very low, less than 10% in the most optimistic estimate.

Model and Results

Deforestation.

The deforestation of the planet is a fact 2 . Between 2000 and 2012, 2.3 million Km 2 of forests around the world were cut down 10 which amounts to 2 × 10 5 Km 2 per year. At this rate all the forests would disappear approximatively in 100–200 years. Clearly it is unrealistic to imagine that the human society would start to be affected by the deforestation only when the last tree would be cut down. The progressive degradation of the environment due to deforestation would heavily affect human society and consequently the human collapse would start much earlier.

Curiously enough, the current situation of our planet has a lot in common with the deforestation of Easter Island as described in 3 . We therefore use the model introduced in that reference to roughly describe the humans-forest interaction. Admittedly, we are not aiming here for an exact exhaustive model. It is probably impossible to build such a model. What we propose and illustrate in the following sections, is a simplified model which nonetheless allows us to extrapolate the time scales of the processes involved: i.e. the deterministic process describing human population and resource (forest) consumption and the stochastic process defining the economic and technological growth of societies. Adopting the model in 3 (see also 11 ) we have for the humans-forest dynamics

where N represent the world population and R the Earth surface covered by forest. β is a positive constant related to the carrying capacity of the planet for human population, r is the growth rate for humans (estimated as r  ~ 0.01 years −1 ) 12 , a 0 may be identified as the technological parameter measuring the rate at which humans can extract the resources from the environment, as a consequence of their reached technological level. r ’ is the renewability parameter representing the capability of the resources to regenerate, (estimated as r ’ ~ 0.001 years −1 ) 13 , R c the resources carrying capacity that in our case may be identified with the initial 60 million square kilometres of forest. A closer look at this simplified model and at the analogy with Easter Island on which is based, shows nonetheless, strong similarities with our current situation. Like the old inhabitants of Easter Island we too, at least for few more decades, cannot leave the planet. The consumption of the natural resources, in particular the forests, is in competition with our technological level. Higher technological level leads to growing population and higher forest consumption (larger a 0 ) but also to a more effective use of resources. With higher technological level we can in principle develop technical solutions to avoid/prevent the ecological collapse of our planet or, as last chance, to rebuild a civilisation in the extraterrestrial space (see section on the Fermi paradox). The dynamics of our model for humans-forest interaction in Eqs. ( 1 , 2 ), is typically characterised by a growing human population until a maximum is reached after which a rapid disastrous collapse in population occurs before eventually reaching a low population steady state or total extinction. We will use this maximum as a reference for reaching a disastrous condition. We call this point in time the “no-return point” because if the deforestation rate is not changed before this time the human population will not be able to sustain itself and a disastrous collapse or even extinction will occur. As a first approximation 3 , since the capability of the resources to regenerate, r ′, is an order of magnitude smaller than the growing rate for humans, r , we may neglect the first term in the right hand-side of Eq. ( 2 ). Therefore, working in a regime of the exploitation of the resources governed essentially by the deforestation, from Eq. ( 2 ) we can derive the rate of tree extinction as 1 R d R d t ≈ − a 0 N . 3

The actual population of the Earth is N  ~ 7.5 × 10 9 inhabitants with a maximum carrying capacity estimated 14 of N c  ~ 10 10 inhabitants. The forest carrying capacity may be taken as 1 R c  ~ 6 × 10 7 Km 2 while the actual surface of forest is R ≲ 4 × 10 7 Km 2 . Assuming that β is constant, we may estimate this parameter evaluating the equality N c ( t ) =  βR ( t ) at the time when the forests were intact. Here N c ( t ) is the instantaneous human carrying capacity given by Eq. ( 1 ). We obtain β  ~  N c / R c  ~ 170.

In alternative we may evaluate β using actual data of the population growth 15 and inserting it in Eq. ( 1 ). In this case we obtain a range 700 ≲ β ≲ 900 that gives a slightly favourable scenario for the human kind (see below and Fig.  4 ). We stress anyway that this second scenario depends on many factors not least the fact that the period examined in 15 is relatively short. On the contrary β  ~ 170 is based on the accepted value for the maximum human carrying capacity. With respect to the value of parameter a 0 , adopting the data relative to years 2000–2012 of ref. 10 ,we have

(Left panel) Probability p suc of reaching Dyson value before reaching “no-return” point as function of α and a for β  = 170. Parameter a is expressed in Km 2 ys −1 . (Right panel) 2D plot of p suc for a  = 1.5 × 10 −4 Km 2 ys −1 as a function of α . Red line is p suc for β  = 170. Black continuous lines (indistinguishable) are p suc for β  = 300 and 700 respectively (see also Fig.  6 ). Green dashed line indicates the value of α corresponding to Moore’s law.

The time evolution of system ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) is plotted in Figs.  1 and ​ and2. 2 . We note that in Fig.  1 the numerical value of the maximum of the function N ( t ) is N M  ~ 10 10 estimated as the carrying capacity for the Earth population 14 . Again we have to stress that it is unrealistic to think that the decline of the population in a situation of strong environmental degradation would be a non-chaotic and well-ordered decline, that is also way we take the maximum in population and the time at which occurs as the point of reference for the occurrence of an irreversible catastrophic collapse, namely a ‘no-return’ point.

On the left: plot of the solution of Eq. ( 1 ) with the initial condition N 0  = 6 × 10 9 at initial time t  = 2000 A.C. On the right: plot of the solution of Eq. ( 2 ) with the initial condition R 0  = 4 × 10 7 . Here β  = 700 and a 0  = 10 −12 .

On the left: plot of the solution of Eq. ( 1 ) with the initial condition N 0  = 6 × 10 9 at initial time t  = 2000 A.C. On the right: plot of the solution of Eq. ( 2 ) with the initial condition R 0  = 4 × 10 7 . Here β  = 170 and a 0  = 10 −12 .

Statistical model of technological development

According to Kardashev scale 7 , 8 , in order to be able to spread through the solar system, a civilisation must be capable to build a Dyson sphere 16 , i.e. a maximal technological exploitation of most the energy from its local star, which in the case of the Earth with the Sun would correspond to an energy consumption of E D  ≈ 4 × 10 26 Watts, we call this value Dyson limit. Our actual energy consumption is estimated in E c  ≈ 10 13 Watts (Statistical Review of World Energy source) 9 . To describe our technological evolution, we may roughly schematise the development as a dichotomous random process

where T is the level of technological development of human civilisation that we can also identify with the energy consumption. α is a constant parameter describing the technological growth rate (i.e. of T ) and ξ ( t ) a random variable with values 0, 1. We consider therefore, based on data of global energy consumption 5 , 6 an exponential growth with fluctuations mainly reflecting changes in global economy. We therefore consider a modulated exponential growth process where the fluctuations in the growth rate are captured by the variable ξ ( t ). This variable switches between values 0, 1 with waiting times between switches distributed with density ψ ( t ). When ξ ( t ) = 0 the growth stops and resumes when ξ switches to ξ ( t ) = 1. If we consider T more strictly as describing the technological development, ξ ( t ) reflects the fact that investments in research can have interruptions as a consequence of alternation of periods of economic growth and crisis. With the following transformation,

differentiating both sides respect to t and using Eq. ( 5 ), we obtain for the transformed variable W

where ξ ¯ ( t ) = 2 [ ξ ( t ) − 〈 ξ 〉 ] and 〈ξ 〉 is the average of ξ ( t ) so that ξ ¯ ( t ) takes the values ±1.

The above equation has been intensively studied, and a general solution for the probability distribution P ( W , t ) generated by a generic waiting time distribution can be found in literature 17 . Knowing the distribution we may evaluate the first passage time distribution in reaching the necessary level of technology to e.g. live in the extraterrestrial space or develop any other way to sustain population of the planet. This characteristic time has to be compared with the time that it will take to reach the no-return point. Knowing the first passage time distribution 18 we will be able to evaluate the probability to survive for our civilisation.

If the dichotomous process is a Poissonian process with rate γ then the correlation function is an exponential, i.e.

and Eq. ( 7 ) generates for the probability density the well known telegrapher’s equation

We note that the approach that we are following is based on the assumption that at random times, exponentially distributed with rate γ , the dichotomous variable ξ ¯ changes its value. With this assumption the solution to Eq. ( 9 ) is

where I n ( z ) are the modified Bessel function of the first kind. Transforming back to the variable T we have

where for sake of compactness we set

In Laplace transform we have

The first passage time distribution, in laplace transform, is evaluated as 19

Inverting the Laplace transform we obtain

which is confirmed (see Fig.  3 ) by numerical simulations. The time average to get the point x for the first time is given by

which interestingly is double the time it would take if a pure exponential growth occurred, depends on the ratio between final and initial value of T and is independent of γ . We also stress that this result depends on parameters directly related to the stage of development of the considered civilisation, namely the starting value T 1 , that we assume to be the energy consumption E c of the fully industrialised stage of the civilisation evolution and the final value T , that we assume to be the Dyson limit E D , and the technological growth rate α . For the latter we may, rather optimistically, choose the value α  = 0.345, following the Moore Law 20 (see next section). Using the data above, relative to our planet’s scenario, we obtain the estimate of 〈 t 〉 ≈ 180 years. From Figs.  1 and ​ and2 2 we see that the estimate for the no-return time are 130 and 22 years for β  = 700 and β  = 170 respectively, with the latter being the most realistic value. In either case, these estimates based on average values, being less than 180 years, already portend not a favourable outcome for avoiding a catastrophic collapse. Nonetheless, in order to estimate the actual probability for avoiding collapse we cannot rely on average values, but we need to evaluate the single trajectories, and count the ones that manage to reach the Dyson limit before the ‘no-return point’. We implement this numerically as explained in the following.

(Left) Comparison between theoretical prediction of Eq. ( 15 ) (black curve) and numerical simulation of Eq. ( 3 ) (cyan curve) for γ  = 4 (arbitrary units). (Right) Comparison between theoretical prediction of Eq. ( 15 ) (red curve) and numerical simulation of Eq. ( 3 ) (black curve) for γ  = 1/4 (arbitrary units).

Numerical results

We run simulations of Eqs. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) simultaneously for different values of of parameters a 0 and α for fixed β and we count the number of trajectories that reach Dyson limit before the population level reaches the “no-return point” after which rapid collapse occurs. More precisely, the evolution of T is stochastic due to the dichotomous random process ξ ( t ), so we generate the T ( t ) trajectories and at the same time we follow the evolution of the population and forest density dictated by the dynamics of Eqs. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) 3 until the latter dynamics reaches the no-return point (maximum in population followed by collapse). When this happens, if the trajectory in T ( t ) has reached the Dyson limit we count it as a success, otherwise as failure. This way we determine the probabilities and relative mean times in Figs.  5 , ​ ,6 6 and ​ and7. 7 . Adopting a weak sustainability point of view our model does not specify the technological mechanism by which the successful trajectories are able to find an alternative to forests and avoid collapse, we leave this undefined and link it exclusively and probabilistically to the attainment of the Dyson limit. It is important to notice that we link the technological growth process described by Eq. ( 5 ) to the economic growth and therefore we consider, for both economic and technological growth, a random sequence of growth and stagnation cycles, with mean periods of about 1 and 4 years in accordance with estimates for the driving world economy, i.e. the United States according to the National Bureau of Economic Research 21 .

Average time τ (in years) to reach Dyson value before hitting “no-return” point (success, left) and without meeting Dyson value (failure, right) as function of α and a for β  = 170. Plateau region (left panel) where τ  ≥ 50 corresponds to diverging τ , i.e. Dyson value not being reached before hitting “no-return” point and therefore failure. Plateau region at τ  = 0 (right panel), corresponds to failure not occurring, i.e. success. Parameter a is expressed in Km 2 ys −1 .

Probability p suc of reaching Dyson value before hitting “no-return” point as function of α and a for β  = 300 (left) and 700 (right). Parameter a is expressed in Km 2 ys −1 .

Probability of reaching Dyson value p suc before reaching “no-return” point as function of β and α for a  = 1.5 × 10 −4 Km 2 ys −1 .

In Eq. ( 1 , 2 ) we redefine the variables as N ′ =  N / R W and R ′ =  R / R W with R W ≃ 150 × 10 6 K m 2 the total continental area, and replace parameter a 0 accordingly with a  =  a 0  ×  R W  = 1.5 × 10 −4 Km 2 ys −1 . We run simulations accordingly starting from values R ′ 0 and N ′ 0 , based respectively on the current forest surface and human population. We take values of a from 10 −5 to 3 × 10 −4 Km 2 ys −1 and for α from 0.01 ys −1 to 4.4 ys −1 . Results are shown in Figs.  4 and ​ and6. 6 . Figure  4 shows a threshold value for the parameter α , the technological growth rate, above which there is a non-zero probability of success. This threshold value increases with the value of the other parameter a . As shown in Fig.  7 this values depends as well on the value of β and higher values of β correspond to a more favourable scenario where the transition to a non-zero probability of success occurs for smaller α , i.e. for smaller, more accessible values, of technological growth rate. More specifically, left panel of Fig.  4 shows that, for the more realistic value β  = 170, a region of parameter values with non-zero probability of avoiding collapse corresponds to values of α larger than 0.5. Even assuming that the technological growth rate be comparable to the value α  = log(2)/2 = 0.345 ys −1 , given by the Moore Law (corresponding to a doubling in size every two years), therefore, it is unlikely in this regime to avoid reaching the the catastrophic ‘no-return point’. When the realistic value of a  = 1.5 × 10 4 Km 2 ys −1 estimated from Eq. ( 4 ), is adopted, in fact, a probability less than 10% is obtained for avoiding collapse with a Moore growth rate, even when adopting the more optimistic scenario corresponding to β  = 700 (black curve in right panel of Fig.  4 ). While an α larger than 1.5 is needed to have a non-zero probability of avoiding collapse when β  = 170 (red curve, same panel). As far as time scales are concerned, right panel of Fig.  5 shows for β  = 170 that even in the range α  > 0.5, corresponding to a non-zero probability of avoiding collapse, collapse is still possible, and when this occurs, the average time to the ‘no-return point’ ranges from 20 to 40 years. Left panel in same figure, shows for the same parameters, that in order to avoid catastrophe, our society has to reach the Dyson’s limit in the same average amount of time of 20–40 years.

In Fig.  7 we show the dependence of the model on the parameter β for a  = 1.5 × 10 −4 .

We run simulations of Eqs. ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) simultaneously for different values of of parameters a 0 and α depending on β as explained in Methods and Results to generate Figs.  5 , ​ ,6 6 and ​ and7. 7 . Equations ( 1 ), ( 2 ) are integrated via standard Euler method. Eq. ( 5 ) is integrated as well via standard Euler method between the random changes of the variable ξ . The stochastic dichotomous process ξ is generated numerically in the following way: using the random number generator from gsl library we generate the times intervals between the changes of the dichotomous variable ξ  = 0, 1, with an exponential distribution(with mean values of 1 and 4 years respectively), we therefore obtain a time series of 0 and 1 for each trajectory. We then integrate Eq. ( 5 ) in time using this time series and we average over N  = 10000 trajectories. The latter procedure is used to carry out simulations in Figs.  3 and ​ and4 4 as well in order to evaluate the first passage time probabilities. All simulations are implemented in C++.

Fermi paradox

In this section we briefly discuss a few considerations about the so called Fermi paradox that can be drawn from our model. We may in fact relate the Fermi paradox to the problem of resource consumption and self destruction of a civilisation. The origin of Fermi paradox dates back to a casual conversation about extraterrestrial life that Enrico Fermi had with E. Konopinski, E. Teller and H. York in 1950, during which Fermi asked the famous question: “where is everybody?”, since then become eponymous for the paradox. Starting from the closely related Drake equation 22 , 23 , used to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilisations in the Milky Way, the debate around this topic has been particularly intense in the past (for a more comprehensive covering we refer to Hart 24 , Freitas 25 and reference therein). Hart’s conclusion is that there are no other advanced or ‘technological’ civilisations in our galaxy as also supported recently by 26 based on a careful reexamination of Drake’s equation. In other words the terrestrial civilisation should be the only one living in the Milk Way. Such conclusions are still debated, but many of Hart’s arguments are undoubtedly still valid while some of them need to be rediscussed or updated. For example, there is also the possibility that avoiding communication might actually be an ‘intelligent’ choice and a possible explanation of the paradox. On several public occasions, in fact, Professor Stephen Hawking suggested human kind should be very cautious about making contact with extraterrestrial life. More precisely when questioned about planet Gliese 832c’s potential for alien life he once said: “One day, we might receive a signal from a planet like this, but we should be wary of answering back”. Human history has in fact been punctuated by clashes between different civilisations and cultures which should serve as caveat. From the relatively soft replacement between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (Kolodny 27 ) up to the violent confrontation between native Americans and Europeans, the historical examples of clashes and extinctions of cultures and civilisations have been quite numerous. Looking at human history Hawking’s suggestion appears as a wise warning and we cannot role out the possibility that extraterrestrial societies are following similar advice coming from their best minds.

With the help of new technologies capable of observing extrasolar planetary systems, searching and contacting alien life is becoming a concrete possibility (see for example Grimaldi 28 for a study on the chance of detecting extraterrestrial intelligence), therefore a discussion on the probability of this occurring is an important opportunity to assess also our current situation as a civilisation. Among Hart’s arguments, the self-destruction hypothesis especially needs to be rediscussed at a deeper level. Self-destruction following environmental degradation is becoming more and more an alarming possibility. While violent events, such as global war or natural catastrophic events, are of immediate concern to everyone, a relatively slow consumption of the planetary resources may be not perceived as strongly as a mortal danger for the human civilisation. Modern societies are in fact driven by Economy, and, without giving here a well detailed definition of “economical society”, we may agree that such a kind of society privileges the interest of its components with less or no concern for the whole ecosystem that hosts them (for more details see 29 for a review on Ecological Economics and its criticisms to mainstream Economics). Clear examples of the consequences of this type of societies are the international agreements about Climate Change. The Paris climate agreement 30 , 31 is in fact, just the last example of a weak agreement due to its strong subordination to the economic interests of the single individual countries. In contraposition to this type of society we may have to redefine a different model of society, a “cultural society”, that in some way privileges the interest of the ecosystem above the individual interest of its components, but eventually in accordance with the overall communal interest. This consideration suggests a statistical explanation of Fermi paradox: even if intelligent life forms were very common (in agreement with the mediocrity principle in one of its version 32 : “there is nothing special about the solar system and the planet Earth”) only very few civilisations would be able to reach a sufficient technological level so as to spread in their own solar system before collapsing due to resource consumption.

We are aware that several objections can be raised against this argument and we discuss below the one that we believe to be the most important. The main objection is that we do not know anything about extraterrestrial life. Consequently, we do not know the role that a hypothetical intelligence plays in the ecosystem of the planet. For example not necessarily the planet needs trees (or the equivalent of trees) for its ecosystem. Furthermore the intelligent form of life could be itself the analogous of our trees, so avoiding the problem of the “deforestation” (or its analogous). But if we assume that we are not an exception (mediocrity principle) then independently of the structure of the alien ecosystem, the intelligent life form would exploit every kind of resources, from rocks to organic resources (animal/vegetal/etc), evolving towards a critical situation. Even if we are at the beginning of the extrasolar planetology, we have strong indications that Earth-like planets have the volume magnitude of the order of our planet. In other words, the resources that alien civilisations have at their disposal are, as order of magnitude, the same for all of them, including ourselves. Furthermore the mean time to reach the Dyson limit as derived in Eq.  6 depends only on the ratio between final and initial value of T and therefore would be independent of the size of the planet, if we assume as a proxy for T energy consumption (which scales with the size of the planet), producing a rather general result which can be extended to other civilisations. Along this line of thinking, if we are an exception in the Universe we have a high probability to collapse or become extinct, while if we assume the mediocrity principle we are led to conclude that very few civilisations are able to reach a sufficient technological level so as to spread in their own solar system before the consumption of their planet’s resources triggers a catastrophic population collapse. The mediocrity principle has been questioned (see for example Kukla 33 for a critical discussion about it) but on the other hand the idea that the humankind is in some way “special” in the universe has historically been challenged several times. Starting with the idea of the Earth at the centre of the universe (geocentrism), then of the solar system as centre of the universe (Heliocentrism) and finally our galaxy as centre of the universe. All these beliefs have been denied by the facts. Our discussion, being focused on the resource consumption, shows that whether we assume the mediocrity principle or our “uniqueness” as an intelligent species in the universe, the conclusion does not change. Giving a very broad meaning to the concept of cultural civilisation as a civilisation not strongly ruled by economy, we suggest for avoiding collapse 34 that only civilisations capable of such a switch from an economical society to a sort of “cultural” society in a timely manner, may survive. This discussion leads us to the conclusion that, even assuming the mediocrity principle, the answer to “Where is everybody?” could be a lugubrious “(almost) everyone is dead”.

Conclusions

In conclusion our model shows that a catastrophic collapse in human population, due to resource consumption, is the most likely scenario of the dynamical evolution based on current parameters. Adopting a combined deterministic and stochastic model we conclude from a statistical point of view that the probability that our civilisation survives itself is less than 10% in the most optimistic scenario. Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilisation (see Fig.  5 ). Making the situation even worse, we stress once again that it is unrealistic to think that the decline of the population in a situation of strong environmental degradation would be a non-chaotic and well-ordered decline. This consideration leads to an even shorter remaining time. Admittedly, in our analysis, we assume parameters such as population growth and deforestation rate in our model as constant. This is a rough approximation which allows us to predict future scenarios based on current conditions. Nonetheless the resulting mean-times for a catastrophic outcome to occur, which are of the order of 2–4 decades (see Fig.  5 ), make this approximation acceptable, as it is hard to imagine, in absence of very strong collective efforts, big changes of these parameters to occur in such time scale. This interval of time seems to be out of our reach and incompatible with the actual rate of the resource consumption on Earth, although some fluctuations around this trend are possible 35 not only due to unforeseen effects of climate change but also to desirable human-driven reforestation. This scenario offers as well a plausible additional explanation to the fact that no signals from other civilisations are detected. In fact according to Eq. ( 16 ) the mean time to reach Dyson sphere depends on the ratio of the technological level T and therefore, assuming energy consumption (which scales with the size of the planet) as a proxy for T , such ratio is approximately independent of the size of the planet. Based on this observation and on the mediocrity principle, one could extend the results shown in this paper, and conclude that a generic civilisation has approximatively two centuries starting from its fully developed industrial age to reach the capability to spread through its own solar system. In fact, giving a very broad meaning to the concept of cultural civilisation as a civilisation not strongly ruled by economy, we suggest that only civilisations capable of a switch from an economical society to a sort of “cultural” society in a timely manner, may survive.

Acknowledgements

M.B. and G.A. acknowledge Phy. C.A. for logistical support.

Author contributions

M.B. and G.A. equally contributed and reviewed the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Mauro Bologna and Gerardo Aquino.

Advertisement

Revisiting the deforestation-induced EKC hypothesis: the role of democracy in Bangladesh

• Published: 13 June 2020
• Volume 87 , pages 53–74, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Muntasir Murshed   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9872-8742 1  

985 Accesses

42 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper aimed at evaluating the validity of the deforestation-induced Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis controlling for the democracy between 1971 and 2018 in Bangladesh. The cointegration results provide statistical evidence of long-run associations between economic growth, deforestation propensities and the quality of democracy. The elasticity estimates certify the validity of the EKC hypothesis for all the three indicators of deforestation used in this paper: forest area coverage, deforestation rate and net forest depletion rate. Moreover, controlling for democracy lowers the threshold level of growth beyond which the marginal impact of growth results in environmental betterment by reducing the deforestation propensities in Bangladesh. Moreover, democracy and economic growth are also seen to exert a combined impact on the growth-deforestation nexus. The estimated growth thresholds are above the current real GDP level of Bangladesh which reasons the nation’s deforestation woes. Finally, the causality results also affirm causal associations between economic growth, deforestation and the quality of democracy. Thus, these findings impose key policy implications keeping into cognizance the sustainable economic and environmental development goals of Bangladesh.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Author’s own

Similar content being viewed by others

Douglass North’s Theory of Institutions: Lessons for Law and Development

Julio Faundez

The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO2 emissions in the presence of environmental Kuznets curve

Hoang Phong Le & Ilhan Ozturk

Institutional quality, economic development and illegal logging: a quantitative cross-national analysis

Matthias Bösch

For more information on the EKC hypothesis see Grossman and Krueger ( 2011 ).

For more information regarding renewable energy transition see Murshed ( 2019 ) and Murshed and Tanha ( 2020 ).

For more information on the CMR approach see Clemente, Monantes and Reyes (1998).

For more information on CC regression see Han ( 1996 ).

Ahiduzzaman, M., & Islam, A. S. (2011). Greenhouse gas emission and renewable energy sources for sustainable development in Bangladesh. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15 (9), 4659–4666.

Google Scholar  

Ahmed, A., Bekiros, S., Rosklint-Lindvall, E., Uddin, G. S., & Salvi, A. (2020). The influence of energy consumption and democratic institutions on output and CO 2 emissions in Bangladesh: a time-frequency approach. Energy Systems, 11 (1), 195–212.

Ahmed, K., Shahbaz, M., Qasim, A., & Long, W. (2015). The linkages between deforestation, energy and growth for environmental degradation in Pakistan. Ecological Indicators, 49 , 95–103.

Amarawickrama, H. A., & Hunt, L. C. (2008). Electricity demand for Sri Lanka: a time series analysis. Energy, 33 (5), 724–739.

Banerjee, P. K., & Rahman, M. (2012). Some determinants of carbon dioxide emissions in Bangladesh. International Journal of Green Economics, 6 (2), 205–215.

Barbier, E. B. (2004). Explaining agricultural land expansion and deforestation in developing countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86 (5), 1347–1353.

Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (2001). The economics of tropical deforestation. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15 (3), 413–433.

Benavides, M., Ovalle, K., Torres, C., & Vinces, T. (2017). Economic growth, renewable energy and methane emissions: is there an environmental Kuznets Curve in Austria? International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7 (1), 259–267.

Bhattarai, M., & Hammig, M. (2001). Institutions and the environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation: a cross-country analysis for Latin America. Africa and Asia. World Development, 29 (6), 995–1010.

Bimonte, S., & Stabile, A. (2017). Land consumption and income in Italy: a case of inverted EKC. Ecological Economics, 131 , 36–43.

Bonan, G. B. (2008). Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science, 320 (5882), 1444–1449.

Buitenzorgy, M., & Mol, A. P. (2011). Does democracy lead to a better environment? Deforestation and the democratic transition peak. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48 (1), 59–70.

Busch, J., & Ferretti-Gallon, K. (2017). What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11 (1), 3–23.

Chang, Y., & Cho, T. (2005). Democracy and environment: The effect of democratization on environment outcomes in Asia. In Annual meeting of The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois. Available at http://www.allacademic.com//meta/pmlaaparesearchcitation/0/8/5/3/7/pages85373/p85373-1.php . Accessed 5 Jan 2010.

Chiu, Y. B. (2012). Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve in developing countries: A panel smooth transition regression approach. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 60 (2), 177–194.

Cho, C. H., Chu, Y. P., & Yang, H. Y. (2014). An environment Kuznets curve for GHG emissions: a panel cointegration analysis. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 9 (2), 120–129.

Choumert, J., Motel, P. C., & Dakpo, H. K. (2013). Is the Environmental Kuznets Curve for deforestation a threatened theory? A meta-analysis of the literature. Ecological Economics, 90 , 19–28.

Clemente, J., Montañés, A., & Reyes, M. (1998). Testing for a unit root in variables with a double change in the mean. Economics Letters, 59 (2), 175–182.

Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Skaaning, S., Teorell, J., et al. (2018). “V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-Date] Dataset v8” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.

Deacon, R., & Mueller, B. (2004). Political economy and natural resource use, Department of Economics, UCSB. Departmental Working Papers 01-04.

Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American statistical association, 74 (366a), 427–431.

Dogan, E., & Turkekul, B. (2016). CO 2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23 (2), 1203–1213.

Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., Crenshaw, E. M., & Jenkins, J. C. (2002). Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: A cross-national investigation of intervening mechanisms. Social Science Quarterly, 83 (1), 226–243.

Emas, R. (2015). The concept of sustainable development: definition and defining principles. Brief for GSDR, 2015. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/download/43652555/5839GSDR_2015_SD_concept_definiton_rev.pdf

Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55 (2), 251–276.

Esposito, P., Patriarca, F., Perini, L., & Salvati, L. (2016). Land degradation, economic growth and structural change: evidences from Italy. Environment, development and sustainability, 18 (2), 431–448.

Ewel, K., Twilley, R., & Ong, J. I. N. (1998). Different kinds of mangrove forests provide different goods and services. Global Ecology & Biogeography Letters, 7 (1), 83–94.

Gill, A. R., Hassan, S., & Viswanathan, K. K. (2019). Is democracy enough to get early turn of the environmental Kuznets curve in ASEAN countries?. Energy and Environment,30(8), 1491-1505 0958305X19851349.

Gokmenoglu, K. K., Olasehinde-Williams, G. O., & Taspinar, N. (2019). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of deforestation. In Energy and Environmental Strategies in the Era of Globalization (pp. 61–83). Springer, Cham.

Gorus, M. S., & Aslan, M. (2019). Impacts of economic indicators on environmental degradation: evidence from MENA countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 103 , 259–268.

Gossman, P. (2017). Government corruption exacerbating Bangladesh’s environmental catastrophes. Human Rights Watch. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/11/government-corruption-exacerbating-bangladeshs-environmental-catastrophes

Graven, H. D. (2015). Impact of fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric radiocarbon and various applications of radiocarbon over this century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (31), 9542–9545.

Gregory, A. W., & Hansen, B. E. (1996). Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. Journal of econometrics, 70 (1), 99–126.

Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (2011). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Working Paper No. w3914. National Bureau of Economic Research Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w3914.pdf .

Hacker, R. S., & Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: theory and application. Applied Economics, 38 (13), 1489–1500.

Hacker, S., & Hatemi-J, A. (2012). A bootstrap test for causality with endogenous lag length choice: theory and application in finance. Journal of Economic Studies, 39 (2), 144–160.

Han, H. L. (1996). Small sample properties of canonical cointegrating regressions. Empirical Economics, 21 (2), 235–253.

Hao, Y., Xu, Y., Zhang, J., Hu, X., Huang, J., Chang, C. P., et al. (2019). Relationship between forest resources and economic growth: Empirical evidence from China. Journal of cleaner production, 214 , 848–859.

Hasanov, F. J., Mikayilov, J. I., Mukhtarov, S., & Suleymanov, E. (2019). Does CO 2 emissions–economic growth relationship reveal EKC in developing countries? Evidence from Kazakhstan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26 (29), 30229–30241.

Iftekhar, M. S., & Hoque, A. F. (2005). Causes of forest encroachment: An analysis of Bangladesh. GeoJournal , 62 (1–2), 95–106.

Ike, G. N., Usman, O., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). Fiscal policy and CO2 emissions from heterogeneous fuel sources in Thailand: Evidence from multiple structural breaks cointegration test. Science of the Total Environment, 702 , 134711.

Islam, K., & Sato, N. (2012). Deforestation, land conversion and illegal logging in Bangladesh: the case of the Sal (Shorea robusta) forests. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry , 5 (3), 171.

Islam, F., Shahbaz, M., & Butt, M. S. (2013). Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for Bangladesh? Evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 36 (4), 1–23.

Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society, 59 (6), 1551–1580.

Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52 (2), 169–210.

Joshi, P., & Beck, K. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation: evidence using GMM estimation for OECD and non-OECD regions. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 10 (1), 196.

Kant, S., Nautiyal, J. C., & Berry, R. A. (1996). Forests and economic welfare. Journal of Economic Studies, 23 (2), 31–43.

Kashem, M. A., & Rahman, M. M. (2019). CO 2 Emissions and Development Indicators: a Causality Analysis for Bangladesh. Environmental Processes, 6 (2), 433–455.

Khan, M. T. I., Ali, Q., & Ashfaq, M. (2018). The nexus between greenhouse gas emission, electricity production, renewable energy and agriculture in Pakistan. Renewable Energy, 118 , 437–451.

Kumar, P., & Aggarwal, S. C. (2003). The environmental Kuznets curve for changing land use: Empirical evidence from major states of India. International journal of sustainable development. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991080 .

Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American economic review, 45 (1), 1–28.

Lantz, V. (2002). Is there an Environmental Kuznets Curve for clearcutting in Canadian forests? Journal of Forest Economics, 8 (3), 199–212.

Lee, C. C., Chiu, Y. B., & Sun, C. H. (2009). Deforestation, environmental Kuznets curve, and threshold effects: International evidence. In Singapore Economic Review Conference. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/75b8/267456dff9b8619ad2ce1220915020a58595.pdf .

Lee, C. C., Chiu, Y. B., & Sun, C. H. (2010). The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for water pollution: Do regions matter? Energy Policy, 38 (1), 12–23.

Maji, I. K. (2017). The link between trade openness and deforestation for environmental quality in Nigeria. GeoJournal, 82 (1), 131–138.

Maki, D. (2012). Tests for cointegration allowing for an unknown number of breaks. Economic Modelling, 29 (5), 2011–2015.

Mason, C. L., & Lippke, B. R. (2007). Jobs, revenues, and taxes from timber harvest: An examination of the forest industry contribution to the Washington State economy. Working Paper. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle.

McCarthy, S., & Tacconi, L. (2011). The political economy of tropical deforestation: assessing models and motives. Environmental Politics, 20 (1), 115–132.

Miah, M. D., Masum, M. F. H., Koike, M., & Akther, S. (2011). A review of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for deforestation policy in Bangladesh. iForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 4 (1), 16.

Murshed, M. (2018). Does improvement in trade openness facilitate renewable energy transition? Evidence from selected South Asian economies. South Asia Economic Journal, 19 (2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1391561418794691 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Murshed, M. (2019). Are Trade Liberalization policies aligned with Renewable Energy Transition in low and middle income countries? An Instrumental Variable approach. Renewable Energy, 151 , 1111–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.106 .

Murshed, M. (2020). A empirical analysis of the non-linear impacts of ICT-Trade Openness on Renewable Energy Transition, Energy Efficiency, Clean cooking fuel access and Environmental Sustainability in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09497-3 .

Murshed, M., & Tanha, M. M. (2020). Oil price shocks and renewable energy transition: Empirical evidence from net oil-importing South Asian economies. Energy, Ecology & Environment . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00168-0 .

Naidoo, R. (2004). Economic growth and liquidation of natural capital: the case of forest clearance. Land Economics, 80 (2), 194–208.

Naito, T., & Traesupap, S. (2014). The relationship between mangrove deforestation and economic development in Thailand. In Mangrove Ecosystems of Asia (pp. 273–294). Springer, New York.

Odum, H. T. (1996). Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making (p. 370). New York: Wiley.

Ogundari, K., Ademuwagun, A. A., & Ajao, O. A. (2017). Revisiting environmental Kuznets curve in Sub-Sahara Africa: evidence from deforestation and all GHG emissions from agriculture. International Journal of Social Economics, 44 (2), 222–231.

Park, J. Y. (1992). Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society, 60 (2), 119–143.

Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society, 57 (6), 1361–1401.

Perron, P. (1990). Testing for a unit root in a time series with a changing mean. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 8 (2), 153–162.

Perron, P., & Vogelsang, T. J. (1992a). Nonstationarity and level shifts with an application to purchasing power parity. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10 (3), 301–320.

Perron, P., & Vogelsang, T. J. (1992b). Testing for a unit root in a time series with a changing mean: corrections and extensions. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10 (4), 467–470.

Phillips, P. C., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57 (1), 99–125.

Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75 (2), 335–346.

Pouliotte, J., Smit, B., & Westerhoff, L. (2009). Adaptation and development: Livelihoods and climate change in Subarnabad. Bangladesh. Climate and Development , 1 (1), 31–46.

Psaltopoulos, D., & Thomson, K. J. (1993). Input-output evaluation of rural development: a forestry-centred application. Journal of Rural Studies, 9 (4), 351–358.

Rabbi, F., Akbar, D., & Kabir, S. Z. (2015). Environment Kuznets curve for carbon emissions: A cointegration analysis for Bangladesh. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5 (1), 45–53.

Rahman, M. M., & Kashem, M. A. (2017). Carbon emissions, energy consumption and industrial growth in Bangladesh: Empirical evidence from ARDL cointegration and Granger causality analysis. Energy Policy, 110 , 600–608.

Rahman, M. M., Rahman, M. M., & Islam, K. S. (2010). The causes of deterioration of Sundarban mangrove forest ecosystem of Bangladesh: conservation and sustainable management issues. Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation, 3 (2), 77–90.

Reza, A. A., & Hasan, M. K. (2019). Forest biodiversity and deforestation in Bangladesh: the latest update. In Deforestation Around the World. IntechOpen. Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/forest-biodiversity-and-deforestation-in-bangladesh-the-latest-update

Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence (Vol. 904). World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C.

Shahbaz, M., Uddin, G. S., Rehman, I. U., & Imran, K. (2014). Industrialization, electricity consumption and CO2 emissions in Bangladesh. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31 , 575–586.

Shandra, J. M. (2007). The world polity and deforestation: a quantitative, cross-national analysis. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 48 (1), 5–27.

Sinha, A., & Sengupta, T. (2019). Impact of energy mix on nitrous oxide emissions: an environmental Kuznets curve approach for APEC countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26 (3), 2613–2622.

Sulemana, I., James, H. S., & Rikoon, J. S. (2017). Environmental Kuznets Curves for air pollution in African and developed countries: exploring turning point incomes and the role of democracy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6 (2), 134–152.

Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of econometrics, 66 (1–2), 225–250.

Tsiantikoudis, S., Zafeiriou, E., Kyriakopoulos, G., & Arabatzis, G. (2019). Revising the environmental Kuznets Curve for deforestation: an empirical study for Bulgaria. Sustainability, 11 (16), 4364.

UNICEF. (2018). The Rohingya Refugee crisis. United Nations International Children’s Education Fund. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/en/rohingya-refugee-crisis-0

Vaona, A. (2012). Granger non-causality tests between (non) renewable energy consumption and output in Italy since 1861: the (ir) relevance of structural breaks. Energy Policy, 45 , 226–236.

Van Khuc, Q., Tran, B. Q., Meyfroidt, P., & Paschke, M. W. (2018). Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Vietnam: an exploratory analysis at the national level. Forest policy and economics, 90 , 128–141.

Waluyo, E. A., & Terawaki, T. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation in Indonesia: an ARDL bounds testing approach. Journal of Economic Cooperation & Development, 37 (3), 87–108.

World Bank. (2018). World Development Indicators . Washington DC: World Bank.

Zambrano-Monserrate, M. A., Carvajal-Lara, C., Urgilés-Sanchez, R., & Ruano, M. A. (2018). Deforestation as an indicator of environmental degradation: analysis of five European countries. Ecological Indicators, 90 , 1–8.

Zhang, C., Wang, Y., Song, X., Kubota, J., He, Y., Tojo, J., et al. (2017). An integrated specification for the nexus of water pollution and economic growth in China: panel cointegration, long-run causality and environmental Kuznets curve. Science of the Total Environment, 609 , 319–328.

Zhou, Z., Ye, X., & Ge, X. (2017). The impacts of technical progress on sulfur dioxide Kuznets curve in China: a spatial panel data approach. Sustainability, 9 (4), 674.

Download references

The article received no funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business and Economics, North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Muntasir Murshed

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muntasir Murshed .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See Table 1 and Fig.  2 .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Murshed, M. Revisiting the deforestation-induced EKC hypothesis: the role of democracy in Bangladesh. GeoJournal 87 , 53–74 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10234-z

Download citation

Published : 13 June 2020

Issue Date : February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10234-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Deforestation
• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• Environment
• Structural breaks
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Deforestation, climate change may endanger North American lizards

A study highlights the importance of trees as a habitat for many of the reptiles in north america.

A combination of deforestation and climate change could put most of North America’s lizard species at risk for health problems and population decline, a recent analysis found.

The study , in Nature Climate Change, highlights the importance of trees as a habitat for the reptiles.

Like other reptiles, lizards are coldblooded and rely on the sun to help regulate their body temperatures, taking advantage of “thermal opportunity” as they bask on the sunny side of trees, then cool themselves in their shade.

But tree cover is predicted to decline in the coming years in part because of the warmer, drier conditions of Earth’s changing climate, and deforestation for industrial purposes is on the rise worldwide.

Researchers used computer models to simulate how lizards would respond to these pressures. For some species, a warming climate was a benefit, especially in cold locations where warmer temperatures would give the lizards more time to bask, regulate their body temperatures, eat and reproduce.

But when deforestation was combined with climate change, the simulated picture looked different — and more dire. Deforestation will reduce lizards’ activity time and shorten their reproductive seasons, the researchers predict, putting lizards in cooler locations at particular risk. Loss of trees was associated with a predicted 50 percent decrease in activity in cooler locations and an average decline of 34 percent of activity time overall.

Tree loss would probably outweigh any climate-change-related benefit to 66 percent of lizard populations, the researchers concluded, and will cause population declines for 18.2 percent of lizard populations, mostly from the warmest locations, which will become too hot for lizard activity over time.

“The decline in lizards can lead to a cascading effect as they are an important part of almost every ecological system,” Ofir Levy, a senior lecturer at Tel Aviv University’s School of Zoology and a co-author of the paper, said in a news release .

There is a solution, the researchers conclude: Make sure a higher percentage of lizards can access trees over time, especially in warmer locations. The researchers call for proactive tree planting, reforestation and conservation programs to prevent tree loss.

• Deforestation, climate change may endanger North American lizards March 9, 2024 Deforestation, climate change may endanger North American lizards March 9, 2024
• Secondhand smoke linked to rise in some dogs’ cancer risk March 2, 2024 Secondhand smoke linked to rise in some dogs’ cancer risk March 2, 2024
• A 13-year-old beat Tetris, but there’s more to the game than winning February 26, 2024 A 13-year-old beat Tetris, but there’s more to the game than winning February 26, 2024

Policies tackling deforestation pose investor risk, report says

• Credible policies in biggest economies double to 22
• Brazil, China among countries to act to protect land
• Risk to food companies, investors could hit $150 bln

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Reporting by Simon Jessop Editing by Tomasz Janowski

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Simon leads a team tracking how the financial system and companies more broadly are responding to the challenges posed by climate change, nature loss and other environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues including diversity and inclusion.

Sustainability

UK review says even polluters should benefit from transition finance

High-polluting businesses should not be stopped from accessing financing aimed at driving the transition to net zero, but they should have "credible" plans for cleaning up their operations, a UK government-backed review said on Thursday.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Research Briefing
• Published: 05 March 2024

Deforestation may cause more widespread ectotherm population decline under climate change

Nature Climate Change volume  14 ,  pages 212–213 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

77 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change ecology
• Ecological modelling

In a changing climate, tree trunks serve as crucial refuges for animals, particularly ectotherms, seeking to escape extreme climatic conditions. Therefore, while climate change could generally promote population growth among ectotherms, deforestation could reverse these positive effects in some populations or exacerbate the negative impacts of climate change in others.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Brooks, T. M. et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 16 , 909–923 (2002). This paper outlines the effects of habitat loss, particularly deforestation, on biodiversity.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bogert, C. M. How reptiles regulate their body temperature. Sci. Am. 200 , 105–120 (1959). This is a classic paper that laid the foundation of thermoregulation research in lizards.

Kearney, M. et al. The potential for behavioral thermoregulation to buffer “cold-blooded” animals against climate warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 3835–3840 (2009). This paper demonstrates the important role of behavioural thermoregulation in mitigating climate change effects on ectotherms, also using computer simulations.

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Levy, O. et al. A dynamically downscaled projection of past and future climates. Ecology 97 , 1888 (2016). This paper provides the projections of past and future microclimates and vegetation loss that we used for our study.

Dawson, T. P. et al. Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science 332 , 53–58 (2011). A review article that presents approaches for anticipating effects of climate change on biodiversity and a framework for integrating them to support conservation planning.

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This is a summary of: Zlotnick, O. B. et al. Deforestation poses deleterious effects to tree-climbing species under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01939-x (2024).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Deforestation may cause more widespread ectotherm population decline under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14 , 212–213 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01940-4

Download citation

Published : 05 March 2024

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01940-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.