Reference health
Conservation Impact Evaluation Using Remotely Sensed Data
29/29 checkable references clean · checked 2026-09-21
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
50 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 29 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.009
Forest conservation effects of Brazil's zero deforestation cattle agreements undermined by leakage
resolves10.1073/pnas.0800437105
Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation
resolves10.3368/le.88.2.382
Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica
resolves10.1086/712800
Linking Local Infrastructure Development and Deforestation: Evidence from Satellite and Administrative Data
resolves10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.006
Evaluating forest conservation policies in developing countries using remote sensing data: An introduction and practical guide
resolves10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.009
Strict versus mixed-use protected areas: Guatemala's Maya Biosphere Reserve
resolves10.1073/pnas.1603290114
Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon
resolves10.1016/j.jeem.2018.04.005
Does eco-certification stem tropical deforestation? Forest Stewardship Council certification in Mexico
resolves10.1073/pnas.1412514112
Reductions in emissions from deforestation from Indonesia’s moratorium on new oil palm, timber, and logging concessions
resolves10.1016/j.baae.2017.01.005
Quasi-experimental methods enable stronger inferences from observational data in ecology
resolves10.1111/cobi.12835
The effect of protected areas on forest disturbance in the Carpathian Mountains 1985–2010
resolves10.1002/hec.2818
HOW MANY INFANTS LIKELY DIED IN AFRICA AS A RESULT OF THE 2008–2009 GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS?
resolves10.1073/pnas.1802877116
Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: Comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon
resolves10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.004
Titling land to conserve forests: The case of Cuyabeno Reserve in Ecuador
resolves10.1126/science.aan0568
Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation
resolves10.1017/S0376892916000308
Forest conservation incentives and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon
resolves10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00106-3
Carbon dynamics and land-use choices: building a regional-scale multidisciplinary model
resolves10.1080/1747423X.2015.1117530
Approaches and terminology for causal analysis in land systems science
resolves10.1016/j.reseneeco.2003.11.009
Deforestation pressure and biological reserve planning: a conceptual approach and an illustrative application for Costa Rica
resolves10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00335-3
Standardizing the calculation of the annual rate of deforestation
resolves10.3368/le.89.3.432
Ecopayments and Deforestation in Costa Rica: A Nationwide Analysis of PSA’s Initial Years
resolves10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.054
Payment for ecosystem services programs in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Effective but not enough
The 50 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedref2
no DOI — not checkedAvoided Deforestation Linked to Environmental Registration of Properties in the Brazilian Amazon: Environmental Registration in the Amazon
no DOI — not checkedConserving Forests: Mandates, Management or Money
no DOI — not checkedIndigenous Land Rights and Deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon
no DOI — not checkedref15
no DOI — not checkedref16
no DOI — not checkedDifference-in-Differences with Multiple Time Periods
no DOI — not checkedref21
no DOI — not checkedFight Fire with Finance: A Randomized Field Experiment to Curtail Land-Clearing Fire in Indonesia
no DOI — not checkedPanel Data Designs and Estimators as Substitutes for Randomized Controlled Trials in the Evaluation of Public Programs
no DOI — not checkedref26
no DOI — not checkedDifference-in-Differences with Variation in Treatment Timing
no DOI — not checkedA Review of Large Area Monitoring of Land Cover Change Using Landsat Data
no DOI — not checkedref29
no DOI — not checkedImpacts of Nonstate, Market-Driven Governance on Chilean Forests
no DOI — not checkedEstimating the Counterfactual Impact of Conservation Programs on Land Cover Outcomes: The Role of Matching and Panel Regression Techniques
no DOI — not checkedAgricultural Productivity and Forest Conservation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon
no DOI — not checkedLegal Status and the Criminal Activity of Immigrants
no DOI — not checkedImpacts of Certification, Uncertified Concessions, and Protected Areas on Forest Loss in Cameroon
no DOI — not checkedPark Location Affects Forest Protection: Land Characteristics Cause Differences in Park Impacts Across Costa Rica
no DOI — not checkedA Global Comparative Analysis of Impact Evaluation Methods in Estimating the Effectiveness of Protected Areas
no DOI — not checkedCloud Cover and Its Impact on Brazils Deforestation Satellite Monitoring Program: Evidence from the Cerrado Biome of the Brazilian Legal Amazon
no DOI — not checkedParks Versus PES: Evaluating Direct and Incentive-Based Land Conservation in Mexico
no DOI — not checkedEvaluating the Effectiveness of Conservation and Development Investments in Reducing Deforestation and Fires in Ankeniheny-Zahemena Corridor, Madagascar
no DOI — not checkedThe Past and Future Role of Conservation Science in Saving Biodiversity
no DOI — not checkedref55
no DOI — not checkedref56
no DOI — not checkedref57
no DOI — not checkedref58
no DOI — not checkedref59
no DOI — not checkedref60
no DOI — not checkedref61
no DOI — not checkedref62
no DOI — not checkedref63
no DOI — not checkedref64
no DOI — not checked𝐺 𝑖 = 𝑏] 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑐 = 𝐸[𝑦 𝑖𝑡 (0)|𝑡 < 𝑡 0 , 𝐺 𝑖 = 𝑐] 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑 1 = 𝐸[𝑦 𝑖𝑡 (0)|𝑡 = 1
no DOI — not checkedGroup 𝑎 experiences treatment in time 2, group 𝑏 experiences treatment in time 3, and group 𝑐 is never treated. The 𝐴𝑇 𝑇 is equal across the two treated groups and there are no dynamic effects. The DGP for each observation can be written as follows
no DOI — not checkedref67
no DOI — not checkedref68
no DOI — not checkedref69
no DOI — not checkedref70
no DOI — not checkedref71
no DOI — not checkedref72
no DOI — not checkedref73
no DOI — not checkedref74
no DOI — not checkedref75
no DOI — not checkedref76
no DOI — not checkedref77
no DOI — not checkedwhere the 𝛽 and 𝑡𝑎𝑢 coefficients are calculated as follows: 𝛽 0,𝑎 = 𝐹 ?1 (𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑎 ) 𝛽 1,𝑎 = 𝐹 ?1 (𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑 1 + 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑎 ) ? 𝛽 0,𝑎 𝛽 2,𝑎 = 𝐹 ?1 (𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑 2 + 𝐹 (𝛽 0,𝑎 + 𝛽 1,𝑎 )) ? 𝛽 0,𝑎 ? 𝛽 1,𝑎 𝛽 3,𝑎 = 𝐹 ?1 (𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑 3 + 𝐹 (𝛽 0,𝑎 + 𝛽 1,𝑎 + 𝛽 2,𝑎 )) ? 𝛽 0,𝑎 ? 𝛽 1,𝑎 ? 𝛽 2,𝑎 𝛽 4,𝑎 = 𝐹 ?1 (𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑 4 + 𝐹 (𝛽 0,𝑎 + 𝛽 1,𝑎 + 𝛽 2,𝑎 + 𝛽 3,𝑎 )) ? 𝛽 0,𝑎 ? 𝛽 1,𝑎 ? 𝛽 2,𝑎 ? 𝛽 3,𝑎 𝜏 0,𝑎 = 𝐹 ?1 (𝐴𝑇 𝑇 0,𝑎 + 𝐹 (𝛽 0,𝑎 + 𝛽 1,𝑎 + 𝛽 2,𝑎 )) ? 𝛽 0,𝑎 ? 𝛽 1,𝑎 ? 𝛽 2,𝑎 𝜏 1,𝑎 = 𝐹 ?1 (𝐴𝑇 𝑇 1,𝑎 + 𝐹 (𝛽 0,𝑎 + 𝛽 1,𝑎 + 𝛽 2,𝑎 + 𝛽 3,𝑎 + 𝜏 0,𝑎 )) ? 𝛽 0,𝑎 ? 𝛽 1,𝑎 ? 𝛽 2
no DOI — not checkedref79
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-09-21 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.4179782"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.4179782/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.4179782)