Machine learning to analyze the social-ecological impacts of natural resource policy: insights from community forest management in the Indian Himalaya

Machine learning promises to advance analysis of the social and ecological impacts of forest and other natural resource policies around the world. However, realizing this promise requires addressing a number of challenges characteristic of the forest sector. Forests are complex social-ecological systems (SESs) with myriad interactions and feedbacks potentially linked to policy impacts. This complexity makes it hard for machine learning methods to distinguish between significant causal relationships and random fluctuations due to noise. In this context, SES frameworks together with quasi-experimental impact evaluation approaches can facilitate the use of machine learning by providing guidance on the choice of variables while reducing bias in estimated effects. Here we combine an SES framework, optimal matching, and Causal Tree-based algorithms to examine causal impacts of two community forest management policies (forest cooperatives and joint state-community partnerships) on vegetation growth in the Indian Himalaya. We find that neither policy had a major impact on average, but there was important heterogeneity in effects conditional on local contextual conditions. For joint forest management, a set of biophysical and climate factors shaped differential policy impacts across the study region. By contrast, cooperative forest management performed much better in locations where existing grazing-based livelihoods were safeguarded. Stronger local institutions and secure tenure under cooperative management explain the difference in outcomes between the two policies. Despite their potential, machine learning approaches do have limitations, including absence of valid precision estimates for heterogeneity estimates and issues of estimate stability. Therefore, they should be viewed as a complement to impact evaluation approaches that, among other potential uses, can uncover key drivers of heterogeneity and generate new questions and hypotheses to improve knowledge and policy relating to forest and other natural resource governance challenges.

[1]  Paul R. Rosenbaum,et al.  Optimal Matching for Observational Studies , 1989 .

[2]  R. Hinde,et al.  The Possibility of Cooperation@@@Cooperation: The Basis of Sociability.@@@Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior.@@@Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. , 1990 .

[3]  Paul R. Rosenbaum,et al.  Comparison of Multivariate Matching Methods: Structures, Distances, and Algorithms , 1993 .

[4]  V. Saberwal Pastoral Politics: Gaddi Grazing, Degradation, and Biodiversity Conservation in Himachal Pradesh, India , 1996 .

[5]  'A Boat that Cannot Reach Either Bank': Lessons from a Long-Term Analysis of the Cooperative Forest Societies of Kangra District, Himachal Pradesh, India , 2001 .

[6]  A. Agrawal Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources , 2001 .

[7]  The Politics of Cooperative Forest Management: The Kangra Experience, Himachal Pradesh , 2002 .

[8]  B. Hansen Full Matching in an Observational Study of Coaching for the SAT , 2004 .

[9]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective , 2004 .

[10]  J. Ribot Waiting for democracy: The politics of choice in natural resource decentralization , 2004 .

[11]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  Arun Agrawal,et al.  Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya , 2006 .

[13]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Forest commons and local enforcement , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  E. Ostrom A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems , 2009, Science.

[15]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Social and Ecological Synergy: Local Rulemaking, Forest Livelihoods, and Biodiversity Conservation , 2011, Science.

[16]  Gary King,et al.  MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference , 2011 .

[17]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Strengthening Causal Inference through Qualitative Analysis of Regression Residuals: Explaining Forest Governance in the Indian Himalaya , 2011 .

[18]  A. Larson Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: Lessons for REDD+ , 2011 .

[19]  F. Nelson,et al.  Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: a review of the adjacent possible , 2012 .

[20]  Julia P. G. Jones,et al.  Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare , 2012 .

[21]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand , 2013 .

[22]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  Advances in Measuring the Environmental and Social Impacts of Environmental Programs , 2014 .

[23]  Gabriel Cadamuro,et al.  Predicting poverty and wealth from mobile phone metadata , 2015, Science.

[24]  Mark T. Buntaine,et al.  Titling community land to prevent deforestation: An evaluation of a best-case program in Morona-Santiago, Ecuador , 2015 .

[25]  Susan Athey,et al.  Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Sang Michael Xie,et al.  Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty , 2016, Science.

[27]  Joshua Blumenstock,et al.  Fighting poverty with data , 2016, Science.

[28]  Jonathan M. V. Davis,et al.  Using Causal Forests to Predict Treatment Heterogeneity: An Application to Summer Jobs , 2017 .

[29]  P. Rana,et al.  A crystal ball for forests?; Analyzing the social-ecological impacts of forest conservation and management over the long term , 2017 .

[30]  B. Sundar Joint Forest Management in India — an Assessment , 2017, International Forestry Review.

[31]  Susan Athey,et al.  Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems , 2017, Science.

[32]  Justin Grimmer,et al.  Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects and the Effects of Heterogeneous Treatments with Ensemble Methods , 2017, Political Analysis.

[33]  N. Thomas,et al.  Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation , 2017, Science.

[34]  Daniel C. Miller,et al.  What are the environmental impacts of property rights regimes in forests, fisheries and rangelands? , 2017, Environmental Evidence.

[35]  J. Ribot,et al.  Disempowering Democracy: Local Representation in Community and Carbon Forestry in Africa , 2017 .

[36]  Sendhil Mullainathan,et al.  Machine Learning: An Applied Econometric Approach , 2017, Journal of Economic Perspectives.

[37]  Melvyn Weeks,et al.  Causal Tree Estimation of Heterogeneous Household Response to Time-Of-Use Electricity Pricing Schemes , 2018, 1810.09179.

[38]  Forest conservation and livelihood generation through joint forest management in India , 2018 .

[39]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Human Decisions and Machine Predictions , 2017, The quarterly journal of economics.

[40]  M. Luizza,et al.  African community-based conservation: a systematic review of social and ecological outcomes , 2018 .

[41]  Stefan Wager,et al.  Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests , 2015, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[42]  J. Ribot,et al.  Trends in research on forestry decentralization policies , 2018, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.