Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India


Many countries have adopted large-scale tree planting programmes as a climate mitigation strategy and to support local livelihoods. We evaluate a series of large-scale tree planting programmes using data collected from historical Landsat imagery in the state of Himachal Pradesh in Northern India. Using this panel dataset, we use an event study design to estimate the socioeconomic and biophysical impacts over decades of these programmes. We find that tree plantings have not, on average, increased the proportion of forest canopy cover and have modestly shifted forest composition away from the broadleaf varieties valued by local people. Further cross-sectional analysis, from a household livelihood survey, shows that tree planting supports little direct use by local people. We conclude that decades of expensive tree planting programmes in this region have not proved effective. This result suggests that large-scale tree planting may sometimes fail to achieve its climate mitigation and livelihood goals.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

Fig. 1: Study site.
Fig. 2: Cumulative number of active tree plantations.
Fig. 3: The effects of plantations on land cover.
Fig. 4: Boxplots for plantation-use outcome measures.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Replication data and materials for this analysis are available in the Data Repository for University of Minnesota:

Code availability

Replication code for statistical analysis is also available in the Data Repository for University of Minnesota:


  1. Seymour, F. Seeing the forests as well as the (trillion) trees in corporate climate strategies. One Earth 2, 390–393 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568, 25–28 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hawes, M. Planting carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 556–558 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Payn, T. et al. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. Ecol. Manag. 352, 57–67 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fleischman, F. et al. Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need people-centered natural climate solutions. Bioscience 70, 947–950 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brancalion, P. H. S. & Holl, K. D. Guidance for successful tree planting initiatives. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 2349–2361 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Temperton, V. M. et al. Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: How a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, 705–719 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fagan, M. E., Reid, J. L., Holland, M. B., Drew, J. G. & Zahawi, R. A. How feasible are global forest restoration commitments? Conserv. Lett. 13, e12700 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Heilmayr, R., Echeverría, C. & Lambin, E. F. Impacts of Chilean forest subsidies on forest cover, carbon and biodiversity. Nat. Sustain. 3, 701–709 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution: Working Towards Climate Justice (Government of India, 2015).

  11. Zeng, Y. et al. Economic and social constraints on reforestation for climate mitigation in Southeast Asia. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 842–844 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Le, H. D., Smith, C., Herbohn, J. & Harrison, S. More than just trees: assessing reforestation success in tropical developing countries. J. Rural Stud. 28, 5–19 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Adams, C., Rodrigues, S. T., Calmon, M. & Kumar, C. Impacts of large-scale forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: What we know and do not know. Biotropica 48, 731–744 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Malkamäki, A. et al. A systematic review of the socio-economic impacts of large-scale tree plantations, worldwide. Glob. Environ. Change 53, 90–103 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368, 580–581 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Davis, D. K. & Robbins, P. Ecologies of the colonial present: Pathological forestry from the taux de boisement to civilized plantations. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 1, 447–469 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fleischman, F. D. Why do foresters plant trees? Testing theories of bureaucratic decision-making in central India. World Dev. 62, 62–74 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dubash, N. K., Khosla, R., Kelkar, U. & Lele, S. India and Climate Change: Evolving ideas and increasing policy engagement. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 395–424 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nath, A. J. et al. Quantifying carbon stocks and sequestration potential in agroforestry systems under divergent management scenarios relevant to India’s Nationally Determined Contribution. J. Clean. Prod. 281, 124831 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gundimeda, H. & Shyamsundar, P. Forests, sustainability and poverty in India. Environ. Dev. Econ. 17, 373–378 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saxena, N. C. India’s Eucalyptus Craze: The God that Failed (SAGE Publications, 1994).

  22. Asher, M. & Bhandari, P. Mitigation or myth? Impacts of hydropower development and compensatory afforestation on forest ecosystems in the high Himalayas. Land Use Policy 100, 105041 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Valencia, L. M. Compensatory Afforestation in Odisha, India: A Political Ecology of Forest Restoration (Univ. of Toronto, 2019).

  24. Davidar, P. et al. Assessing the extent and causes of forest degradation in India: Where do we stand? Biol. Conserv. 143, 2937–2944 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Puyravaud, J. P., Davidar, P. & Laurance, W. F. Cryptic destruction of India’s native forests. Conserv. Lett. 3, 390–394 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ramprasad, V., Joglekar, A. & Fleischman, F. Plantations and pastoralists: Afforestation activities make pastoralists in the Indian Himalaya vulnerable. Ecol. Soc. 25, 1 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Report of the National Commission on Agriculture, Part IX: Forestry (Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Government of India, 1976).

  28. Agarwal, B. Cold Hearths and Barren Slopes: The Wood Fuel Crisis in the Third World (Allied Publishers, 1986).

  29. Blaikie, P. M. & Muldavin, J. S. S. Upstream, downstream, China, India: the politics of environment in the Himalayan Region. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94, 520–548 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Saberwal, V. K. Pastoral Politics: Shepherds, Bureaucrats, and Conservation in the Western Himalaya (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).

  31. Vasan, S. Living with Diversity: Forestry Institutions in Western Himalaya (Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2006).

  32. Gouri, S. M., Morrison, E. & Mayers, J. Policy Influences on Forest-based Livelihoods in Himachal Pradesh, India (International Institute for Environment and Development, 2004).

  33. Rana, P. & Miller, D. C. Machine learning to analyze the social-ecological impacts of natural resource policy: Insights from community forest management in the Indian Himalaya. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 24008 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cunningham, S. Causal Inference: The Mixtape (Yale Univ. Press, 2018).

  35. Gallagher, J. Learning about an infrequent event: evidence from flood insurance take-up in the United States. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 6, 206–233 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. West, S. G. et al. Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Public Health 98, 1359–1366 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Baland, J. M., Bardhan, P., Das, S. & Mookherjee, D. Forests to the people: Decentralization and forest degradation in the Indian Himalayas. World Dev. 38, 1642–1656 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Aggarwal, A. Improving forest governance or messing it up? Analyzing impact of forest carbon projects on existing governance mechanisms with evidence from India. Policy Econ. 111, 102080 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shahabuddin, G. & Thadani, R. in Conservation and Development in India: Reimagining Wilderness (ed. Bhagwat, S.) 109–131 (Routledge, 2018).

  40. Duguma, L. et al. From Tree Planting to Tree Growing: Rethinking Ecosystem Restoration Through Trees Working Paper 304 (World Agroforestry, 2020);

  41. Robbins, P. The practical politics of knowing: State environmental knowledge and local political economy. Econ. Geogr. 76, 126–144 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Andersson, K., Lawrence, D., Zavaleta, J. & Guariguata, M. R. More trees, more poverty? The socioeconomic effects of tree plantations in Chile, 2001–2011. Environ. Manag. 57, 123–136 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. India State of Forest Report 2019 Vol. I (Forest Survey of India, 2019);

  44. Callaway, B. & Sant’Anna, P. H. C. Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. J. Econom. (2020).

  45. Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 463–466 (2019).

  46. Di Sacco, A. et al. Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1328–1348 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Höhl, M. et al. Forest landscape restoration: what generates failure and success? Forests 11, 938 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Crouzeilles, R. et al. A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nat. Commun. 7, 11666 (2016).

  49. Adler-Golden, S. et al. FLAASH, a MODTRAN4 atmospheric correction package for hyperspectral data retrievals and simulations. Proc. 7th Ann. JPL Airborne Earth Sci. Work. 1, 9–14 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Makantasis, K., Karantzalos, K., Doulamis, A. & Doulamis, N. in International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS) 4959–4962 (IEEE, 2015);

  51. Congalton, R. G. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 37, 36–46 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jensen, J. R. Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective (Pearson Education, 2016).

  53. Allison, P. D. & Waterman, R. P. Fixed-effects negative binomial regression models. Sociol. Methodol. 32, 247–265 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank our field researchers for data collection. B. Lawrence assisted with geospatial processing tasks. Research was funded by NASA Land Cover and Land Use Change (LULUC): NNX17AK14G, which supported the work of all authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



F.F., E.C., V.R., H.F. and P.R. conceived the study, and F.F. oversaw data collection. V.R. led survey data collection and V.G. and R.R. contributed. A.F. and B.G. oversaw geospatial processing, with A.M. contributing. E.C. and B.S. designed and conducted the data analysis, with feedback from other authors. E.C. led revision of the final manuscript, and B.S., V.R., H.F., P.R., A.F., B.G., C.R.S. and F.F. contributed to writing the manuscript and Supplementary Information.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric A. Coleman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–15 (Landsat image classification accuracies), 16–23 (additional statistical tests and summary statistics) and 24–27 (robustness checks for household data using livelihood support and forest dependence) and Figs. 1–4 (summary data) and 5–8 (impacts for more forest cover outcomes).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coleman, E.A., Schultz, B., Ramprasad, V. et al. Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nat Sustain 4, 997–1004 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing