Inadequate methods undermine a study of malaria, deforestation and trade

In a recent study, Chaves et al. find international consumption and trade to be major drivers of ‘malaria risk’ via deforestation. Their analysis is based on a counterfactual ‘malaria risk’ footprint, defined as the number of malaria cases in absence of two malaria interventions, which is constructed using linear regression. In this letter, I argue that their study hinges on an obscured weighting scheme and suffers from methodological flaws, such as disregard for sources of bias. When addressed properly, these issues nullify results, overturning the significance and reversing the direction of the claimed relationship. Nonetheless, I see great potential in the mixed methods approach and conclude with recommendations for future studies.