This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
ECOCIDE: Quantifying War-Time Environmental Damage: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Kakhovka Dam Destruction
Downloads
Supplementary Files
Authors
Abstract
Abstract:
International law organisations are actively looking into declaring "ecocide" -- mass environmental destruction -- as a prosecutable international crime and in September 2024, Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa submitted a proposed amendment to Rome Statute. No consistent, statistically sound method yet has been developed to document such a claim of harm, however, because prior environmental trends are not easily differentiated from harm caused by conflict, existing satellite-based assessments of environmental war damage are qualitative and based on visual interpretations of images. In an attempt to fill this gap, I estimate the impact of the Kakhovka Dam's destruction on Ukraine and employ a causal-inference framework of Difference-in-Differences to those data. The design compares monthly NDVI in Kherson Oblast, a region generally affected by the conflict, against a "control" panel of four counties in Romania which are comparable on the pre-conflict ecology of the river deltas, steppe regions, and coastal areas along the Danube/Black Sea corridor but which are indeed not affected by the conflict. It is statistically significant with respect to the decrease in vegetation caused by the event (coefficient = −0.0703, 95% CI [−0.130, −0.010]; p = 0.022 [HAC-robust]). The result has been confirmed by a clean placebo-control test based on a counterfactual date preceding the event. As a robustness check, I run the same analysis at the level of the 4-county panel as a whole, obtaining a similar result (coefficient = −0.0600, HAC p = 0.029), and three of the four controls individually reproduce it, while the fourth, Constanța, does not — which I report as an open question rather than resolve away. In addition, there's this very real methodological challenge that I didn't anticipate, where I find after running the event study on a quarterly basis that there is a significant effect in the pre-treatment quarter, but this relates to a banally acknowledged 'conflict status' of conflict prior to the dam's destruction, where in fact lots of territory was already involved in conflict when the dam went up, which I report openly as a specification I know I'm dealing with, rather than hide and ignore, and a similar challenge shows up in a different variant the moment I run the event study for the four-county panel, where I find that a cluster-robust inference is problematic at five clusters. An independent verified flood extent for a flood rise-peak-recession cycle is obtained from the multi-sensor validated flood extent data (UNOSAT). I demonstrate that for this event, which has never before been the subject of a satellite-based environmental war-damage assessment beyond qualitative measures, causal-inference methods can supplement the existing qualitative approach with quantitative measures based on statistical significance — directly answering the call the existing literature itself makes for future research.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31223/X5BN4K
Subjects
Applied Statistics, Biodiversity, Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Geographic Information Sciences, Geography, Human Geography, International and Area Studies, Other Geography, Physical and Environmental Geography, Remote Sensing, Spatial Science, Statistical Methodology, Statistical Models, Statistics and Probability
Keywords
ECOCIDE, CAUSAL INFERENCE, DIFFERENCES-IN-DIFFERENCES, WAR CRIME, REMOTE SENSING, GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS, CONFLICT MONITORING, SATELLITE IMAGERY, NDVI, KAHOVHKA DAM, UKRAINE CONFLICT, ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ASSESS, ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Dates
Published: 2026-09-05 19:13
Last Updated: 2026-09-05 19:13
License
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Additional Metadata
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data Availability:
https://github.com/sakshimaske303-commits/ECOCIDE
Metrics
Views: 21
Downloads: 0
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.