Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods
Protected areas (PAs) cover a quarter of the tropical forest estate. Yet there is debate over the effectiveness of PAs in reducing deforestation, especially when local people have rights to use the forest. A key analytic problem is the likely placement of PAs on marginal lands with low pressure for...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2011-08, Vol.6 (8), p.e22722 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | e22722 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 6 |
| creator | Nelson, Andrew Chomitz, Kenneth M |
| description | Protected areas (PAs) cover a quarter of the tropical forest estate. Yet there is debate over the effectiveness of PAs in reducing deforestation, especially when local people have rights to use the forest. A key analytic problem is the likely placement of PAs on marginal lands with low pressure for deforestation, biasing comparisons between protected and unprotected areas. Using matching techniques to control for this bias, this paper analyzes the global tropical forest biome using forest fires as a high resolution proxy for deforestation; disaggregates impacts by remoteness, a proxy for deforestation pressure; and compares strictly protected vs. multiple use PAs vs indigenous areas. Fire activity was overlaid on a 1 km map of tropical forest extent in 2000; land use change was inferred for any point experiencing one or more fires. Sampled points in pre-2000 PAs were matched with randomly selected never-protected points in the same country. Matching criteria included distance to road network, distance to major cities, elevation and slope, and rainfall. In Latin America and Asia, strict PAs substantially reduced fire incidence, but multi-use PAs were even more effective. In Latin America, where there is data on indigenous areas, these areas reduce forest fire incidence by 16 percentage points, over two and a half times as much as naïve (unmatched) comparison with unprotected areas would suggest. In Africa, more recently established strict PAs appear to be effective, but multi-use tropical forest protected areas yield few sample points, and their impacts are not robustly estimated. These results suggest that forest protection can contribute both to biodiversity conservation and CO2 mitigation goals, with particular relevance to the REDD agenda. Encouragingly, indigenous areas and multi-use protected areas can help to accomplish these goals, suggesting some compatibility between global environmental goals and support for local livelihoods. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0022722 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1307673958</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A476882353</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_74457cb7e8ae4e06ac9b5a8ddd1d3e8b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A476882353</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-99c94823395f4bdf28b3ab3fd07b8560643ce35eb8e27bf4e46dc9ac9d1bdd633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk01r3DAQhk1paZJt_0FpBYVAD7uVLVu2eyiEkLYLgUC_rkKWRl4tsuVI8tLc-8OrzTphDS0UHSRGz7wzetEkyasUr1JSpu-3dnQ9N6vB9rDCOMvKLHuSnKY1yZY0w-Tp0fkkOfN-i3FBKkqfJydZWhVlXeDT5PeVUiCC3kEP3iOrkA9Oi4B2foW60QQ9GECjBzQ4GyIJEnEH3CPdIwdyFLpvUXB20IIbpKwDH5DScfuAOGqNbWKYx0bvvPZRaI93PIjN_QHCxkr_InmmuPHwctoXyY9PV98vvyyvbz6vLy-ul4LWaVjWtajzKiOkLlTeSJVVDeENURKXTVVQTHMigBTQVJCVjcohp1LUXNQybaSkhCySNwfdwVjPJgM9SwkuaRlVq0isD4S0fMsGpzvu7pjlmt0HrGsZd0ELA6zM86IUTQkVhxwwjXWagldSylQSiK0tko9TtbHpQArog-NmJjq_6fWGtXbHSFpQWtdR4O0k4OztGH39R8sT1fLYle6VjWKi016wi7ykVTSs2D999RcqLgmdFvELKR3js4R3s4TIBPgVWj56z9bfvv4_e_Nzzp4fsRvgJmy8NWPQtvdzMD-AwlnvHahH51LM9hPw4AbbTwCbJiCmvT52_THp4cuTPyFVBLQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1307673958</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Nelson, Andrew ; Chomitz, Kenneth M</creator><contributor>Bruun, Hans Henrik</contributor><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Andrew ; Chomitz, Kenneth M ; Bruun, Hans Henrik</creatorcontrib><description>Protected areas (PAs) cover a quarter of the tropical forest estate. Yet there is debate over the effectiveness of PAs in reducing deforestation, especially when local people have rights to use the forest. A key analytic problem is the likely placement of PAs on marginal lands with low pressure for deforestation, biasing comparisons between protected and unprotected areas. Using matching techniques to control for this bias, this paper analyzes the global tropical forest biome using forest fires as a high resolution proxy for deforestation; disaggregates impacts by remoteness, a proxy for deforestation pressure; and compares strictly protected vs. multiple use PAs vs indigenous areas. Fire activity was overlaid on a 1 km map of tropical forest extent in 2000; land use change was inferred for any point experiencing one or more fires. Sampled points in pre-2000 PAs were matched with randomly selected never-protected points in the same country. Matching criteria included distance to road network, distance to major cities, elevation and slope, and rainfall. In Latin America and Asia, strict PAs substantially reduced fire incidence, but multi-use PAs were even more effective. In Latin America, where there is data on indigenous areas, these areas reduce forest fire incidence by 16 percentage points, over two and a half times as much as naïve (unmatched) comparison with unprotected areas would suggest. In Africa, more recently established strict PAs appear to be effective, but multi-use tropical forest protected areas yield few sample points, and their impacts are not robustly estimated. These results suggest that forest protection can contribute both to biodiversity conservation and CO2 mitigation goals, with particular relevance to the REDD agenda. Encouragingly, indigenous areas and multi-use protected areas can help to accomplish these goals, suggesting some compatibility between global environmental goals and support for local livelihoods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022722</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21857950</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Africa ; Analysis ; Asia ; Biodiversity ; Biodiversity conservation ; Biology ; Biomes ; Carbon dioxide ; Climate change ; Confidence intervals ; Conservation ; Conservation of Natural Resources - methods ; Conservation of Natural Resources - statistics & numerical data ; Deforestation ; Ecology - methods ; Ecology - statistics & numerical data ; Ecosystem ; Emissions ; Environmental policy ; Fire prevention ; Fires ; Forest & brush fires ; Forest fires ; Forest protection ; Forestry ; Forestry - methods ; Forestry - statistics & numerical data ; Forests ; Geography ; Humans ; Incidence ; Land use ; Latin America ; Low pressure ; Matching ; Methods ; Mitigation ; Objectives ; Population density ; Precipitation ; Pressure ; Protected areas ; Protection and preservation ; Rainfall ; Sociology ; Topography ; Trees - growth & development ; Tropical Climate ; Tropical forests ; Wildlife conservation</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2011-08, Vol.6 (8), p.e22722</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2011 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2011 Nelson, Chomitz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Nelson, Chomitz. 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-99c94823395f4bdf28b3ab3fd07b8560643ce35eb8e27bf4e46dc9ac9d1bdd633</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-99c94823395f4bdf28b3ab3fd07b8560643ce35eb8e27bf4e46dc9ac9d1bdd633</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156699/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156699/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,862,883,2098,2917,23849,27327,27849,27907,27908,33757,53774,53776,79351,79352</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21857950$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Bruun, Hans Henrik</contributor><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chomitz, Kenneth M</creatorcontrib><title>Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Protected areas (PAs) cover a quarter of the tropical forest estate. Yet there is debate over the effectiveness of PAs in reducing deforestation, especially when local people have rights to use the forest. A key analytic problem is the likely placement of PAs on marginal lands with low pressure for deforestation, biasing comparisons between protected and unprotected areas. Using matching techniques to control for this bias, this paper analyzes the global tropical forest biome using forest fires as a high resolution proxy for deforestation; disaggregates impacts by remoteness, a proxy for deforestation pressure; and compares strictly protected vs. multiple use PAs vs indigenous areas. Fire activity was overlaid on a 1 km map of tropical forest extent in 2000; land use change was inferred for any point experiencing one or more fires. Sampled points in pre-2000 PAs were matched with randomly selected never-protected points in the same country. Matching criteria included distance to road network, distance to major cities, elevation and slope, and rainfall. In Latin America and Asia, strict PAs substantially reduced fire incidence, but multi-use PAs were even more effective. In Latin America, where there is data on indigenous areas, these areas reduce forest fire incidence by 16 percentage points, over two and a half times as much as naïve (unmatched) comparison with unprotected areas would suggest. In Africa, more recently established strict PAs appear to be effective, but multi-use tropical forest protected areas yield few sample points, and their impacts are not robustly estimated. These results suggest that forest protection can contribute both to biodiversity conservation and CO2 mitigation goals, with particular relevance to the REDD agenda. Encouragingly, indigenous areas and multi-use protected areas can help to accomplish these goals, suggesting some compatibility between global environmental goals and support for local livelihoods.</description><subject>Africa</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Asia</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity conservation</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Biomes</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources - methods</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Deforestation</subject><subject>Ecology - methods</subject><subject>Ecology - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Fire prevention</subject><subject>Fires</subject><subject>Forest & brush fires</subject><subject>Forest fires</subject><subject>Forest protection</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Forestry - methods</subject><subject>Forestry - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Geography</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Latin America</subject><subject>Low pressure</subject><subject>Matching</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Mitigation</subject><subject>Objectives</subject><subject>Population density</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Pressure</subject><subject>Protected areas</subject><subject>Protection and preservation</subject><subject>Rainfall</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Topography</subject><subject>Trees - growth & development</subject><subject>Tropical Climate</subject><subject>Tropical forests</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk01r3DAQhk1paZJt_0FpBYVAD7uVLVu2eyiEkLYLgUC_rkKWRl4tsuVI8tLc-8OrzTphDS0UHSRGz7wzetEkyasUr1JSpu-3dnQ9N6vB9rDCOMvKLHuSnKY1yZY0w-Tp0fkkOfN-i3FBKkqfJydZWhVlXeDT5PeVUiCC3kEP3iOrkA9Oi4B2foW60QQ9GECjBzQ4GyIJEnEH3CPdIwdyFLpvUXB20IIbpKwDH5DScfuAOGqNbWKYx0bvvPZRaI93PIjN_QHCxkr_InmmuPHwctoXyY9PV98vvyyvbz6vLy-ul4LWaVjWtajzKiOkLlTeSJVVDeENURKXTVVQTHMigBTQVJCVjcohp1LUXNQybaSkhCySNwfdwVjPJgM9SwkuaRlVq0isD4S0fMsGpzvu7pjlmt0HrGsZd0ELA6zM86IUTQkVhxwwjXWagldSylQSiK0tko9TtbHpQArog-NmJjq_6fWGtXbHSFpQWtdR4O0k4OztGH39R8sT1fLYle6VjWKi016wi7ykVTSs2D999RcqLgmdFvELKR3js4R3s4TIBPgVWj56z9bfvv4_e_Nzzp4fsRvgJmy8NWPQtvdzMD-AwlnvHahH51LM9hPw4AbbTwCbJiCmvT52_THp4cuTPyFVBLQ</recordid><startdate>20110816</startdate><enddate>20110816</enddate><creator>Nelson, Andrew</creator><creator>Chomitz, Kenneth M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110816</creationdate><title>Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods</title><author>Nelson, Andrew ; Chomitz, Kenneth M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c691t-99c94823395f4bdf28b3ab3fd07b8560643ce35eb8e27bf4e46dc9ac9d1bdd633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Africa</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Asia</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity conservation</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Biomes</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources - methods</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Deforestation</topic><topic>Ecology - methods</topic><topic>Ecology - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Fire prevention</topic><topic>Fires</topic><topic>Forest & brush fires</topic><topic>Forest fires</topic><topic>Forest protection</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Forestry - methods</topic><topic>Forestry - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Geography</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Latin America</topic><topic>Low pressure</topic><topic>Matching</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Mitigation</topic><topic>Objectives</topic><topic>Population density</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Pressure</topic><topic>Protected areas</topic><topic>Protection and preservation</topic><topic>Rainfall</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Topography</topic><topic>Trees - growth & development</topic><topic>Tropical Climate</topic><topic>Tropical forests</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chomitz, Kenneth M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nelson, Andrew</au><au>Chomitz, Kenneth M</au><au>Bruun, Hans Henrik</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2011-08-16</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e22722</spage><pages>e22722-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Protected areas (PAs) cover a quarter of the tropical forest estate. Yet there is debate over the effectiveness of PAs in reducing deforestation, especially when local people have rights to use the forest. A key analytic problem is the likely placement of PAs on marginal lands with low pressure for deforestation, biasing comparisons between protected and unprotected areas. Using matching techniques to control for this bias, this paper analyzes the global tropical forest biome using forest fires as a high resolution proxy for deforestation; disaggregates impacts by remoteness, a proxy for deforestation pressure; and compares strictly protected vs. multiple use PAs vs indigenous areas. Fire activity was overlaid on a 1 km map of tropical forest extent in 2000; land use change was inferred for any point experiencing one or more fires. Sampled points in pre-2000 PAs were matched with randomly selected never-protected points in the same country. Matching criteria included distance to road network, distance to major cities, elevation and slope, and rainfall. In Latin America and Asia, strict PAs substantially reduced fire incidence, but multi-use PAs were even more effective. In Latin America, where there is data on indigenous areas, these areas reduce forest fire incidence by 16 percentage points, over two and a half times as much as naïve (unmatched) comparison with unprotected areas would suggest. In Africa, more recently established strict PAs appear to be effective, but multi-use tropical forest protected areas yield few sample points, and their impacts are not robustly estimated. These results suggest that forest protection can contribute both to biodiversity conservation and CO2 mitigation goals, with particular relevance to the REDD agenda. Encouragingly, indigenous areas and multi-use protected areas can help to accomplish these goals, suggesting some compatibility between global environmental goals and support for local livelihoods.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>21857950</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0022722</doi><tpages>e22722</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2011-08, Vol.6 (8), p.e22722 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1307673958 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PAIS Index; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Sociological Abstracts; Public Library of Science (PLoS); PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Africa Analysis Asia Biodiversity Biodiversity conservation Biology Biomes Carbon dioxide Climate change Confidence intervals Conservation Conservation of Natural Resources - methods Conservation of Natural Resources - statistics & numerical data Deforestation Ecology - methods Ecology - statistics & numerical data Ecosystem Emissions Environmental policy Fire prevention Fires Forest & brush fires Forest fires Forest protection Forestry Forestry - methods Forestry - statistics & numerical data Forests Geography Humans Incidence Land use Latin America Low pressure Matching Methods Mitigation Objectives Population density Precipitation Pressure Protected areas Protection and preservation Rainfall Sociology Topography Trees - growth & development Tropical Climate Tropical forests Wildlife conservation |
| title | Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T13%3A26%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effectiveness%20of%20strict%20vs.%20multiple%20use%20protected%20areas%20in%20reducing%20tropical%20forest%20fires:%20a%20global%20analysis%20using%20matching%20methods&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Nelson,%20Andrew&rft.date=2011-08-16&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e22722&rft.pages=e22722-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0022722&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA476882353%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1307673958&rft_id=info:pmid/21857950&rft_galeid=A476882353&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_74457cb7e8ae4e06ac9b5a8ddd1d3e8b&rfr_iscdi=true |