A Global Analysis of Deforestation in Moist Tropical Forest Protected Areas

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) have been established to conserve tropical forests, but their effectiveness at reducing deforestation is uncertain. To explore this issue, we combined high resolution data of global forest loss over the period 2000–2012 with data on PAs. For each PA we quantified forest loss within the PA, in buffer zones 1, 5, 10 and 15 km outside the PA boundary as well as a 1 km buffer within the PA boundary. We analysed 3376 tropical and subtropical moist forest PAs in 56 countries over 4 continents. We found that 73% of PAs experienced substantial deforestation pressure, with >0.1% a−1 forest loss in the outer 1 km buffer. Forest loss within PAs was greatest in Asia (0.25% a−1) compared to Africa (0.1% a−1), the Neotropics (0.1% a−1) and Australasia (Australia and Papua New Guinea; 0.03% a−1). We defined performance (P) of a PA as the ratio of forest loss in the inner 1 km buffer compared to the loss that would have occurred in the absence of the PA, calculated as the loss in the outer 1 km buffer corrected for any difference in deforestation pressure between the two buffers. To remove the potential bias due to terrain, we analysed a subset of PAs (n = 1804) where slope and elevation in inner and outer 1 km buffers were similar (within 1° and 100 m, respectively). We found 41% of PAs in this subset reduced forest loss in the inner buffer by at least 25% compared to the expected inner buffer forest loss (P<0.75). Median performance () of subset reserves was 0.87, meaning a reduction in forest loss within the PA of 13%. We found PAs were most effective in Australasia (), moderately successful in the Neotropics () and Africa (), but ineffective in Asia (). We found many countries have PAs that give little or no protection to forest loss, particularly in parts of Asia, west Africa and central America. Across the tropics, the median effectiveness of PAs at the national level improved with gross domestic product per capita. Whilst tropical and subtropical moist forest PAs do reduce forest loss, widely varying performance suggests substantial opportunities for improved protection, particularly in Asia.

Terrestrial Species in Protected Areas and Community-Managed Lands in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India

“…Furthermore, there are nuances related to politics, economics, and other social aspects that need to be factored in when considering the strengthening of protected-area networks [30]. This is especially needed as protected areas are considered to be least effective in Asia when compared with other regions [12]. Nonetheless, we find that anti-poaching efforts in the lower reaches of Pakke Tiger Reserve (which also has high anthropogenic pressures) are likely to have benefits for hunted mammals and birds.…”

Effect of legal protection and management of protected areas at preventing land development: a Spanish case study

“…Given that SACs are only different from SCIs in the sense that active management is being implemented in them, they make exceptionally good cases and controls, respectively, for accurately assessing and clearly discriminating the effects of legal protection of PAs from those of PA management, which remains a pending research task (Ferraro and Hanauer 2015;Juffe-Bignoli et al 2014;Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al 2016a). Some authors claim that accurate PA effectiveness assessments should compare only environmentally similar cases and controls and that not doing so systematically results in overestimating the protection effect of PAs (Andam et al 2008;Joppa and Pfaff 2011;Mas 2005;Nagendra 2008;Spracklen et al 2015), as PAs have been historically designated in areas with some biophysical characteristics that make them of little human use and economic interest (Gaston et al 2008;Joppa and Pfaff 2009). Previous studies that have considered covariates to create buffer areas (controls) that were biophysically similar to PAs (cases) have reported a reduced effect of protection on deforestation when compared to unrestricted controls (Andam et al 2008;Joppa and Pfaff 2011;Mas 2005).…”

“…However, measurements of PA effectiveness are diverse, use different techniques, focus on different indicators and differ in accuracy and precision (Gaston et al 2008;Nagendra 2008). In tropical areas, avoided deforestation is often used as an indicator of PA effectiveness (Andam et al 2008;Mas 2005;Pfeifer et al 2012;Spracklen et al 2015). In Europe, development of natural and semi-natural habitats is the dominant land use-land cover (LULC) change (EEA 2015a), and seriously threatens European biodiversity (Davis et al 2014).…”

Tropical Protected Areas Under Increasing Threats from Climate Change and Deforestation

“…Only one quarter of the~1990 extents of these humid tropical forests remain, and they are reduced by an additional 5.5 million hectares each year [21]. While an estimated 23% of tropical forests are under protection, deforestation continues to occur inside tropical PAs [22].…”