Land-Use Allocation Protects the Peruvian Amazon

Oliveira, Paulo J. C.; Asner, Gregory P.; Knapp, David; Almeyda, Angelica M.; Galván-Gildemeister, Ricardo; Keene, Sam; Raybin, Rebecca F.; Smith, Richard C.

doi:10.1126/science.1146324

Cited by 302 publications

(261 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

218

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The other assessments compare deforestation inside and outside protected areas, and all but four find lower deforestation rates inside protected areas. Other studies use similar methods and report similar results (e.g., 13,14). For example, Oliveira et al (13) assess protected-area effectiveness by comparing deforestation rates within 20 km of roads inside and outside of protected areas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation

Andam

Ferraro²,

Pfaff³

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

835

830

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global efforts to reduce tropical deforestation rely heavily on the establishment of protected areas. Measuring the effectiveness of these areas is difficult because the amount of deforestation that would have occurred in the absence of legal protection cannot be directly observed. Conventional methods of evaluating the effectiveness of protected areas can be biased because protection is not randomly assigned and because protection can induce deforestation spillovers (displacement) to neighboring forests. We demonstrate that estimates of effectiveness can be substantially improved by controlling for biases along dimensions that are observable, measuring spatial spillovers, and testing the sensitivity of estimates to potential hidden biases. We apply matching methods to evaluate the impact on deforestation of Costa Rica's renowned protected-area system between 1960 and 1997. We find that protection reduced deforestation: approximately 10% of the protected forests would have been deforested had they not been protected. Conventional approaches to evaluating conservation impact, which fail to control for observable covariates correlated with both protection and deforestation, substantially overestimate avoided deforestation (by over 65%, based on our estimates). We also find that deforestation spillovers from protected to unprotected forests are negligible. Our conclusions are robust to potential hidden bias, as well as to changes in modeling assumptions. Our results show that, with appropriate empirical methods, conservation scientists and policy makers can better understand the relationships between human and natural systems and can use this to guide their attempts to protect critical ecosystem services.avoided deforestation ͉ conservation policy ͉ empirical evaluation ͉ spatial spillovers

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Other studies use similar methods and report similar results (e.g., 13,14). For example, Oliveira et al (13) assess protected-area effectiveness by comparing deforestation rates within 20 km of roads inside and outside of protected areas. They find lower rates inside the protected areas and conclude that protected areas are effective.…”

mentioning

confidence: 61%

Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation

Andam

Ferraro²,

Pfaff³

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

835

830

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The former occurs when an increase in displacement of wood extraction is due to a policy-induced reduction in domestic roundwood supply, with unchanged consumption of SPWP and exports. Policy-induced leakage is the focus of most studies (11,13,14,17). The latter occurs when an increase in displacement abroad is due to an increase in domestic consumption and exports of SPWP that remains unmatched by a corresponding increase in domestic supply, assuming unchanged policies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Leakage has been studied mainly through spatially explicit assessments of local spillover around protected areas (11,12) or through econometric modeling at local (13) or country to global scales (14), with mixed evidence. Local studies account mainly for primary leakages, i.e., leakages caused by the same agents that are responsible for the targeted activities (15).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest transition in Vietnam and displacement of deforestation abroad

Meyfroidt

Lambin

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

297

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In some countries across the globe, tropical forest cover is increasing. The national-scale reforestation of Vietnam since 1992 is assumed to contribute to this recovery. It is achieved, however, by the displacement of forest extraction to other countries on the order of 49 (34 -70) M m 3 , or Ϸ39% of the regrowth of Vietnam's forests from 1987 to 2006. Approximately half of wood imports to Vietnam during this period were illegal. Leakage due to policies restricting forest exploitation and displacement due to growing domestic consumption and exports contributed respectively to an estimated 58% and 42% of total displacement. Exports of wood products from Vietnam also grew rapidly, amounting to 84% of the displacement, which is a remarkable feature of the forest transition in Vietnam. Attribution of the displacement and corresponding forest extraction to Vietnam, the source countries or the final consumers is thus debatable. Sixty-one percent of the regrowth in Vietnam was, thus, not associated with displacement abroad. Policies allocating credits to countries for reducing deforestation and forest degradation should monitor illegal timber trade and take into account the policy-induced leakage of wood extraction to other countries.leakage ͉ reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation ͉ reforestation ͉ illegal timber trade ͉ forestry policies

show abstract

“…Earth's most significant areas of biodiversity and endemism (Oliveira et al 2007). The forests of the Peruvian Amazon cover a total of 73 million ha, or 60% of the country's total land area (MINAM and MINAG 2011).…”

Section: Peru's Forestry Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%