Cited by 486Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementSocioeconomics of Resources and ConservationLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand

Open access
Andam, Kwaw S., Ferraro, Paul J., Sims, Katharine R. E., Healy, Andrew, Holland, Margaret B.·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

As global efforts to protect ecosystems expand, the socioeconomic impact of protected areas on neighboring human communities continues to be a source of intense debate. The debate persists because previous studies do not directly measure socioeconomic outcomes and do not use appropriate comparison groups to account for potential confounders. We illustrate an approach using comprehensive national datasets and quasi-experimental matching methods. We estimate impacts of protected area systems on poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand and find that although communities near protected areas are indeed substantially poorer than national averages, an analysis based on comparison with appropriate controls does not support the hypothesis that these differences can be attributed to protected areas. In contrast, the results indicate that the net impact of ecosystem protection was to alleviate poverty.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0914177107

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous studies suggest that both the rate of land-use change and the growth of human populations can be fastest near protected area boundaries.

    “Previous studies suggest that both the rate of landuse change and the growth of human populations can be fastest near protected area boundaries ( 13 -16 ), which accelerate the rate of edge degradation through increased livestock production, crop cultivation, and extraction of natural resources such as charcoal and bushmeat.”

    From Cross-boundary human impacts compromise the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

    The References list a study titled “Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges,” and the note following the paper discusses that study’s population-growth result. But this paper’s Results find no significant population-growth effect in Costa Rica or Thailand, and its Discussion does not say that land-use change is fastest near protected-area boundaries. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [16]World Parks Congress (WPC) The Durban Accord. 2003 Available at cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/durbanaccorden.pdf. Accessed September 7, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. [46]Robalino J, Villalobos-Fiatt L. Conservation Policies and Labor Markets: Unraveling the Effects of National Parks on Wages in Costa Rica. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2010. Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series EfD 10-02. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andam, K. S., Ferraro, P. J., Sims, K. R. E., Healy, A., & Holland, M. B.
Affiliations
  • International Food Policy Research Institute (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • Amherst College (US)
  • Loyola Marymount University (US)
  • Conservation International (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-05-24
Volume
107
Issue
22
Pages
9996-10001
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2069792774
Cited by
486
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 20
FWCI
22.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IFPRI E-brary (International Food Policy Research Institute) (submittedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • International Food Policy Research Institute (International Food Policy Research Institute) (submittedVersion)
  • Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
protected areas, poverty reduction, ecosystem conservation, comparison groups, Costa Rica, Thailand
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Costa Rica, Humans, Poverty, Poverty Areas, Public Policy, Thailand, Ecosystem, Models, Economic, Biodiversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review