The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction
Open accessAbstract
Protected areas are the dominant approach to protecting biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services. Because these protected areas are often placed in regions with widespread poverty and because they can limit agricultural development and exploitation of natural resources, concerns have been raised about their potential to create or reinforce poverty traps. Previous studies suggest that the protected area systems in Costa Rica and Thailand, on average, reduced deforestation and alleviated poverty. We examine these results in more detail by characterizing the heterogeneity of responses to protection conditional on observable characteristics. We find no evidence that protected areas trap historically poorer areas in poverty. In fact, we find that poorer areas at baseline seem to have the greatest levels of poverty reduction as a result of protection. However, we do find that the spatial characteristics associated with the most poverty alleviation are not necessarily the characteristics associated with the most avoided deforestation. We show how an understanding of these spatially heterogeneous responses to protection can be used to generate suitability maps that identify locations in which both environmental and poverty alleviation goals are most likely to be achieved.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051
Identification, Inference and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/10-sts321 · Cited by 1,628
Cited by
The performance and potential of protected areas
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13947 · Cited by 2,397
Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice
Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus, M., Bateman, I. J., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112 · Cited by 1,017
Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions
Lambin, E. F., Meyfroidt, P., Rueda, X., Blackman, A., Börner, J., Cerutti, P. O., Dietsch, T., Jungmann, L., Lamarque, P., Lister, J., et al. (2014) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.007 · Cited by 512
Ecotourism and the development of indigenous communities: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Coria, J., & Calfucura, E. (2012) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.024 · Cited by 419
Alix-Garcia, J. M., Shapiro, E. N., & Sims, K. R. E. (2012) · Land Economics · doi:10.3368/le.88.4.613 · Cited by 345
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferraro, P. J., Hanauer, M. M., & Sims, K. R. E.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2011-08-22
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 34
- Pages
- 13913-13918
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2129715162
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 19.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1011529108
- The paper
- Ferraro, P. J., Hanauer, M. M., & Sims, K. R. E. (2011). Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011529108
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.