Cited by 174Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesLand Rights and Reforms

Lessons about parks and poverty from a decade of forest loss and economic growth around Kibale National Park, Uganda

Open access
Naughton-Treves, Lisa, Alix-Garcia, Jennifer, Chapman, Colin A.·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We use field data linked to satellite image analysis to examine the relationship between biodiversity loss, deforestation, and poverty around Kibale National Park (KNP) in western Uganda, 1996–2006. Over this decade, KNP generally maintained forest cover, tree species, and primate populations, whereas neighboring communal forest patches were reduced by half and showed substantial declines in tree species and primate populations. However, a bad decade for forest outside the park proved a prosperous one for most local residents. Panel data for 252 households show substantial improvement in welfare indicators (e.g., safer water, more durable roof material), with the greatest increases found among those with highest initial assets. A combination of regression analysis and matching estimators shows that although the poor tend to be located on the park perimeter, proximity to the park has no measureable effect on growth of productive assets. The risk for land loss among the poor was inversely correlated with proximity to the park, initial farm size, and decline in adjacent communal forests. We conclude the current disproportionate presence of poor households at the edge of the park does not signal that the park is a poverty trap. Rather, Kibale appears to provide protection against desperation sales and farm loss among those most vulnerable.

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.1013332108

Cites

31 of 31 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 [14]

    The Abstract reports rapid population growth near Kibale’s edge and deforestation beyond its boundaries. The Results (Forest Use and Cover Change) document substantial loss of nearby communal forest patches, but do not show that population growth or land-use change was fastest near the boundary compared with areas farther away. They also report significantly slower deforestation in forests inside the park at its edge than in the communal patches. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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: 4

  1. [19]Government of Uganda . Kibale Management Plan 2007-2010. Kampala, Uganda: Uganda Wildlife Authority; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  2. [20]Nabanoga G, Gombya-Sembajjwe W. The effect of household endowments and entitlements on sustainability of natural forests. International Forestry Review. 2001;3:34–41. [Google Scholar]
  3. [29]Anonymous . Kabarole District Report. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  4. [30]Lybbert TJ, Barrett CB, Desta S, Coppock DL. Stochastic wealth dynamics and risk management among a poor population. Econ J. 2004;114:750–777. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naughton-Treves, L., Alix-Garcia, J., & Chapman, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Geography, and
  • Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706;
  • Wildlife Conservation Society (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-08-22
Volume
108
Issue
34
Pages
13919-13924
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2036551813
Cited by
174
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
FWCI
12.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
Keywords
Kibale National Park, protected areas, poverty, deforestation, forest loss, biodiversity loss, primate population, communal forests, household welfare, economic growth, land loss, poverty trap, asset accumulation, primate conservation
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Family Characteristics, Geography, Poverty, Time Factors, Trees, Uganda, Ecosystem

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