CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 592Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and PolicyOil Palm Production and Sustainability

Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon

Open access
Nolte, Christoph, Agrawal, Arun, Silvius, Kirsten M., Soares-Filho, Britaldo S.·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1214786110PMC PMC3612687
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Protected areas in tropical countries are managed under different governance regimes, the relative effectiveness of which in avoiding deforestation has been the subject of recent debates. Participants in these debates answer appeals for more strict protection with the argument that sustainable use areas and indigenous lands can balance deforestation pressures by leveraging local support to create and enforce protective regulations. Which protection strategy is more effective can also depend on ( i ) the level of deforestation pressures to which an area is exposed and ( ii ) the intensity of government enforcement. We examine this relationship empirically, using data from 292 protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. We show that, for any given level of deforestation pressure, strictly protected areas consistently avoided more deforestation than sustainable use areas. Indigenous lands were particularly effective at avoiding deforestation in locations with high deforestation pressure. Findings were stable across two time periods featuring major shifts in the intensity of government enforcement. We also observed shifting trends in the location of protected areas, documenting that between 2000 and 2005 strictly protected areas were more likely to be established in high-pressure locations than in sustainable use areas and indigenous lands. Our findings confirm that all protection regimes helped reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.

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.1214786110

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • As protected areas technically do not allow for any deforestation and received more regulatory attention, they were deemed most effective, followed by indigenous areas and sustainable use areas.

    “they were deemed most effective, followed by indigenous areas and sustainable use areas [126-129].”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [127]

    The Results report that strictly protected areas avoided more deforestation than sustainable use areas across levels of deforestation pressure. They do not support the claimed overall ranking: indigenous lands were at least as effective as strictly protected areas under moderate pressure and more effective than any other type under high pressure. The paper also describes strict protection as discouraging resource use, rather than allowing no deforestation at all. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The paper's results confirm the results found in Soares-Filho et al., Blackman et al., and Nolte et al. on the effectiveness of indigenous territories at curbing deforestation.

    “while we are able to confirm the results found in Soares-Filho et al. (22), Blackman et al. (25), and Nolte et al. (5) on the effectiveness of indigenous territories at curbing deforestation”

    From Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

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: 38

  1. Scharlemann JPW, et al. (2010) Securing tropical forest carbon: The contribution of protected areas to REDD. Oryx 44(3):352-357.
  2. Bertzky B, et al. (2012) Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking progress towards global targets for protected areas (International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland/United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK). Available at http://www.unep-wcmc.org/ppr2012_903.html.
  3. Parker C, Cranford M, Oakes N, Leggett M (2012) The Little Biodiversity Finance Book (Global Canopy Programme, Oxford), 3rd Ed.
  4. Sunderland TCH, Ehringhaus C, Campbell BM (2008) Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: A time to face the trade-offs? Environ Conserv 34(4): 276-279.
  5. Hirsch PD, et al. (2011) Acknowledging conservation trade-offs and embracing com- plexity. Conserv Biol 25(2):259-264.
  6. Nelson A, Chomitz KM (2011) Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: A global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6(8):e22722.
  7. Nepstad D, et al. (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conserv Biol 20(1):65-73.
  8. Angelsen A (2010) Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(46):19639-19644.
  9. Ferraro PJ, Lawlor K, Mullan KL, Pattanayak SK (2011) Forest figures: Ecosystem services valuation and policy evaluation in developing countries. Rev Environ Econ Policy 6(1):20-44.
  10. Terborgh JW (2004) Requiem for Nature (Island Press, Washington, DC).
  11. Oates JF (1999) Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies Are Failing in West Africa (Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
  12. Hilborn R, et al. (2006) Effective enforcement in a conservation area. Science 314(5803):1266.
  13. Laurance WF, et al. (2012) Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489(7415):290-294.
  14. Petursson JG, Vedeld P, Sassen M (2012) An institutional analysis of deforestation processes in protected areas: The case of the transboundary Mt. Elgon, Uganda and Kenya. For Policy Econ 26:22-33, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.012. · DOI
  15. Infield M, Namara A (2001) Community attitudes and behaviour towards conserva- tion: An assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35(1):48-60.
  16. Robinson E, Kumar A, Albers H (2010) Protecting developing countries' forests: En- forcement in theory and practice. J Nat Resour Pol Res 2(1):25-38.
  17. Gibson C, Williams J, Ostrom E (2005) Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev 33(2):273-284.
  18. Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2008) Forest commons and local enforcement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(36):13286-13291.
  19. Hayes T (2006) Parks, people, and forest protection: An institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Dev 34(12):2064-2075.
  20. Waylen KA, Fischer A, McGowan PJK, Thirgood SJ, Milner-Gulland EJ (2010) Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-based conservation interventions. Conserv Biol 24(4):1119-1129.
  21. Schwartzman S, Zimmerman B (2005) Conservation alliances with indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Conserv Biol 19(3):721-727.
  22. Pedlowski M, et al. (2005) Conservation units: A new deforestation frontier in the Amazonian state of Rondônia, Brazil. Environ Conserv 32(2):149-155.
  23. Vuohelainen AJ, Coad L, Marthews TR, Malhi Y, Killeen TJ (2012) The effectiveness of contrasting protected areas in preventing deforestation in Madre de Dios, Peru. En- viron Manage 50(4):645-663.
  24. Adeney JM, Christensen NL, Pimm SL (2009) Reserves protect against deforestation fires in the Amazon. PLoS ONE 4(4):e5014.
  25. Dávalos LM, Bejarano AC, Correa HL (2009) Disabusing cocaine: Pervasive myths and enduring realities of a globalised commodity. Int J Drug Policy 20(5):381-386.
  26. Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: Biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4(12):e8273.
  27. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Lima E, Sandoval C, Herrera LD (2013) Governance, location & avoided deforestation from protected areas: Greater restrictions can have lower impact, due to differences in location. World Dev, in press.
  28. Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2011) Global protected area impacts. Proc Biol Sci 278(1712): 1633-1638.
  29. Holmes G (2007) Protection, politics and protest: Understanding resistance to con- servation. Conserv Soc 5(2):184-201.
  30. Kull C (2002) Madagascar aflame: Landscape burning as peasant protest, resistance, or a resource management tool? Polit Geogr 21(7):927-953.
  31. Soares-Filho B, et al. (2010) Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(24):10821-10826.
  32. Tollefson J (2012) Brazil set to cut forest protection. Nature 485(7396):19.
  33. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Robalino JA (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(42):16089-16094.
  34. Gaveau DL, et al. (2009) Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical de- forestation in Sumatra. J Biogeogr 36(11):2165-2175.
  35. Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV (2010) Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(19):8650-8655.
  36. Nolte C, Agrawal A (2013) Linking management effectiveness indicators to observed effects of protected areas on fire occurrence in the Amazon rainforest. Conserv Biol 27(1):155-165.
  37. UNEP-WCMC (2011) World Database of Protected Areas (United Nations Environ- mental Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK) Avail- able at www.protectedplanet.net.
  38. Soares-Filho BS, et al. (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440(7083):520-523.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M., & Soares-Filho, B. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (US)
  • Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-03-11
Volume
110
Issue
13
Pages
4956-4961
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1214786110
PMC
PMC3612687
OpenAlex
W2024665175
Cited by
592
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 11
FWCI
27.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0709545)
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • University of Michigan
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
Keywords
protected areas, deforestation, governance regimes, indigenous territories, deforestation pressure, government enforcement, Brazilian Amazon, conservation effectiveness
MeSH terms
Brazil, Conservation of Natural Resources, Trees, 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