CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 364Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Rights and ReformsForest Management and Policy

Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon

Open access
Blackman, Allen, Corral, Leonardo, Lima, Eirivelthon Santos, Asner, Gregory P.·2017·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1603290114PMC PMC5402456
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: Developing countries are increasingly granting local communities legal title to forests. Almost a third of forests in the global south are now managed by local communities, more than twice the share currently found in protected areas. However, we know little about the effects of titling on forest clearing and disturbance, which remain urgent problems. We use community-level longitudinal data derived from high-resolution satellite images, along with statistical techniques that control for confounding factors, to measure the effect of titling indigenous communities in the Peruvian Amazon. Results indicate that titling significantly reduces both clearing and disturbance, at least in the short term. The implication is that awarding formal land titles to local communities can protect forests.

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.1603290114

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The paper's results are similar to Blackman et al.'s finding that titling reduces clearing by more than three-quarters in a 2-y period after the title is awarded.

    “They find that titling reduces clearing by more than three-quarters in a 2-y period after the title is awarded (25); we find a similar 75% reduction in deforestation within our study buffers.”

    From Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2020) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Discussion and Hypotheses reports that titling reduces forest clearing by more than three-quarters over a two-year window. But that window spans the year the title is awarded and the following year, not a two-year period after the award; the Results likewise reports an 80% average annual reduction across those two years. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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 [25]

  • Deforestation rates were still rising during the Norway-Guyana REDD+ program and increased rapidly once it had ended.

    “Yet, 499 deforestation rates were still rising during the program and increased rapidly once it had ended.”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [136]

    The paper’s Significance section (page unavailable) examines land titling and forest-cover change in the Peruvian Amazon, not the Norway–Guyana REDD+ program. Searches for Norway–Guyana and for deforestation trends during and after a program found no passage addressing the claimed timeline. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Forest loss was concentrated along the border between Guyana and Suriname.

    “as forest loss was concentrated along the 501 border [136].”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [136]

    The Significance section discusses forest clearing in the Peruvian Amazon, not forest loss along the Guyana–Suriname border. A search for Guyana, Suriname, and forest loss concentrated along a border found no passage in our copy addressing that claim; the border mentioned in the Empirical Approach concerns a dispute with Ecuador and the location of titling campaigns. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Norway-Guyana REDD+ program resulted in lowered deforestation due to mining in Guyana by 35% between 2010 and 2015, counteracting the influence of rising gold prices.

    “The Norway-Guyana REDD+ program resulted in lowered deforestation due to mining in Guyana 498 by 35% between 2010 and 2015, counteracting the influence of rising gold prices [136].”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [136]

    The paper’s opening section reports effects of indigenous land titling on forest clearing and disturbance in the Peruvian Amazon, not effects of the Norway–Guyana REDD+ program. Searches for Guyana, mining, the 35% figure, and gold prices found no passage addressing the claimed 2010–2015 result. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    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: 28

  1. [13]Blackman A, Epanchin-Niell R, Siikamaki J, Velez-Lopez D (2014) Biodiversity Conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean: Prioritizing Policies (Resources for the Future Press, New York).
  2. [14]Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science 162(3859): 1243 -1248.
  3. [16]Clark C (2000) Land tenure delegitimation and social mobility in tropical Petén, Guatemala. Hum Organ 59(4):419 -427.
  4. [19]Barbier E, Burgess J (2001) Tropical deforestation, tenure insecurity, and unsustainability. Forest Science 47(4):497 -509.
  5. [24]Ostrom E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
  6. [25]Persha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A (2011) Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331(6024): 1606 -1608.
  7. [26]Johnson C, Forsyth T (2002) In the eyes of the state: Negotiating a ' rights-based approach ' to forest conservation in Thailand. World Dev 30(9):1591 -1605.
  8. [27]Engel S, López R (2008) Exploiting common resources with capital-intensive technologies: The role of external forces. Environ Dev Econ 13(5):565 -589.
  9. [28]Ribot J, Agrawal A, Larson A (2006) Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national government reappropriate forest resources. World Dev 34(11):1864 -1886.
  10. [29]Liscow Z (2013) Do property rights promote investment but cause deforestation? Quasi-experimental evidence from Nicaragua. J Environ Econ Manage 65(2):241 -261.
  11. [33]Gibson C, Lehoucq F, Williams J (2002) Does privatization protect natural resources? Property rights and forests in Guatemala. Soc Sci Q 83(1):206 -225.
  12. [34]Nelson G, Harris V, Stone S (2001) Deforestation, land use, and property rights: Empirical evidence from Darién, Panama. Land Econ 77(2):187 -205.
  13. [37]Robinson B, Holland M, Naughton-Treves L (2014) Does secure land tenure save forests? A review of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob Environ Change 29:281 -293.
  14. [39]Durán E, Mas J-F, Velázquez A (2005) Land use/cover change in community-based forest management regions and protected areas in Mexico. The Community Forests of Mexico: Managing for Sustainable Landscapes , eds Bray D, Merino-Pérez L, Barry D (Univ of Texas Press, Austin, TX), pp 215 -238.
  15. [40]Nepstad D, et al. (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conserv Biol 20(1):65 -73.
  16. [41]Ruiz-Pérez M, et al. (2005) Conservation and development in Amazonian extractive reserves: The case of Alto Juruá. Ambio 34(3):218 -223.
  17. [42]Bowler D, et al. (2012) Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare? Front Ecol Environ 10(1):29 -36.
  18. [43]Pagdee A, Kim Y, Daugherty P (2006) What makes community forest management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Resour 19(1):33 -52.
  19. [44]Field E (2007) Entitled to work: Urban tenure security and labor supply in Peru. Q J Econ 4(122):1561 -1602.
  20. [45]Fort R (2008) The homogenization effect of land titling on investment incentives: Evidence from Peru. NJAS - Wagening Journal of Life Sciences 55(4):325 -343.
  21. [47]Sankoh AJ, Huque MF, Dubey SD (1997) Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Stat Med 16(22):2529 -2542.
  22. [48]Oliveira PJ, et al. (2007) Land-use allocation protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science 317(5842):1233 -1236.
  23. [51]Brooks TM, et al. (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313(5783): 58 -61.
  24. [52]Alvarez NL, Naughton-Treves L (2003) Linking national agrarian policy to deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon: A case study of Tambopata, 1986-1997. Ambio 32(4):269 -274.
  25. [57]Torero M, Saavedra J, Ñopo H, Escobal J (2004) An invisible wall? The economics of social exclusion in Peru. Social Inclusion and Economic Development in Latin America , eds Buvinic M, Mazza J, Deutsch R (Johns Hopkins University Press and Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC), pp 221 -246.
  26. [62]Sears R, Pinedo-Vasquez M (2011) Forest policy reform and the organization of logging in Peruvian Amazonia. Dev Change 42(2):609 -631.
  27. [63]Salo M, Toivonen T (2009) Tropical timber rush in Peruvian Amazonia: Spatial allocation of forest concessions in an uninventoried frontier. Environ Manage 44(4): 609 -623.
  28. [67]Chow G (1960) Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica 28(3):591 -605.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blackman, A., Corral, L., Lima, E. S., & Asner, G. P.
Affiliations
  • Inter-American Development Bank (US)
  • Carnegie Institution for Science (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2017-04-03
Volume
114
Issue
16
Pages
4123-4128
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1603290114
PMC
PMC5402456
OpenAlex
W2604767272
Cited by
364
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 1
FWCI
22.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/site/misc/userlicense.xhtml (vor)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Inter-American Development Bank (INE/RND/RG-K1225-SN1/11)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX12AR57G)
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (11-99609-000-INP)
  • Swedish Research Council Formas (202100-3153)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
land titling, indigenous land rights, forest governance, forest clearing, forest disturbance, forest conservation, Peruvian Amazon, deforestation
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Ownership, Peru, Population Groups, Forests

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