The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Global protected area impacts
Open accessAbstract
Protected areas (PAs) dominate conservation efforts. They will probably play a role in future climate policies too, as global payments may reward local reductions of loss of natural land cover. We estimate the impact of PAs on natural land cover within each of 147 countries by comparing outcomes inside PAs with outcomes outside. We use ‘matching’ (or ‘apples to apples’) for land characteristics to control for the fact that PAs very often are non-randomly distributed across their national landscapes. Protection tends towards land that, if unprotected, is less likely than average to be cleared. For 75 per cent of countries, we find protection does reduce conversion of natural land cover. However, for approximately 80 per cent of countries, our global results also confirm (following smaller-scale studies) that controlling for land characteristics reduces estimated impact by half or more. This shows the importance of controlling for at least a few key land characteristics. Further, we show that impacts vary considerably within a country (i.e. across a landscape): protection achieves less on lands far from roads, far from cities and on steeper slopes. Thus, while planners are, of course, constrained by other conservation priorities and costs, they could target higher impacts to earn more global payments for reduced deforestation.
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
Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth
Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D'amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., et al. (2001) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:teotwa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 8,488
Cited by
Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L., & Joppa, L. N. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1302251110 · Cited by 1,093
Self-citationEffectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines
Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I. D., Hockings, M., & Burgess, N. D. (2013) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.018 · Cited by 1,047
Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide
Gray, C. L., Hill, S. L. L., Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Börger, L., Contu, S., Hoskins, A. J., Ferrier, S., Purvis, A., & Scharlemann, J. P. W. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12306 · Cited by 835
The impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss
Vijay, V., Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., & Smith, S. J. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159668 · Cited by 782
Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M., & Soares-Filho, B. S. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1214786110 · Cited by 592
Metadata
- Authors
- Joppa, L. N., & Pfaff, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2010-11-17
- Volume
- 278
- Issue
- 1712
- Pages
- 1633-1638
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- OpenAlex
- W2128378680
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Global protected area impacts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.2010.1713
- The paper
- Joppa, L. N., & Pfaff, A. (2011). Global protected area impacts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1713
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.