The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas
Open accessAbstract
Protected areas (PAs) are a key strategy for protecting biological resources, but they vary considerably in their effectiveness and are frequently reported as having negative impacts on local people. This has contributed to a divisive and unresolved debate concerning the compatibility of environmental and socioeconomic development goals. Elucidating the relationship between positive and negative social impacts and conservation outcomes of PAs is key for the development of more effective and socially just conservation. We conducted a global meta‐analysis on 165 PAs using data from 171 published studies. We assessed how PAs affect the well‐being of local people, the factors associated with these impacts, and crucially the relationship between PAs’ conservation and socioeconomic outcomes. Protected areas associated with positive socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to report positive conservation outcomes. Positive conservation and socioeconomic outcomes were more likely to occur when PAs adopted comanagement regimes, empowered local people, reduced economic inequalities, and maintained cultural and livelihood benefits. Whereas the strictest regimes of PA management attempted to exclude anthropogenic influences to achieve biological conservation objectives, PAs that explicitly integrated local people as stakeholders tended to be more effective at achieving joint biological conservation and socioeconomic development outcomes. Strict protection may be needed in some circumstances, yet our results demonstrate that conservation and development objectives can be synergistic and highlight management strategies that increase the probability of maximizing both conservation performance and development outcomes of PAs.
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
A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression
Heinze, G., & Schemper, M. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1047 · Cited by 2,711
Variable selection using random forests
Genuer, R., Poggi, J.-M., & Tuleau-Malot, C. (2010) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2010.03.014 · Cited by 2,619
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0016973 · Cited by 2,583
Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas
Laurance, W. F., Carolina Useche, D., Rendeiro, J., Kalka, M., Bradshaw, C. J. A., Sloan, S. P., Laurance, S. G., Campbell, M., Abernethy, K., Alvarez, P., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11318 · Cited by 1,213
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
Naughton-Treves, L., Alix-Garcia, J., & Chapman, C. A. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1013332108 · Cited by 174
Cited by
Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation
Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T. J., Epstein, G., et al. (2017) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 · Cited by 1,254
Farming approaches for greater biodiversity, livelihoods, and food security
Garibaldi, L. A., Gemmill-Herren, B., D’Annolfo, R., Graeub, B. E., Cunningham, S. A., & Breeze, T. D. (2017) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.001 · Cited by 380
Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications
Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., Brockington, D., Sandbrook, C., Adams, W. M., Campbell, L., Corson, C., Dressler, W., Duffy, R., Gray, N., et al. (2017) · Oryx · doi:10.1017/s0030605316001228 · Cited by 312
Self-citationGlobal forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities
Erbaugh, J. T., Pradhan, N., Adams, J., Oldekop, J. A., Agrawal, A., Brockington, D., Pritchard, R., & Chhatre, A. (2020) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-020-01282-2 · Cited by 298
Self-citationThe effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs
Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S., & Pfaff, A. (2020) · Annual Review of Resource Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703 · Cited by 225
Metadata
- Authors
- Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E., & Evans, K. L.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-09-22
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 133-141
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W1941603536
- Cited by
- 824
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 30.90
- 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: A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.12568
- The paper
- Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E., & Evans, K. L. (2016). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12568
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.