The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Brazilian Protected Areas
Abstract
Abstract: Although Brazil's first park was established in 1937, the past two decades have witnessed an explosion of protected areas. Until 1989 federal parks and reserves were created by the Brazilian Forest Development Institute (IBDF) and the Special Secretariat for the Environment (SEMA). In 1989 SEMA and IBDF were united to form the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA). A formal, unified system for federal, state, and municipal parks, the National System for Protected Areas, was made law in 2000. In 1976 IBDF drew up a biogeographical model for siting protected areas for biodiversity conservation in the Amazon, based on representation of phytogeographic regions. There are three ongoing initiatives to determine the location of new protected areas: (1) protected areas were recommended for the majority of 900 priority areas for biodiversity conservation identified in workshops held for Brazil's major biomes (1998–2000); (2) establishment of biodiversity corridors with parks and reserves as key elements; and (3) the creation of protected areas in the 23 Amazonian ecoregions identified by World Wildlife Fund—Brazil (the ARPA program). Federal and state strictly protected areas now number 478 and total 37,019,697 ha, and there are 436 sustainable‐use areas totalling 74,592,691 ha. Other categories of protected areas in Brazil include private natural heritage reserves (RPPNs), which are generally small but proving important for the conservation of restricted‐range and highly threatened species, and indigenous reserves, which are increasingly recognized as vital for biodiversity conservation because of their enormous size. Although Brazil has created an enormous number of protected areas over the last two decades, enormous challenges remain—not only for their administration and management—but also to protect the parks themselves as Brazil continues with its ambitious developmental programs for energy, infrastructure, industry, and agriculture.
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
Cited by
Brazil's neglected biome: The South Brazilian Campos
OVERBECK, G., MULLER, S., FIDELIS, A., PFADENHAUER, J., PILLAR, V, BLANCO, C., BOLDRINI, I., BOTH, R., & FORNECK, E. (2007) · Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics · doi:10.1016/j.ppees.2007.07.005 · Cited by 784
Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon
Barber, C. P., Cochrane, M. A., Souza, C. M., & Laurance, W. F. (2014) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.004 · Cited by 667
Habitat loss and the effectiveness of protected areas in the Cerrado Biodiversity Hotspot
Françoso, R. D., Brandão, R., Nogueira, C. C., Salmona, Y. B., Machado, R. B., & Colli, G. R. (2015) · Natureza & Conservação · doi:10.1016/j.ncon.2015.04.001 · Cited by 395
Changing patterns in deforestation avoidance by different protection types in the Brazilian Amazon
Jusys, T. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195900 · Cited by 59
Eloy, L., Aubertin, C., Toni, F., Lúcio, S. L. B., & Bosgiraud, M. (2016) · The Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2015.1013099 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- RYLANDS, A. B., & BRANDON, K.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 612-618
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2057716350
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Brazilian Protected Areas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00711.x
- The paper
- RYLANDS, A. B., & BRANDON, K. (2005). Brazilian Protected Areas. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00711.x
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.