CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementSocioeconomics of Resources and ConservationForest Management and Policy

The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs

Open access
Börner, Jan, Schulz, Dario, Wunder, Sven, Pfaff, Alexander·2020·Annual Review of Resource Economics
DOI 10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The world's forests provide valuable contributions to people but continue to be threatened by agricultural expansion and other land uses. Counterfactual-based methods are increasingly used to evaluate forest conservation initiatives. This review synthesizes recent studies quantifying the impacts of such policies and programs. Extending past reviews focused on instrument choice, design, and implementation, our theory of change explicitly acknowledges context. Screening over 60,000 abstracts yielded 136 comparable normalized effect sizes (Cohen's d). Comparing across instrument categories, evaluation methods, and contexts suggests not only a lack of “silver bullets” in the conservation toolbox, but that effectiveness is also moderate on average. Yet context is critical. Many interventions in our sample were implemented in “bullet-proof” contexts of low pressure on natural resources. This greatly limits their potential impacts and suggests the need to invest further not only in understanding but also in better aligning conservation with local and global development goals.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703

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?

  • As a global review by Börner et al. showed, policy analyses of forest conservation are generally lacking in the Guianas and Venezuela while Brazil has the highest number of studies worldwide.

    “As a global review by Börner et al. [20] showed, policy analyses of forest conservation are generally 680 lacking in the Guianas and Venezuela while Brazil has the highest number of studies worldwide.”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

    The evidence gap map’s Summary of Key Findings says Brazil is well represented, supporting that part of the claim. It does not identify a lack of studies in the Guianas or Venezuela, and its Overview (all tiers aggregated; page unavailable) places India first rather than Brazil for number of studies. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The distribution of policy research in Börner et al. is consistent with the distribution of policy cases in this review.

    “Accordingly, the distribution of policy 682 research in Börner et al. [20] is consistent with the distribution of policy cases in this review.”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

  • The meta-analysis by Börner et al., which also considered effect sizes, found that indigenous territories avoid more deforestation than protected areas or any other policy studied, on average.

    “The meta-analysis by Börner et al. [20], which also considered effect sizes, found that indigenous 684 territories avoid more deforestation than protected areas or any other policy studied, on average.”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [20]

    The indexed copy’s Results section describes an evidence gap map of 50 experimental and quasi-experimental cases, but does not report the claimed comparison of average avoided deforestation. Searches for indigenous territories, effect sizes, and comparisons with protected areas found no passage establishing that indigenous territories outperformed every other policy. The indexed text is headed “Effectiveness of Forest Conservation Interventions: An Evidence Gap Map,” rather than the cited paper’s title, so it cannot settle what the cited paper says. (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: 50

  1. Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., … Wunder, S. (2014). Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. World Development, 64 (Supplement 1): S12-S28. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Angelsen, A., Martius, C., Duchelle, A. E., Larson, A. M., Pham, T. T., & De Sy, V. (Eds.). (2018). Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
  3. Börner, J. Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P. J., Honey-Rosés, J., … Wunder, S. (2016). Emerging evidence on the effectiveness of tropical forest conservation, PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0159152. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159152 · DOI
  4. Cisneros, E., Lian Zhou, S., & Börner, J. (2015). Naming and shaming for conservation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0136402. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136402 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N.L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407), 1108-1111. doi:10.1126/science.aau3445 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Duchelle, A. E., Simonet, G., Sunderlin, W. D., & Wunder, S. (2018). What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 32, 134-140. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.07.001 · DOI
  7. Ellison, D., Morris, C. E., Locatelli, B., Sheil, D., Cohen, J., Murdiyarso, D., … Sullivan C. A. (2017). Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Global Environmental Change, 43(March), 51-61. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., … Woodbury, P. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645-50. doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Karsenty, A., Romero, C., Cerutti, P. O., Doucet, J.-L., Putz F. E., Bernard, C. S., … de Wasseige, C. (2017). Deforestation and timber production in Congo after implementation of sustainable management policy: A reaction to the article by J.S. Brandt, C. Nolte and A. Agrawal. Land Use Policy, 65, 62-65. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.032 · DOI
  10. Wunder, S. (2013). When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conservation Letters, 6(4), 230-237. doi:10.1111/conl.12034 ANNEX · DOI
  11. Anup, K. C., Manandhar, R., Paudel, R., & Ghimire, S. (2016). Increase of forest carbon biomass due to community forestry management in Nepal. Journal of Forestry Research, 29, 429-438. (ID #127 -Tier 3)
  12. Arts, B., & De Koning, J. (2017). Community forest management: An assessment and explanation of its performance through QCA. World Development, 96, 315-325. (ID #7 -Review)
  13. Assa, B. S. K. (2017). Foreign direct investment, bad governance and forest resources degradation: evidence in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economia Politica, 35(1), 107-125. (ID #137 -Review)
  14. Bitariho, R., Sheil, D., & Eilu, G. (2016). Tangible benefits or token gestures: does Bwindi impenetrable National Park's long established multiple use programme benefit the poor? Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 25(1), 16-32. (ID #6 -Tier 3)
  15. Börner, J. Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P. J., Honey-Rosés, J., … Wunder, S. (2016). Emerging evidence on the effectiveness of tropical forest conservation, PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0159152. (ID #166 -Review)
  16. Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U. M., & Wunder, S. (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development, 96, 359-374. (ID #18 -Review)
  17. Brooks, J. S. (2017). Design features and project age contribute to joint success in social, ecological, and economic outcomes of community-based conservation projects. Conservation Letters, 10(1), 23-32. (ID #164 -Review)
  18. Casanova-Lugo, F., Ramírez-Avilés, L., Parsons, D., Caamal-Maldonado, A., Piñeiro-Vázquez, A. T., & Díaz-Echeverría, V. (2016). Environmental services from tropical agroforestry systems. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 22(3), 269-284. (ID #167 - Review)
  19. Chatterjee, D., Kumar, A., Roy, M. B., & Roy, P. K. (2016). Participation and dependency of forest dwellers in forest management-a comparative study of Bankadaha and Neora Valley Forest. Indian Journal Environment of Protection, 36, 978-985. (ID #60 -Tier 3)
  20. Chinangwa, L. L., Pullin, A. S., & Hockley, N. (2017). Impact of forest co-management programs on forest conditions in Malawi. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 36, 338-357. (ID #117 -Tier
  21. Cuenca, P., & Echeverria, C. (2017). How do protected landscapes associated with high biodiversity and population levels change? PLoS ONE, 12(7), e0180537. (ID #59 -Tier 2)
  22. Cunha, F. A., Boerner, J., Wunder, S., Cosenza, C. A. N., & Lucena, A. F. P. (2016). The implementation costs of forest conservation policies in Brazil. Ecological Economics, 130, 209-220. (ID #158 -Review)
  23. Damastuti, E., & De Groot, R. (2017). Effectiveness of community-based mangrove management for sustainable resource use and livelihood support: A case study of four villages in Central Java, Indonesia. Journal of Environmental Management, 203, 510-521. (ID #26 -Tier 3)
  24. Denham, D. (2017). Community forest owners evaluate a decade of payments for ecosystem services in the Mexican cloud forest: The importance of attention to indigenous sovereignty in conservation. Society & Natural Resources, 30(9), 1064-1079. (ID #15 -Tier 3)
  25. Gizachew, B., Astrup, R., Vedeld, P., Zahabu, E. M., & Duguma, L. A. (2017). REDD+ in Africa: contexts and challenges. Natural Resources Forum, 41, 92-104. (ID #151 -Review)
  26. Ginzburg, R. F., Thulstrup, A. W., & Nielsen, T. T. (2017). Impacts of -and farmers' adaptation to -land allocation policies in the north central uplands of Vietnam. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 118(1), 36-55. (ID #1 -Tier 3)
  27. Graham, V., Laurance, S. G., Grech, A., McGregor, A., & Venter, O. (2016). A comparative assessment of the financial costs and carbon benefits of REDD+ strategies in Southeast Asia. Environmental Research Letters, 11. (ID #161 -Review)
  28. Jiang, L., Zhao, W., Lewis, B. J., Wei, Y., & Dai, L. (2017). Effects of management regimes on carbon sequestration under the Natural Forest Protection Program in northeast China. Journal of Forestry Research, 29, 1187-1194. (ID #126 -Tier 3)
  29. Kaskoyo, H., Mohammed, A., & Inoue, M. (2017). Impact of community forest program in protection forest on livelihood outcomes: A case study of Lampung Province, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 36, 250-263. (ID #19 -Tier 2)
  30. Kedir, H., Negash, M., Yimer, F., & Limenih, M. (2017). Contribution of participatory forest management towards conservation and rehabilitation of dry Afromontane forests and its implications for carbon management in the tropical Southeastern Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 37, 357-374. (ID #121 -Tier 2&3)
  31. Mechik, E., Von Hauff, M., de Moura, L., & Held, H. (2017). Analysis of the changes in economic activities of Brazilian forest communities after methodical support and provision of pre- financing capital. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 29, 227-237. (ID #53 -Tier 2)
  32. Min-Venditti, A. A., Moore, G. W., & Fleischman, F. (2017). What policies improve forest cover? A systematic review of research from Mesoamerica. Global Environmental Change, 47, 21-27. (ID #159 -Review)
  33. Mohammed, A. J., Inoue, M., & Shivakoti, G. (2017). Moving forward in collaborative forest management: Role of external actors for sustainable forest socio-ecological systems. Forest Policy and Economics, 74, 13-19. (ID #4 -Review)
  34. Ngendakumana, S., Feudjio, M. P., Speelman, S., Minang, P. A., Namirembe, S., & Van Damme, P. (2017). Implementing REDD+: learning from forest conservation policy and social safeguards frameworks in Cameroon. International Forestry Review, 19, 209-223. (ID #122 -Review)
  35. Pirard, R., Dal Secco, L., & Warman, R. (2016). Do timber plantations contribute to forest conservation? Environmental Science & Policy, 57, 122-130. (ID #168 -Review)
  36. Rahman, M. M., Al Mahmud, M. A., & Shahidullah, M. (2016). Socioeconomics of biodiversity conservation in the protected areas: a case study in Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 24, 65-72. (ID #44 -Tier 2)
  37. Ramachandra, T. V, Bharath, S., & Gupta, N. (2018). Modelling landscape dynamics with LST in protected areas of Western Ghats, Karnataka. Journal of Environmental Management, 206, 1253-1262. (ID #22 -Tier 3)
  38. Roitman, I., Vieira, L. C. G., Jacobson, T. K. B., Bustamante, M. M. dC., Marcondes, N. J. S., Cury, K., … Avila, M. L. (2018). Rural Environmental Registry: An innovative model for land-use and environmental policies. Land Use Policy, 76, 95-102. (ID #146 -Review)
  39. Saranya, K. R. L., & Reddy, C. S. (2016). Long term changes in forest cover and land use of Similipal Biosphere Reserve of India using satellite remote sensing data. Journal of Earth System Science, 125, 559-569. (ID #105 -Tier 3)
  40. Savilaakso, S., & Petrokofsky, G. (2017). Certification systems for verifying carbon trading from forestry and other land uses and their effectiveness to deliver non-carbon benefits. CAB Reviews, 12. (ID #156 -Review)
  41. Sayer, J., & Margules, C. (2017). Biodiversity in locally managed lands. Land, 6(41). (ID #163 - Review)
  42. Serenari, C., Peterson, M. N., Wallace, T., & Stowhas, P. (2016). Private protected areas, ecotourism development and impacts on local people's well-being: a review from case studies in Southern Chile. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25, 1792-1810. (ID #79 -Tier 3)
  43. Shi, M., Yin, R., Zulu, L., Qi, J., Freudenberger, M., & Sommerville, M. (2016). Empirical linkages between devolved tenure systems and forest conditions: Selected case studies and country experiences. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 286-293. (ID #160 -Review)
  44. Sims, K. R. E., & Alix-Garcia, J. M. (2017). Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive- based land conservation in Mexico. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 86, 8-28. (ID #47 -Tier 2)
  45. Sunderlin, W. D., de Sassi, C., Sills, E. O., Duchelle, A. E., Larson, A. M., Resosudarmo., I. A. P., … Huynh, T. B. (2017). Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future. World Development, 106, 378-392. (ID #157 -Review)
  46. Sungusia, E., & Lund, J. F. (2016). Against all policies: Landscape level forest restoration in Tanzania. World Development Perspectives, 3, 35-37. (ID #139 -Review)
  47. Tamima, U. (2016). Performance evaluation of forest co-management: a case study of Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry Research, 27, 853-861. (ID #50 -Tier 3)
  48. Wehkamp, J., Koch, N., Lubbers, S., & Fuss, S. (2017). Governance and deforestation-a meta- analysis in economics. Ecological Economics, 144, 214-227. (ID #165 -Review)
  49. Wu, S., Li, J., Zhou, W., Lewis, B. J., Yu, D., Zhou, L., … Dai, L. (2016). A statistical analysis of spatiotemporal variations and determinant factors of forest carbon storage under China's Natural Forest Protection Program. Journal of Forestry Research, 29, 415-424. (ID #131 - Tier 2
  50. Yin, R., Zulu, L., Qi, J., Freudenberger, M., & Sommerville, M. (2016). Empirical linkages between devolved tenure systems and forest conditions: Primary evidence. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 277-285. (ID #162 -Review)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S., & Pfaff, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • European Forest Institute (ES)
  • Duke University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Resource Economics
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2020-10-06
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
45-64
ISSN
  • 1941-1340 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-1359
DOI
10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
OpenAlex
W3040823296
Cited by
225
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 7
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Annual Review of Resource Economics (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Helsingin Yliopisto
  • Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit
  • Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
forest conservation, conservation policy effectiveness, counterfactual evaluation, policy instruments, agricultural expansion, land use change, context effects, theory of change

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