Cited by 232Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesSocioeconomics of Resources and Conservation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

Open access

Abstract

Establishing Protected Areas (PAs) is among the most common conservation interventions. Protecting areas from the threats posed by human activity will by definition inhibit some human actions. However, adverse impacts could be balanced by maintaining ecosystem services or introducing new livelihood options. Consequently there is an ongoing debate on whether the net impact of PAs on human well-being at local or regional scales is positive or negative. We report here on a systematic review of evidence for impacts on human well-being arising from the establishment and maintenance of terrestrial PAs. Following an a priori protocol, systematic searches were conducted for evidence of impacts of PAs post 1992. After article title screening, the review was divided into two separate processes; a qualitative synthesis of explanations and meaning of impact and a review of quantitative evidence of impact. Abstracts and full texts were assessed using inclusion criteria and conceptual models of potential impacts. Relevant studies were critically appraised and data extracted and sorted according to type of impact reported. No quantitative synthesis was possible with the evidence available. Two narrative syntheses were produced and their outputs compared in a metasynthesis. The qualitative evidence review mapped 306 articles and synthesised 34 that were scored as high quality. The quantitative evidence review critically appraised 79 studies and included 14 of low/medium susceptibility to bias. The meta-synthesis reveals that a range of factors can lead to reports of positive and negative impacts of PA establishment, and therefore might enable hypothesis generation regarding cause and effect relationships, but resulting hypotheses cannot be tested with the current available evidence. The evidence base provides a range of possible pathways of impact, both positive and negative, of PAs on human well-being but provides very little support for decision making on how to maximise positive impacts. The nature of the research reported to date forms a diverse and fragmented body of evidence unsuitable for the purpose of informing policy formation on how to achieve win-win outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being. To better assess the impacts of PAs on human well-being we make recommendations for improving research study design and reporting.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/2047-2382-2-19

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Show all 101 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pullin, A. S., Bangpan, M., Dalrymple, S., Dickson, K., Haddaway, N. R., Healey, J. R., Hauari, H., Hockley, N., Jones, J. P. G., Knight, T., Vigurs, C., & Oliver, S.
Affiliations
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Pullin, Andrew S
Venue
Environmental Evidence
Published
2013
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
19
ISSN
2047-2382 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168684543
Cited by
228
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
11.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Environmental Evidence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
Keywords
protected areas, terrestrial protected areas, human well-being, conservation impacts, ecosystem services, livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, conservation policy

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