The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness of Strict vs. Multiple Use Protected Areas in Reducing Tropical Forest Fires: A Global Analysis Using Matching Methods
Open accessAbstract
Protected areas (PAs) cover a quarter of the tropical forest estate. Yet there is debate over the effectiveness of PAs in reducing deforestation, especially when local people have rights to use the forest. A key analytic problem is the likely placement of PAs on marginal lands with low pressure for deforestation, biasing comparisons between protected and unprotected areas. Using matching techniques to control for this bias, this paper analyzes the global tropical forest biome using forest fires as a high resolution proxy for deforestation; disaggregates impacts by remoteness, a proxy for deforestation pressure; and compares strictly protected vs. multiple use PAs vs indigenous areas. Fire activity was overlaid on a 1 km map of tropical forest extent in 2000; land use change was inferred for any point experiencing one or more fires. Sampled points in pre-2000 PAs were matched with randomly selected never-protected points in the same country. Matching criteria included distance to road network, distance to major cities, elevation and slope, and rainfall. In Latin America and Asia, strict PAs substantially reduced fire incidence, but multi-use PAs were even more effective. In Latin America, where there is data on indigenous areas, these areas reduce forest fire incidence by 16 percentage points, over two and a half times as much as naïve (unmatched) comparison with unprotected areas would suggest. In Africa, more recently established strict PAs appear to be effective, but multi-use tropical forest protected areas yield few sample points, and their impacts are not robustly estimated. These results suggest that forest protection can contribute both to biodiversity conservation and CO2 mitigation goals, with particular relevance to the REDD agenda. Encouragingly, indigenous areas and multi-use protected areas can help to accomplish these goals, suggesting some compatibility between global environmental goals and support for local livelihoods.
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
Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020
(2020) · doi:10.4060/ca9825en · Cited by 3,408
Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands
NEPSTAD, D., SCHWARTZMAN, S., BAMBERGER, B., SANTILLI, M., RAY, D., SCHLESINGER, P., LEFEBVRE, P., ALENCAR, A., PRINZ, E., FISKE, G., et al. (2006) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x · Cited by 966
‘Roads, land use, and deforestation: a spatial model applied to Belize’
Chomitz, K. M., & Gray, D. A. (1996) · The World Bank Economic Review · doi:10.1093/wber/10.3.487 · Cited by 729
Self-citationThe incidence of fire in Amazonian forests with implications for REDD
Aragão, L. E. O. C., & Shimabukuro, Y. E. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1186925 · Cited by 298
Cited by
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
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
What Drives Deforestation and What Stops It? A Meta-Analysis
Busch, J., & Ferretti-Gallon, K. (2017) · Review of Environmental Economics and Policy · doi:10.1093/reep/rew013 · Cited by 535
Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions
Lambin, E. F., Meyfroidt, P., Rueda, X., Blackman, A., Börner, J., Cerutti, P. O., Dietsch, T., Jungmann, L., Lamarque, P., Lister, J., et al. (2014) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.007 · Cited by 512
Deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: prices or policies?
Assunção, J., Gandour, C., & Rocha, R. (2015) · Environment and Development Economics · doi:10.1017/s1355770x15000078 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Nelson, A., & Chomitz, K. M.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2011-08-16
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e22722
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2070242798
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 22.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Effectiveness of Strict vs. Multiple Use Protected Areas in Reducing Tropical Forest Fires: A Global Analysis Using Matching Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0022722
- The paper
- Nelson, A., & Chomitz, K. M. (2011). Effectiveness of Strict vs. Multiple Use Protected Areas in Reducing Tropical Forest Fires: A Global Analysis Using Matching Methods. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022722
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.