Cited by 192Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesForest Management and Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Forest Loss in Protected Areas and Intact Forest Landscapes: A Global Analysis

Open access

Abstract

In spite of the high importance of forests, global forest loss has remained alarmingly high during the last decades. Forest loss at a global scale has been unveiled with increasingly finer spatial resolution, but the forest extent and loss in protected areas (PAs) and in large intact forest landscapes (IFLs) have not so far been systematically assessed. Moreover, the impact of protection on preserving the IFLs is not well understood. In this study we conducted a consistent assessment of the global forest loss in PAs and IFLs over the period 2000-2012. We used recently published global remote sensing based spatial forest cover change data, being a uniform and consistent dataset over space and time, together with global datasets on PAs' and IFLs' locations. Our analyses revealed that on a global scale 3% of the protected forest, 2.5% of the intact forest, and 1.5% of the protected intact forest were lost during the study period. These forest loss rates are relatively high compared to global total forest loss of 5% for the same time period. The variation in forest losses and in protection effect was large among geographical regions and countries. In some regions the loss in protected forests exceeded 5% (e.g. in Australia and Oceania, and North America) and the relative forest loss was higher inside protected areas than outside those areas (e.g. in Mongolia and parts of Africa, Central Asia, and Europe). At the same time, protection was found to prevent forest loss in several countries (e.g. in South America and Southeast Asia). Globally, high area-weighted forest loss rates of protected and intact forests were associated with high gross domestic product and in the case of protected forests also with high proportions of agricultural land. Our findings reinforce the need for improved understanding of the reasons for the high forest losses in PAs and IFLs and strategies to prevent further losses.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0138918

Cites

46 of 46 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 48 references

2 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–191 of 191

Metadata

Authors
Heino, M., Kummu, M., Makkonen, M., Mulligan, M., Verburg, P. H., Jalava, M., & Räsänen, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Aalto University (FI)
  • Natural Resources Institute Finland (FI)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Kummu, Matti
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-10-14
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
e0138918
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2211614845
Cited by
192
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
FWCI
9.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Jukuri (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Jukuri (Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Academy of Finland (267463, 257919)
  • Aalto-Yliopisto
  • China Scholarship Council
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (311819)
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
forest loss, protected areas, intact forest landscapes, forest cover change, protected area effectiveness, gross domestic product, agricultural land, deforestation
MeSH terms
Africa, Agriculture, Americas, Asia, Australia, Conservation of Natural Resources, Europe, Humans, Trees, Forestry, Geographic Information Systems, Remote Sensing Technology, Forests

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