CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and PolicyOil Palm Production and Sustainability

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Global Analysis of Deforestation in Moist Tropical Forest Protected Areas

Open access
Spracklen, B. D., Kalamandeen, M., Galbraith, D., Gloor, E., Spracklen, D. V.·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0143886PMC PMC4669159
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) have been established to conserve tropical forests, but their effectiveness at reducing deforestation is uncertain. To explore this issue, we combined high resolution data of global forest loss over the period 2000-2012 with data on PAs. For each PA we quantified forest loss within the PA, in buffer zones 1, 5, 10 and 15 km outside the PA boundary as well as a 1 km buffer within the PA boundary. We analysed 3376 tropical and subtropical moist forest PAs in 56 countries over 4 continents. We found that 73% of PAs experienced substantial deforestation pressure, with >0.1% a(-1) forest loss in the outer 1 km buffer. Forest loss within PAs was greatest in Asia (0.25% a(-1)) compared to Africa (0.1% a(-1)), the Neotropics (0.1% a(-1)) and Australasia (Australia and Papua New Guinea; 0.03% a(-1)). We defined performance (P) of a PA as the ratio of forest loss in the inner 1 km buffer compared to the loss that would have occurred in the absence of the PA, calculated as the loss in the outer 1 km buffer corrected for any difference in deforestation pressure between the two buffers. To remove the potential bias due to terrain, we analysed a subset of PAs (n = 1804) where slope and elevation in inner and outer 1 km buffers were similar (within 1° and 100 m, respectively). We found 41% of PAs in this subset reduced forest loss in the inner buffer by at least 25% compared to the expected inner buffer forest loss (P<0.75). Median performance (P) of subset reserves was 0.87, meaning a reduction in forest loss within the PA of 13%. We found PAs were most effective in Australasia (P = 0.16), moderately successful in the Neotropics (P = 0.72) and Africa (p = 0.83), but ineffective in Asia (P = 1). We found many countries have PAs that give little or no protection to forest loss, particularly in parts of Asia, west Africa and central America. Across the tropics, the median effectiveness of PAs at the national level improved with gross domestic product per capita. Whilst tropical and subtropical moist forest PAs do reduce forest loss, widely varying performance suggests substantial opportunities for improved protection, particularly in Asia.

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.0143886

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Area-weighted PA deforestation from 2000–2012 across all 56 countries. National mean annual forest loss (%a −1) within tropical and subtropical moist forest PAs (weighted by reserve area) over the period 2000 to 2012.
Fig 1 Area-weighted PA deforestation from 2000–2012 across all 56 countries. National mean annual forest loss (%a −1) within tropical and subtropical moist forest PAs (weighted by reserve area) over the period 2000 to 2012.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 PA Deforestation rates for African, Asian and Australasian countries. Annual % forest loss (r) within PAs and buffers r in, r out, r 1|5 and r 10 for (a) African countries + Australia, (b) Asian countries + Papua New Guinea. Note the different axes for Cambodia and Malaysia. Numbers in brackets show the number of analysed PAs and the number of PAs experiencing substantial deforestation pressure (r out> 0.1% a−1). Boxes show 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers show the first quartile -1.5*interquartile range(IQR) and third quartile +1.5*IQR, stars: mean, line: median).
Fig 2 PA Deforestation rates for African, Asian and Australasian countries. Annual % forest loss (r) within PAs and buffers r in, r out, r 1|5 and r 10 for (a) African countries + Australia, (b) Asian countries + Papua New Guinea. Note the different axes for Cambodia and Malaysia. Numbers in brackets show the number of analysed PAs and the number of PAs experiencing substantial deforestation pressure (r out> 0.1% a−1). Boxes show 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers show the first quartile -1.5*interquartile range(IQR) and third quartile +1.5*IQR, stars: mean, line: median).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 PA Deforestation rates for Neotropical countries. Annual % forest loss (r) within PAs and buffers r in, r out, r 1|5 and r 10 for Neotropical countries. See Fig 2 for details.
Fig 3 PA Deforestation rates for Neotropical countries. Annual % forest loss (r) within PAs and buffers r in, r out, r 1|5 and r 10 for Neotropical countries. See Fig 2 for details.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Forest loss rates (r) as a function of distance from PA boundary. Horizontal lines indicate the distance over-which r is calculated. Median forest loss is shown for all PAs (black line) and the subset of reserves with similar slope and elevation within inner and outer 1km buffers (red dotted line). Vertical dotted line indicates the PA boundary. Box and whiskers are shown for all PAs and are as Fig 2. Boxplot at Distance = -1km represents forest loss rates in PA.
Fig 4 Forest loss rates (r) as a function of distance from PA boundary. Horizontal lines indicate the distance over-which r is calculated. Median forest loss is shown for all PAs (black line) and the subset of reserves with similar slope and elevation within inner and outer 1km buffers (red dotted line). Vertical dotted line indicates the PA boundary. Box and whiskers are shown for all PAs and are as Fig 2. Boxplot at Distance = -1km represents forest loss rates in PA.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 5 Effect on reserve performance of increasing difference in slope and elevation between inner and outer buffers. Median performance (P˜) of PAs as a function of difference in (a) slope (in degrees) and (b) elevation between inner 1 km and outer 1 km buffer zones. Numbers inside bars indicate number of reserves in each angle(elevation) range.
Fig 5 Effect on reserve performance of increasing difference in slope and elevation between inner and outer buffers. Median performance (P˜) of PAs as a function of difference in (a) slope (in degrees) and (b) elevation between inner 1 km and outer 1 km buffer zones. Numbers inside bars indicate number of reserves in each angle(elevation) range.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 6 Variability of the performance (P) of PAs across the 56 analysed countries. Median performance (horizontal line) is shown for all PAs (red line) and for the subset of PAs with similar slope and elevation in inner and outer buffer zones (within 1° and 100 m respectively, thick black line). Box, whiskers and stars as for Fig 2.
Fig 6 Variability of the performance (P) of PAs across the 56 analysed countries. Median performance (horizontal line) is shown for all PAs (red line) and for the subset of PAs with similar slope and elevation in inner and outer buffer zones (within 1° and 100 m respectively, thick black line). Box, whiskers and stars as for Fig 2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 7 National median performance (P˜) of subset of PAs for the 56 countries in this analysis. P is calculated as r in/rinex, so P<1 indicates a country with effective PAs.
Fig 7 National median performance (P˜) of subset of PAs for the 56 countries in this analysis. P is calculated as r in/rinex, so P<1 indicates a country with effective PAs.CC BY · PubMed Central

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 37 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. JEM Watson, 2014, Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas, Nature, 515, 67
  2. J Geldmann, 2013, Securing tropical forest carbon: the contribution of protected areas to REDD, Biol Conserv, 161, 230

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 141

Related

Metadata

Authors
Spracklen, B. D., Kalamandeen, M., Galbraith, D., Gloor, E., & Spracklen, D. V.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Spracklen, B. D.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-12-03
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
e0143886
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0143886
PMC
PMC4669159
OpenAlex
W2183313292
Cited by
141
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • United Bank of Carbon
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/F005806/1, NE/G015015/1, NE/K01644X/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
Keywords
protected areas, deforestation, forest loss, tropical humid forest, subtropical forest, protected area effectiveness, buffer zones, forest conservation, GDP per capita, spatial autocorrelation, Neotropical region, Africa, Australasia, Central America, western Pacific, eastern North America, eastern South America, eastern Australia, East Antarctica
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Trees, Tropical Climate, 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