CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesOil Palm Production and Sustainability

Changing patterns in deforestation avoidance by different protection types in the Brazilian Amazon

Open access
Jusys, Tomas·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0195900PMC PMC5918171
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study quantifies how much deforestation was avoided due to legal protection in Legal Amazon in strictly protected areas, sustainable use areas, and indigenous lands. Only regions that are protected de jure (i.e., where deforestation is avoided due to effective laws rather than remoteness) were considered, so that the potential of legal protection could be better assessed. This is a cross-sectional approach, which allows comparisons in terms of avoided deforestation among the different types of protection in the same period. This study covers three different periods. Regions protected de jure were sampled by estimating a threshold distance at which deforestation starts to diminish and retaining all pixels up to that distance, and deforestation that has been avoided due to legal protection was estimated by matching. Indigenous lands avoided the highest percentage of deforestation during the 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 periods, followed by those under strict protection and sustainable use areas, in respective order. Shifting patterns in deforestation avoidance are clearly noticeable for the 2009-2014 period when 1) strictly protected areas outperformed indigenous lands in terms of the percentage of saved forests, 2) some protected regions began to attract deforestation instead of avoiding it, and 3) sustainable use areas, on average, did not avoid deforestation.

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.0195900

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Two more recent studies found that indigenous areas faced more deforestation pressure and thus provided greater additionality compared to remotely located protected areas and less stringent sustainable use areas.

    “But two more recent studies found that indigenous areas faced more deforestation pressure and thus 476 provided greater additionality compared to remotely located protected areas and less stringent 477 sustainable use areas [130,131].”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [130]

    The Introduction says strictly protected areas are generally in lower-pressure locations, and the Results (Avoided deforestation) report that indigenous lands avoided the most deforestation in 2001–2008. But the Results also report that strictly protected areas outperformed indigenous lands in 2009–2014. The paper therefore does not support an unqualified claim that indigenous areas provided greater additionality than both other protection types, or establish higher pressure on indigenous lands as the reason. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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: 41

  1. [1]Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics. 2008; 65(4): 712– 724.
  2. [2]Laurance WF. When bigger is better: the need for Amazonian mega-reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2005; 20(12): 645– 648. 16701449
  3. [3]Rylands AB, Brandon K. Brazilian Protected Areas. Conservation Biology. 2005; 19(3): 612– 618.
  4. [4]Locke H, Dearden P. Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environmental Conservation. 2005; 32(1): 1– 10.
  5. [5]Gibson C, Williams J, Ostrom E. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development. 2005; 33(2): 273– 284.
  6. [6]Chhatre A, Agrawal A. Forest commons and local enforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008; 105(36): 13286– 13291. PMC2533182 18768821
  7. [7]Campos MT, Nepstad DC. Smallholders, The Amazon’s New Conservationists. Conservation Biology. 2006; 20(5): 1553– 1556. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00546.x 17002775 · DOI
  8. [8]Adeney JM, Christensen NL, Pimm SL. Reserves protect against deforestation fires in the Amazon. PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(4): e5014 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005014 19352423 PMC2660414 · DOI
  9. [9]Joppa LN, Loarie SR, Pimm SL. On the protection of ‘‘protected areas”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008; 105(18): 6673– 6678. PMC2365567 18451028
  10. [10]Nolte C, Agrawal A, Silvius KM, Soares-Filho BS. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013; 110(13): 4956– 4961. PMC3612687 23479648
  11. [11]Pfaff A, Robalino JA, Saldoval C, Herrera D. Protected area types, strategies and impacts in Brazil's Amazon: public protected area strategies do not yield a consistent ranking of protected area types by impact. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences. 2015; 370: 20140273 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0273 26460126 PMC4614730 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [12]Joppa LN, Pfaff A. High and far: Biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(12): e8273 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008273 20011603 PMC2788247 · DOI
  13. [13]Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Robalino JA. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008; 105(42): 16089– 16094. PMC2567237 18854414
  14. [14]Joppa LN, Pfaff A. Global protected area impacts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences. 2011; 278(1712): 1633– 1638. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1713 21084351 PMC3081759 · DOI
  15. [15]Jusys T. Quantifying avoided deforestation in Pará: Protected areas, buffer zones and edge effects. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2016; 33: 10– 17.
  16. [16]Nelson A, Chomitz KM. Effectiveness of Strict vs. Multiple Use Protected Areas in Reducing Tropical Forest Fires: A Global Analysis Using Matching Methods. PloS ONE. 2011; 6(8): e22722 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022722 21857950 PMC3156699 · DOI
  17. [17]Pfaff A, Robalino JA, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Andam KS, Ferarro PJ. Park Location Affects Forest Protection: Land Characteristics Cause Differences in Park Impacts across Costa Rica. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. 2009; 9(2): 5.
  18. [18]Pfaff A, Robalino J, Lima E, Sandoval C, Herrera LD. Governance, Location and Avoided Deforestation from Protected Areas: Greater Restrictions Can Have Lower Impact, Due to Differences in Location. World Development. 2014; 55: 7– 20.
  19. [19]Pfaff A, Robalino J, Herrera D, Saldoval C. Protected Areas’ Impacts on Brazilian Amazon Deforestation: Examining Conservation–Development Interactions to Inform Planning. PloS ONE. 2015; 10(7): e0129460 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129460 26225922 PMC4520461 · DOI
  20. [20]Robalino J, Sandoval C, Barton DN, Chacon A, Pfaff A. Evaluating Interactions of Forest Conservation Policies on Avoided Deforestation. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10(4): e0124910 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124910 25909323 PMC4409369 · DOI
  21. [21]Arima EY, Richards PD, Walker R, Caldas M. Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters. 2011; 6(2): 1– 7.
  22. [22]Barona E, Ramankutty N, Hyman G, Coomes OT. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters. 2010; 5(2): 1– 9.
  23. [23]Macedo MN, DeFries RS, Morton DC, Stickler CM, Galford GL, Shimabukuro YE. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012; 109(4): 1341– 1346. PMC3268292 22232692
  24. [25]Arima EY, Walker RT, Sales M, Souza C, Perz SG. The Fragmentation of Space in the Amazon Basin: Emergent Road Networks. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing. 2008; 74: 699– 709.
  25. [26]Dias LFO, Dias DV, Magnusson WE. Influence of Environmental Governance on Deforestation in Municipalities of the Brazilian Amazon. PloS ONE. 2015; 10(7): e0131425 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131425 26208282 PMC4514646 · DOI
  26. [27]Jusys T. Fundamental causes and spatial heterogeneity of deforestation in Legal Amazon. Applied Geography. 2016; 75: 188– 199.
  27. [28]Carr D, Davis J, Jankowska MM, Grant L, Carr AC, Clark M. Space versus place in complex human-natural systems: Spatial and multi-level models of tropical land use and cover change (LUCC) in Guatemala. Ecological Modelling. 2012; 229: 64– 75. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.08.020 24013908 PMC3765033 · DOI
  28. [29]Barber CP, Cochrane MA, Souza CM, Laurance WF. Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon. Biological Conservation. 2014; 177: 203– 209.
  29. [30]Perz SG, Overdevest C, Caldas MM, Walker RT, Arima EY. Unofficial road building in the Brazilian Amazon: dilemmas and models for road governance. Environmental Conservation. 2007: 34(2): 112– 121.
  30. [31]Perz SG, Caldas MM, Arima EY, Walker RJ. Unofficial Road Building in the Amazon: Socioeconomic and Biophysical Explanations. Development and Change. 2007; 38(3): 529– 551.
  31. [32]Brandão AO, Souza CM. Mapping unofficial roads with Landsat images: a new tool to improve the monitoring of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2006; 27(1): 177– 189.
  32. [33]Sekhon JS. Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching Package for R. Journal of Statistical Software. 2011; 42(7): 1– 52.
  33. [34]Austin PC. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2011; 46(3): 399– 424. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 21818162 PMC3144483 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [35]Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B, Santilli M, Ray D, Schlesinger P, et al Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology. 2006; 20(1): 65– 73. 16909660
  35. [36]Schwartzman S, Zimmerman B. Conservation alliances with indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Conservation Biology. 2005; 19(3): 721– 727.
  36. [38]Gibbs HK, Rausch L, Munger J, Schelly I, Morton DC, Noojipady P, et al Brazil's Soy Moratorium. Science. 2015; 347(6220): 377– 378. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa0181 25613879 · DOI · Paper page
  37. [39]Gibbs HK, Munger J, L’Roe J, Barreto P, Pereira R, Christie M, et al Did Ranchers and Slaughterhouses Respond to Zero-Deforestation Agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conservation Letters. 2015; 9(1): 32– 42.
  38. [41]Nobre CA, Sampaio G, Borma LS, Castilla-Rubio JC, Silva JS, Cardoso M. Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and the need of a novel sustainable development paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016; 113(39): 10759– 10768. PMC5047175 27638214
  39. [42]Börner J, Wunder S. Paying for avoided deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: from cost assessment to scheme design. International Forestry Review. 2008; 10(3): 496– 511.
  40. [43]Laurance WF, Useche DC, Rendeiro J, Kalka M, Bradshaw CJA, Sloan SP, et al Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature. 2012; 489(7415): 290– 294. doi: 10.1038/nature11318 22832582 · DOI · Paper page
  41. [44]DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC. Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forest over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications. 2005; 15(1): 19– 26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jusys, T.
Affiliations
Lithuanian Geological Survey (LT)
Corresponding author
Jusys, Tomas
ORCID
Jusys, Tomas
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-04-24
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
e0195900
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0195900
PMC
PMC5918171
OpenAlex
W2801175204
Cited by
59
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.96
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)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Publication Fee Assistance (05319625)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
Keywords
legal protection, protected areas, indigenous territories, Legal Amazon, Brazilian Amazon, forest conservation, protected area effectiveness
MeSH terms
Brazil, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Ecosystem, 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