Changing Patterns in Deforestation Avoidance by Different Protection Types in the Brazilian Amazon

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2018 Apr 25

PMID 29689071

Citations 5

Authors

Tomas Jusys

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Protecting Life and Lung: Protected Areas affect fine particulate matter and respiratory hospitalizations in the Brazilian Amazon Biome.

Sheehan D, Mullan K, West T, Semmens E Environ Resour Econ (Dordr). 2024; 87(1):45-87.

PMID: 39429973 PMC: 11484674. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-023-00813-2.

The climatic risk of Amazonian protected areas is driven by climate velocity until 2050.

Torres-Amaral C, Anjos L, Vieira I, de Souza E PLoS One. 2023; 18(6):e0286457.

PMID: 37347789 PMC: 10286990. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286457.

The impact of COVID-19 on the indigenous peoples related to air and road networks and habitat loss.

Vitorino L, Souza U, Reis M, Bessa L PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023; 2(3):e0000166.

PMID: 36962276 PMC: 10021690. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000166.

Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.

Baragwanath K, Bayi E Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(34):20495-20502.

PMID: 32788369 PMC: 7456116. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1917874117.

The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas.

Walker W, Gorelik S, Baccini A, Aragon-Osejo J, Josse C, Meyer C Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(6):3015-3025.

PMID: 31988116 PMC: 7022157. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1913321117.

References

Pfaff A, Robalino J, Herrera D, Sandoval C . Protected Areas' Impacts on Brazilian Amazon Deforestation: Examining Conservation-Development Interactions to Inform Planning. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7):e0129460. PMC: 4520461. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129460. View

Nolte C, Agrawal A, Silvius K, Soares-Filho B . Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(13):4956-61. PMC: 3612687. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1214786110. View

Lopez-Carr D, Davis J, Jankowska M, Grant L, Lopez-Carr A, 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. Ecol Modell. 2013; 229:64-75. PMC: 3765033. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.08.020. View

Pfaff A, Robalino J, Sandoval 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. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015; 370(1681). PMC: 4614730. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0273. View

Nelson A, Chomitz K . 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. PMC: 3156699. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022722. View

Joppa L, Loarie S, Pimm S . On the protection of "protected areas". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(18):6673-8. PMC: 2365567. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0802471105. View

Robalino J, Sandoval C, Barton D, Chacon A, Pfaff A . Evaluating interactions of forest conservation policies on avoided deforestation. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4):e0124910. PMC: 4409369. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124910. View

Macedo M, DeFries R, Morton D, Stickler C, Galford G, Shimabukuro Y . Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(4):1341-6. PMC: 3268292. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1111374109. View

Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B, Santilli M, Ray D, Schlesinger P . Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conserv Biol. 2006; 20(1):65-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x. View

10.

Dias L, Dias D, Magnusson W . Influence of Environmental Governance on Deforestation in Municipalities of the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS One. 2015; 10(7):e0131425. PMC: 4514646. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131425. View

11.

Joppa L, Pfaff A . Global protected area impacts. Proc Biol Sci. 2010; 278(1712):1633-8. PMC: 3081759. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1713. View

12.

Adeney J, Christensen N, Pimm S . Reserves protect against deforestation fires in the Amazon. PLoS One. 2009; 4(4):e5014. PMC: 2660414. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005014. View

13.

Laurance W . When bigger is better: the need for Amazonian mega-reserves. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006; 20(12):645-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.009. View

14.

Austin P . An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46(3):399-424. PMC: 3144483. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786. View

15.

Andam K, Ferraro P, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa G, Robalino J . Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(42):16089-94. PMC: 2567237. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0800437105. View

16.

Chhatre A, Agrawal A . Forest commons and local enforcement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(36):13286-91. PMC: 2533182. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803399105. View

17.

Morton D, DeFries R, Shimabukuro Y, Anderson L, Arai E, Del Bon Espirito-Santo F . Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103(39):14637-41. PMC: 1600012. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606377103. View

18.

Watson J, Dudley N, Segan D, Hockings M . The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature. 2014; 515(7525):67-73. DOI: 10.1038/nature13947. View

19.

Gibbs H, Rausch L, Munger J, Schelly I, Morton D, Noojipady P . Environment and development. Brazil's Soy Moratorium. Science. 2015; 347(6220):377-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0181. View

20.

Laurance W, Useche D, Rendeiro J, Kalka M, Bradshaw C, Sloan S . Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature. 2012; 489(7415):290-4. DOI: 10.1038/nature11318. View