1 / 21

Christoph Nolte International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI)

Impacts of Protected Areas on Deforestation: The Relative Importance of Location, Governance and Management. Christoph Nolte International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan IUCN World Conservation Congress

teo
Télécharger la présentation

Christoph Nolte International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impacts of Protected Areas on Deforestation: The Relative Importance of Location, Governance and Management Christoph Nolte International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) School of Natural Resources and Environment University of Michigan IUCN World Conservation Congress Jeju, South Korea Sep 6-15, 2012

  2. The Puzzle • Protected area establishment does not guarantee protection • Deforestation occurs in protected areas across the tropical biome • Yes, even in strict protected areas • Still: We assume that tropical protected areas avoid deforestation • Do they? • And which protected areas avoid more deforestation than others? • Let’s look at the empirical evidence… Google Maps (2012)

  3. Assessing Impact • Requires counterfactual thinking • “What would have happened in the absence of …” • Well … how do I know? • Experimental controls • Random assignment • Natural experiments • Artificial controls • Modeling • Educated guess “Very” educated guess? Sophisticated thought experiment?

  4. Assessing Impact

  5. No Pressure, No Impact

  6. Location Bias: Thailand Andam et al. (2010) PNAS

  7. Location Bias: United States Differences between proportions of unprotected vs. protected land Joppa & Pfaff (2009) PLoS One

  8. So is there pressure? • Global Location Bias • Global Analysis: “PAs are biased towards where they can least prevent land conversion (even if they offer perfect protection)” (Joppa & Pfaff 2009 PLoS One) • High elevations, steep slopes, far from roads and cities • Between Protected Area Categories • IUCN categories I-II are in areas with even lower threat than IUCN categories III-VI • “high protection status may be taking credit for a lack of clearing that is due to the undesirability of lands on which it has been placed” (ibid.)

  9. Accounting for location bias • Matching protected pixels to unprotected pixels with similar characteristics • At minimum distance from PA boundaries (leakage) • Often considered the most “rigorous” approach • Non-parametric (allows for non-linear, complex or unknown relationships) • No extrapolation beyond range of statistical support  int. validity Ferraro et al. 2011 PNAS

  10. Accounting for location bias • Controlling for location bias through matching reduces estimates of avoided deforestation considerably(Costa Rica, 2008) Andam et al. (2008) PNAS

  11. Impact of protected areas • Methods • Comparison with buffer (n=31) • Regression analysis (n=17) • Matching (n=4) • Overall impacts: Positive • “The evidence that deforestation and habitat degradation rates are greater outside PAs is convincing” (Geldmann et al. 2012) • But not all protected areas are the same – which do better? 57 studies on habitat change in protected areas: all except two are on deforestation Geldmann et al. 2012

  12. PA Categories: Total Impacts • Absolute impacts of sustainable use areas and indigenous reserves are larger than those for strict protected areas (Pfaff et al. 2012a, 2012b, Nelson & Chomitz 2011) • Both are also exposed to greater deforestation risk • Although recent data suggests this pattern is changing, at least in Brazil. • So … is impact because of location, or because of effective management (given location)?

  13. PA Categories: Reducing Fire Nelson & Chomitz 2009

  14. PA Categories: Brazil Given pressure, strict protected areas reduce more.

  15. Private concessions • Peru: Small concessions did better than indigenous lands and state parks at reducing deforestation Vuohelainen et al. (2012)

  16. Management Effectiveness • More vs. less successful protected areas in Brazil: How do they differ in terms of management? • Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of PA Management (RAPPAM) • Mgmt EffectivenessTracking Tool (METT)

  17. RAPPAM 2005

  18. METT 2005

  19. Data Mining (careful…) • Consistently associated with higher impact • Strongest positive: “No unsettled disputes regarding land tenure or use rights” • Also: Staff facilities, visitor facilities, maintenance of equipment • Strongest negative: “Local communities depend on PA for their subsistence” • Strictly Protected Areas • Boundary demarcation, community support • Sustainable Use Areas • Inventory of resources, mgmt council

  20. Take-home messages • Counterfactual thinking may be imprecise, but it is fundamentally important for impact evaluation • Protected areas reduce deforestation, but the further they are located from pressure, the less impact they have. • Strict protected areas seem to reduce deforestation pressure more effectively, but so do protected areas of any category whose tenure conflicts have been solved. Google Maps (2012)

  21. Thank you! Protected areas reduced deforestation most of the time 50-90% Educated Best Guess

More Related