Limits...
The Role of Protected Areas in the Avoidance of Anthropogenic Conversion in a High Pressure Region: A Matching Method Analysis in the Core Region of the Brazilian Cerrado.

Paiva RJ, Brites RS, Machado RB - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Changes in the estimated effectiveness are related to local and regional differences, evaluation methods, restriction categories that include the protected areas, and other characteristics.The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas to prevent the advance of the conversion of natural areas in the core region of the Brazil's Cerrado Biome, taking into account the influence of the restriction degree, governmental sphere, time since the establishment of the protected area units, and the size of the area on the performance of protected areas.Most protected areas had a positive influence on the maintenance of natural habitats, although wide variation in this effectiveness was dependent on the type, restriction, governmental sphere, size and age group of the unit.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geociências Aplicadas, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade de Brasília, Brazil.

ABSTRACT
Global efforts to avoid anthropogenic conversion of natural habitat rely heavily on the establishment of protected areas. Studies that evaluate the effectiveness of these areas with a focus on preserving the natural habitat define effectiveness as a measure of the influence of protected areas on total avoided conversion. Changes in the estimated effectiveness are related to local and regional differences, evaluation methods, restriction categories that include the protected areas, and other characteristics. The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas to prevent the advance of the conversion of natural areas in the core region of the Brazil's Cerrado Biome, taking into account the influence of the restriction degree, governmental sphere, time since the establishment of the protected area units, and the size of the area on the performance of protected areas. The evaluation was conducted using matching methods and took into account the following two fundamental issues: control of statistical biases caused by the influence of covariates on the likelihood of anthropogenic conversion and the non-randomness of the allocation of protected areas throughout the territory (spatial correlation effect) and the control of statistical bias caused by the influence of auto-correlation and leakage effect. Using a sample design that is not based on ways to control these biases may result in outcomes that underestimate or overestimate the effectiveness of those units. The matching method accounted for a bias reduction in 94-99% of the estimation of the average effect of protected areas on anthropogenic conversion and allowed us to obtain results with a reduced influence of the auto-correlation and leakage effects. Most protected areas had a positive influence on the maintenance of natural habitats, although wide variation in this effectiveness was dependent on the type, restriction, governmental sphere, size and age group of the unit.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The ATT (a) and ATT% (b) for the 15 best models (box plots) and for the best model (red dots) of buffer and non-buffer subgroups.PA–Protected Area, SP–Strictly Protected Areas, SU–Sustainable Use Areas, Fed–Federal Units, Sta–State Units, >Sz–Larger size PAs, <Sz–Smaller size PAs, <86—Before 1986, <96—Between 1986–1996, <02—Between 1996–2002, <08—Between 2002–2008.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519267&req=5

pone.0132582.g004: The ATT (a) and ATT% (b) for the 15 best models (box plots) and for the best model (red dots) of buffer and non-buffer subgroups.PA–Protected Area, SP–Strictly Protected Areas, SU–Sustainable Use Areas, Fed–Federal Units, Sta–State Units, >Sz–Larger size PAs, <Sz–Smaller size PAs, <86—Before 1986, <96—Between 1986–1996, <02—Between 1996–2002, <08—Between 2002–2008.

Mentions: Differences observed between results obtained for buffer and non-buffer groups, point to a slight influence of autocorrelation effect, or spillover effect for some of the subgroups. A significant difference in ATT and ATT% was observed for the largest subgroup, the state's sphere subgroup, and the 1996–2002 cohort (Fig 4 and S8 Table), which showed significant negative differences between buffer and non-buffer groups. A significant negative difference suggests a higher probability for the region near these target units to be affected by conversion to anthropic classes, as opposed to similar areas that are not near the protected areas (the negative spillover / autocorrelation effect). In order to avoid any influence by autocorrelation or spillover effects, we considered only results that were outside the buffer region.


The Role of Protected Areas in the Avoidance of Anthropogenic Conversion in a High Pressure Region: A Matching Method Analysis in the Core Region of the Brazilian Cerrado.

Paiva RJ, Brites RS, Machado RB - PLoS ONE (2015)

The ATT (a) and ATT% (b) for the 15 best models (box plots) and for the best model (red dots) of buffer and non-buffer subgroups.PA–Protected Area, SP–Strictly Protected Areas, SU–Sustainable Use Areas, Fed–Federal Units, Sta–State Units, >Sz–Larger size PAs, <Sz–Smaller size PAs, <86—Before 1986, <96—Between 1986–1996, <02—Between 1996–2002, <08—Between 2002–2008.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519267&req=5

pone.0132582.g004: The ATT (a) and ATT% (b) for the 15 best models (box plots) and for the best model (red dots) of buffer and non-buffer subgroups.PA–Protected Area, SP–Strictly Protected Areas, SU–Sustainable Use Areas, Fed–Federal Units, Sta–State Units, >Sz–Larger size PAs, <Sz–Smaller size PAs, <86—Before 1986, <96—Between 1986–1996, <02—Between 1996–2002, <08—Between 2002–2008.
Mentions: Differences observed between results obtained for buffer and non-buffer groups, point to a slight influence of autocorrelation effect, or spillover effect for some of the subgroups. A significant difference in ATT and ATT% was observed for the largest subgroup, the state's sphere subgroup, and the 1996–2002 cohort (Fig 4 and S8 Table), which showed significant negative differences between buffer and non-buffer groups. A significant negative difference suggests a higher probability for the region near these target units to be affected by conversion to anthropic classes, as opposed to similar areas that are not near the protected areas (the negative spillover / autocorrelation effect). In order to avoid any influence by autocorrelation or spillover effects, we considered only results that were outside the buffer region.

Bottom Line: Changes in the estimated effectiveness are related to local and regional differences, evaluation methods, restriction categories that include the protected areas, and other characteristics.The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas to prevent the advance of the conversion of natural areas in the core region of the Brazil's Cerrado Biome, taking into account the influence of the restriction degree, governmental sphere, time since the establishment of the protected area units, and the size of the area on the performance of protected areas.Most protected areas had a positive influence on the maintenance of natural habitats, although wide variation in this effectiveness was dependent on the type, restriction, governmental sphere, size and age group of the unit.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geociências Aplicadas, Instituto de Geociências, Universidade de Brasília, Brazil.

ABSTRACT
Global efforts to avoid anthropogenic conversion of natural habitat rely heavily on the establishment of protected areas. Studies that evaluate the effectiveness of these areas with a focus on preserving the natural habitat define effectiveness as a measure of the influence of protected areas on total avoided conversion. Changes in the estimated effectiveness are related to local and regional differences, evaluation methods, restriction categories that include the protected areas, and other characteristics. The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas to prevent the advance of the conversion of natural areas in the core region of the Brazil's Cerrado Biome, taking into account the influence of the restriction degree, governmental sphere, time since the establishment of the protected area units, and the size of the area on the performance of protected areas. The evaluation was conducted using matching methods and took into account the following two fundamental issues: control of statistical biases caused by the influence of covariates on the likelihood of anthropogenic conversion and the non-randomness of the allocation of protected areas throughout the territory (spatial correlation effect) and the control of statistical bias caused by the influence of auto-correlation and leakage effect. Using a sample design that is not based on ways to control these biases may result in outcomes that underestimate or overestimate the effectiveness of those units. The matching method accounted for a bias reduction in 94-99% of the estimation of the average effect of protected areas on anthropogenic conversion and allowed us to obtain results with a reduced influence of the auto-correlation and leakage effects. Most protected areas had a positive influence on the maintenance of natural habitats, although wide variation in this effectiveness was dependent on the type, restriction, governmental sphere, size and age group of the unit.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus