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 absolute mean ATT and ATT% for the 15 best models (box plots) and for the best model (red dots) regarding size group and cohorts.a) size group (a.1 –ATT, a.2 ATT%), b) cohorts (b.1 –ATT, b.2 ATT%). PA–Protected Areas, SP–Strictly Protected Areas, SU–Sustainable Use Areas, Fed–Federal Units, Sta–State Units, >Sz–Larger sized PAs, <Sz–Smaller sized 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.g006: The absolute mean ATT and ATT% for the 15 best models (box plots) and for the best model (red dots) regarding size group and cohorts.a) size group (a.1 –ATT, a.2 ATT%), b) cohorts (b.1 –ATT, b.2 ATT%). PA–Protected Areas, SP–Strictly Protected Areas, SU–Sustainable Use Areas, Fed–Federal Units, Sta–State Units, >Sz–Larger sized PAs, <Sz–Smaller sized PAs, <86—Before 1986, <96—Between 1986–1996, <02—Between 1996–2002, <08—Between 2002–2008.

Mentions: The overall size of the unit also affected the effectiveness of protected areas in the study region. Smaller areas (ATT 24.65 ha/km2, standard error 3:47 ha/km2, ATT% -0.78) generally showed better performance in protecting the natural habitat than larger areas (ATT 14:49 ha/km2, standard error 0.86 ha/km2, ATT% -0.54). For the strictly protected units subgroup, however, there was greater effectiveness with larger areas (ATT 29.83 ha/km2, standard error 1.66 ha/km2, ATT% -0.91) compared to those of smaller size (ATT 17.39 ha/km2, standard error 6:37 ha/km2, ATT% -0.85) (Fig 6 and S12 Table). Larger protected areas were found in regions with lower anthropogenic change, with 16.73 ha/km2 being the average LUCC for sample units of the control group, while those for the larger group had a mean value of 25.10 ha/km2. This difference had no significant impact on the used indices, which showed similar patterns for most observed subgroups (Fig 6, S9 Table and S12 Table).


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 absolute mean ATT and ATT% for the 15 best models (box plots) and for the best model (red dots) regarding size group and cohorts.a) size group (a.1 –ATT, a.2 ATT%), b) cohorts (b.1 –ATT, b.2 ATT%). PA–Protected Areas, SP–Strictly Protected Areas, SU–Sustainable Use Areas, Fed–Federal Units, Sta–State Units, >Sz–Larger sized PAs, <Sz–Smaller sized 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.g006: The absolute mean ATT and ATT% for the 15 best models (box plots) and for the best model (red dots) regarding size group and cohorts.a) size group (a.1 –ATT, a.2 ATT%), b) cohorts (b.1 –ATT, b.2 ATT%). PA–Protected Areas, SP–Strictly Protected Areas, SU–Sustainable Use Areas, Fed–Federal Units, Sta–State Units, >Sz–Larger sized PAs, <Sz–Smaller sized PAs, <86—Before 1986, <96—Between 1986–1996, <02—Between 1996–2002, <08—Between 2002–2008.
Mentions: The overall size of the unit also affected the effectiveness of protected areas in the study region. Smaller areas (ATT 24.65 ha/km2, standard error 3:47 ha/km2, ATT% -0.78) generally showed better performance in protecting the natural habitat than larger areas (ATT 14:49 ha/km2, standard error 0.86 ha/km2, ATT% -0.54). For the strictly protected units subgroup, however, there was greater effectiveness with larger areas (ATT 29.83 ha/km2, standard error 1.66 ha/km2, ATT% -0.91) compared to those of smaller size (ATT 17.39 ha/km2, standard error 6:37 ha/km2, ATT% -0.85) (Fig 6 and S12 Table). Larger protected areas were found in regions with lower anthropogenic change, with 16.73 ha/km2 being the average LUCC for sample units of the control group, while those for the larger group had a mean value of 25.10 ha/km2. This difference had no significant impact on the used indices, which showed similar patterns for most observed subgroups (Fig 6, S9 Table and S12 Table).

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