Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation

By K. Andam, Paul J. Ferraro, A. Pfaff, G. Arturo Sanchez-Azofeifa, J. Robalino. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008

1,016 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/71a1cd893c819f12a62d909ea9d734c5d1462bdb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico (2017, neutral): “Lewis et al. (2011) evaluates different types of voluntary incentive policies for biodiversity conservation in comparison to a fully efficient solution. to be located on land with lower risk of deforestation due to political economy constraints (Andam et al. 2008, 2010, Joppa and Pfaff 2009).”
Greater Focus Needed on Alien Plant Impacts in Protected Areas (2014, background): “Yet, in contrast to many other pressures (Bruner et al. 2001; Andam et al. 2008), there is a shortage of consolidated information at global and/or regional levels on alien species impacts in protected areas (GISP 2007).”
The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota (2011, background): “…services (e.g., Pagiola and Platais 2007; Jack et al. 2008), responses to policy interventions and the resulting spatial pattern of land use (e.g., Andam et al. 2008; Sánchez-Azofeifa et al. 2007), and analysis of the impact of alternative policy design on the provision of ecosystem services at…”
More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand (2013, methodology): “A final source of potential bias comes from spillovers, both positive and negative, whereby protection affects forest cover in matched control units (Andam et al 2008).”
Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices (2013, neutral): “For example, Andam et al. (2008) analyzed the effect of protected areas in reducing deforestation rates in Costa Rica and found that the rate of deforestation in pro- The authors are, respectively, economist, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.; assistant professor, Department of…”
Approaches and terminology for causal analysis in land systems science (2016, background): “However, sensitivity tests can reveal how strong the effects of these omitted variables should be in order to refute the relation (Andam et al., 2008; Imbens & Wooldridge, 2009).”
Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? (2010, background): “These approaches have been applied in other conservation policy contexts, such as impacts of protected areas on forest cover in Costa Rica (Andam et al. 2008), Integrated Conservation and Development Programs (ICDP) on”
Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2009, background): “Recent studies, for example, reviewed the conditions that lead to success or failure of incentives for conservation (53), showed that fisheries with property rights systems such as tradeable catch shares are less prone to collapse than open-access fisheries (54), and quantified the effects of protec”
Forest Figures: Ecosystem Services Valuation and Policy Evaluation in Developing Countries (2012, background): “Only one study considers the potential bias (positive and negative) from spatial spillovers as a result of land use regulations (Andam et al. 2008).”
Deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon: prices or policies? (2015, background): “See Andam et al. (2008); Pfaff et al., 2009, 2014; Sims (2010); Soares-Filho et al. (2010); Joppa and Pfaff (2011); Nelson and Chomitz (2011); Ferraro et al. (2013); Nolte et al. (2013).”
A global assessment of current and future biodiversity vulnerability to habitat loss–climate change interactions (2016, background): “Increasing the protected area coverage is the most obvious management strategy to limit HLF–CC impacts, as protected areas are often a good mechanism to maintain vegetation integrity (Andam et al., 2008) and is consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Targets (CBD, 2011).”
Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation (2010, methodology): “Conclusions from these studies regarding the inhibitory effect of PAs on deforestation also vary, from a positive effect (9, 10, 15) that, however, is not seen in all PA groups (11) or a positive but modest effect (12, 13, 16, 17) to no effect (14).”