Dataset Information

Forest Loss in Protected Areas and Intact Forest Landscapes: A Global Analysis.

ABSTRACT: In spite of the high importance of forests, global forest loss has remained alarmingly high during the last decades. Forest loss at a global scale has been unveiled with increasingly finer spatial resolution, but the forest extent and loss in protected areas (PAs) and in large intact forest landscapes (IFLs) have not so far been systematically assessed. Moreover, the impact of protection on preserving the IFLs is not well understood. In this study we conducted a consistent assessment of the global forest loss in PAs and IFLs over the period 2000-2012. We used recently published global remote sensing based spatial forest cover change data, being a uniform and consistent dataset over space and time, together with global datasets on PAs' and IFLs' locations. Our analyses revealed that on a global scale 3% of the protected forest, 2.5% of the intact forest, and 1.5% of the protected intact forest were lost during the study period. These forest loss rates are relatively high compared to global total forest loss of 5% for the same time period. The variation in forest losses and in protection effect was large among geographical regions and countries. In some regions the loss in protected forests exceeded 5% (e.g. in Australia and Oceania, and North America) and the relative forest loss was higher inside protected areas than outside those areas (e.g. in Mongolia and parts of Africa, Central Asia, and Europe). At the same time, protection was found to prevent forest loss in several countries (e.g. in South America and Southeast Asia). Globally, high area-weighted forest loss rates of protected and intact forests were associated with high gross domestic product and in the case of protected forests also with high proportions of agricultural land. Our findings reinforce the need for improved understanding of the reasons for the high forest losses in PAs and IFLs and strategies to prevent further losses.

SUBMITTER: Heino M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4605629 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Forest Loss in Protected Areas and Intact Forest Landscapes: A Global Analysis.

Heino Matias M Kummu Matti M Makkonen Marika M Mulligan Mark M Verburg Peter H PH Jalava Mika M Räsänen Timo A TA

PloS one 20151014 10

In spite of the high importance of forests, global forest loss has remained alarmingly high during the last decades. Forest loss at a global scale has been unveiled with increasingly finer spatial resolution, but the forest extent and loss in protected areas (PAs) and in large intact forest landscapes (IFLs) have not so far been systematically assessed. Moreover, the impact of protection on preserving the IFLs is not well understood. In this study we conducted a consistent assessment of the glob ...[more]

PMID: 26466348

Similar Datasets

Project description:Protected areas (PAs) have been established to conserve tropical forests, but their effectiveness at reducing deforestation is uncertain. To explore this issue, we combined high resolution data of global forest loss over the period 2000-2012 with data on PAs. For each PA we quantified forest loss within the PA, in buffer zones 1, 5, 10 and 15 km outside the PA boundary as well as a 1 km buffer within the PA boundary. We analysed 3376 tropical and subtropical moist forest PAs in 56 countries over 4 continents. We found that 73% of PAs experienced substantial deforestation pressure, with >0.1% a(-1) forest loss in the outer 1 km buffer. Forest loss within PAs was greatest in Asia (0.25% a(-1)) compared to Africa (0.1% a(-1)), the Neotropics (0.1% a(-1)) and Australasia (Australia and Papua New Guinea; 0.03% a(-1)). We defined performance (P) of a PA as the ratio of forest loss in the inner 1 km buffer compared to the loss that would have occurred in the absence of the PA, calculated as the loss in the outer 1 km buffer corrected for any difference in deforestation pressure between the two buffers. To remove the potential bias due to terrain, we analysed a subset of PAs (n = 1804) where slope and elevation in inner and outer 1 km buffers were similar (within 1° and 100 m, respectively). We found 41% of PAs in this subset reduced forest loss in the inner buffer by at least 25% compared to the expected inner buffer forest loss (P<0.75). Median performance (P) of subset reserves was 0.87, meaning a reduction in forest loss within the PA of 13%. We found PAs were most effective in Australasia (P = 0.16), moderately successful in the Neotropics (P = 0.72) and Africa (p = 0.83), but ineffective in Asia (P = 1). We found many countries have PAs that give little or no protection to forest loss, particularly in parts of Asia, west Africa and central America. Across the tropics, the median effectiveness of PAs at the national level improved with gross domestic product per capita. Whilst tropical and subtropical moist forest PAs do reduce forest loss, widely varying performance suggests substantial opportunities for improved protection, particularly in Asia.

Project description:BackgroundProtected areas, regarded today as a cornerstone of nature conservation, result from an array of multiple motivations and opportunities. We explored at global and regional levels the current distribution of protected areas along biophysical, human, and biological gradients, and assessed to what extent protection has pursued (i) a balanced representation of biophysical environments, (ii) a set of preferred conditions (biological, spiritual, economic, or geopolitical), or (iii) existing opportunities for conservation regardless of any representation or preference criteria.MethodsWe used histograms to describe the distribution of terrestrial protected areas along biophysical, human, and biological independent gradients and linear and non-linear regression and correlation analyses to describe the sign, shape, and strength of the relationships. We used a random forest analysis to rank the importance of different variables related to conservation preferences and opportunity drivers, and an evenness metric to quantify representativeness.ResultsWe find that protection at a global level is primarily driven by the opportunities provided by isolation and a low population density (variable importance = 34.6 and 19.9, respectively). Preferences play a secondary role, with a bias towards tourism attractiveness and proximity to international borders (variable importance = 12.7 and 3.4, respectively). Opportunities shape protection strongly in "North America & Australia-NZ" and "Latin America & Caribbean," while the importance of the representativeness of biophysical environments is higher in "Sub-Saharan Africa" (1.3 times the average of other regions).DiscussionEnvironmental representativeness and biodiversity protection are top priorities in land conservation agendas. However, our results suggest that they have been minor players driving current protection at both global and regional levels. Attempts to increase their relevance will necessarily have to recognize the predominant opportunistic nature that the establishment of protected areas has had until present times.

Dataset Information

Forest Loss in Protected Areas and Intact Forest Landscapes: A Global Analysis.

Publications

Forest Loss in Protected Areas and Intact Forest Landscapes: A Global Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets