On the protection of âprotected areasâ Export

@article{citeulike:6060300, abstract = {10.1073/pnas.0802471105 Tropical moist forests contain the majority of terrestrial species. Human actions destroy between 1 and 2 million km of such forests per decade, with concomitant carbon release into the atmosphere. Within these forests, protected areas are the principle defense against forest loss and species extinctions. Four regions\^{a}€”the Amazon, Congo, South American Atlantic Coast, and West Africa\^{a}€”once constituted about half the world's tropical moist forest. We measure forest cover at progressively larger distances inside and outside of protected areas within these four regions, using datasets on protected areas and land-cover. We find important geographical differences. In the Amazon and Congo, protected areas are generally large and retain high levels of forest cover, as do their surroundings. These areas are protected by being inaccessible and will likely remain protected if they continue to be so. Deciding whether they are also protected \^{a}€”that is, whether effective laws also protect them\^{a}€”is statistically difficult, for there are few controls. In contrast, protected areas in the Atlantic Coast forest and West Africa show sharp boundaries in forest cover at their edges. This effective protection of forest cover is partially offset by their very small size: little area is deep inside protected area boundaries. Lands outside protected areas in the Atlantic Coast forest are unusually fragmented. Finally, we ask whether global databases on protected areas are biased toward highly protected areas and ignore \^{a}€œpaper parks.\^{a}€ Analysis of a Brazilian database does not support this presumption.}, author = {Joppa, Lucas N. and Loarie, Scott R. and Pimm, Stuart L.}, citeulike-article-id = {6060300}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802471105}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/30/0802471105.abstract}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/30/0802471105.full.pdf}, day = {6}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.0802471105}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, keywords = {pa\_effectiveness, pas}, month = {May}, number = {18}, pages = {6673--6678}, posted-at = {2009-11-03 13:57:39}, priority = {2}, title = {On the protection of \^{a}€œprotected areas\^{a}€}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802471105}, volume = {105}, year = {2008} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:6060300 L3 - citeulike-article-id:6060300 N2 - 10.1073/pnas.0802471105 Tropical moist forests contain the majority of terrestrial species. Human actions destroy between 1 and 2 million km of such forests per decade, with concomitant carbon release into the atmosphere. Within these forests, protected areas are the principle defense against forest loss and species extinctions. Four regions—the Amazon, Congo, South American Atlantic Coast, and West Africa—once constituted about half the world's tropical moist forest. We measure forest cover at progressively larger distances inside and outside of protected areas within these four regions, using datasets on protected areas and land-cover. We find important geographical differences. In the Amazon and Congo, protected areas are generally large and retain high levels of forest cover, as do their surroundings. These areas are protected by being inaccessible and will likely remain protected if they continue to be so. Deciding whether they are also protected —that is, whether effective laws also protect them—is statistically difficult, for there are few controls. In contrast, protected areas in the Atlantic Coast forest and West Africa show sharp boundaries in forest cover at their edges. This effective protection of forest cover is partially offset by their very small size: little area is deep inside protected area boundaries. Lands outside protected areas in the Atlantic Coast forest are unusually fragmented. Finally, we ask whether global databases on protected areas are biased toward highly protected areas and ignore “paper parks.” Analysis of a Brazilian database does not support this presumption. IS - 18 JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences EP - 6678 TI - On the protection of “protected areas” VL - 105 SP - 6673 KW - pa_effectiveness KW - pas AU - Joppa, Lucas AU - Loarie, Scott AU - Pimm, Stuart PY - 2008/05/06/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802471105 ER -