Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 645–663 | Cite as

The Effectiveness of Contrasting Protected Areas in Preventing Deforestation in Madre de Dios, Peru

  • Anni Johanna Vuohelainen
  • Lauren Coad
  • Toby R. Marthews
  • Yadvinder Malhi
  • Timothy J. Killeen
Article

Abstract

Accurate monitoring of the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) in decreasing deforestation is increasingly important given the vital role of forest protection in climate change mitigation. Recent studies on PA effectiveness have used remote-sensing imagery to compare deforestation rates within PAs to surrounding areas. However, remote-sensing data used in isolation provides limited information on the factors contributing to effectiveness. We used landscape-modelling techniques to estimate the effectiveness of ten PAs in Madre de Dios, Peru. Factors influencing PA effectiveness were investigated using in situ key-informant interviews. Although all of the PAs studied had positive effectiveness scores, those with the highest scores were ecotourism and conservation concessions, where monitoring and surveillance activities and good relations with surrounding communities were reported as possible factors in decreasing deforestation rates. Native community areas had the lowest scores, with deforestation mainly driven by internal resource use and population growth. Weak local governance and immigration were identified as underlying factors decreasing the effectiveness of protection, whereas good relations with surrounding communities and monitoring activity increased effectiveness. The results highlight the need to combine remote sensing with in situ information on PA management because identification of drivers and deterrents of deforestation is vital for improving the effectiveness of protection.

Keywords

Community conservation Deforestation Land-use change Peru Private protected area Protected-area management Remote sensing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Natural Resources International Foundation (http://www.nrinternational.co.uk/), Proforest (http://www.proforest.net/), the Oxford Martin School (http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/), the Mike Soper Bursary Fund, and the University of Oxford Environmental Change Institute (http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/). We thank the individuals who were interviewed for this study. Without them this study would not have been possible. We are grateful to J. Fisher, A. Bruner, A. García Altamirano, K. Krishnamurthy, S. Papageorgiou, and J. Scriven for their assistance. We also thank the staff of the Geography Department of the Museo Noel Kempff Mercado, Conservation International, AIDER, CAMDE PERU and FENAMAD for providing data and support for this research.

References

  1. Achard F (2002) Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297:999–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achard F, Stibig HJ, Eva HD, Lindquist EJ, Bouvet A, Arino O et al (2010) Estimating tropical deforestation from earth observation data. Carbon Management 1:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez NL, Naughton-Treves L (2003) Linking national agrarian policy to deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon: a case study of Tambopata, 1986–1997. Ambio 32:269–274Google Scholar
  4. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Robalino JA (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:16089–16094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (1999) Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models. The World Bank Research Observer 14:73–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asner GP, Powell GVN, Mascaro J, Knapp DE, Clark JK, Jacobson J et al (2010) High-resolution forest carbon stocks and emissions in the Amazon. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:16738–16742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bleher B, Uster D, Bergsdorf T (2006) Assessment of threat status and management effectiveness in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:1159–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bray DB, Duran E, Ramos VH, Mas JS, Velazquez A, McNab RB et al (2008) Tropical deforestation, community forests, and protected areas in the Maya Forest. Ecology and Society 13:56Google Scholar
  9. Bruner A, Naugton-Treves L, Gullison T, Treves A, Saenz M, Harper G et al (2004) Manejo de ocho areas protegidas del Ecuador. Uso de la tierra, zonificación y costos de manejo: informe preliminario. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Cadenillas R, Susanibar D, Chávez G (2008) Propuesta de zonificación ecologica y economica del departamiento de Madre de Dios Fauna. GOREMAD, IIAP, Puerto MaldonadoGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell A, Miles L, Lysenko I, Hughes A, Gibbs H (2008) Carbon storage in protected areas: technical report. UNEP WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Cannell MGR (2004) Land sinks: the Kyoto process and scientific implications. In: Mencuccini M, Grace J, Moncrieff J, McNaughton KG (eds) Forests at the land-atmosphere interface. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chape S, Spalding M, Jenkins M, Taylor M, Putney A, Ishwaran N et al (2008) History, definitions, values and global perspective. In: Chape S, Spalding M, Jenkins M (eds) The world’s protected areas: status, values and prospects in the 21st century. University of California Press, Berkley, CA, pp 1–35Google Scholar
  14. Clements T (2010) Reduced expectations: the political and institutional challenges of REDD. Oryx 44:309–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curran L, Trigg S, McDonald A, Astiani D, Hardiono Y, Siregar P (2004) Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science 303:1000–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC (2005) Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications 15:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeFries R, Hansen A, Turner BL, Reid R, Liu JG (2007) Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications 17:1031–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dennis RA, Mayer J, Applegate G, Chokkalingam U, Colfer CJP, Kurniawan I et al (2005) Fire, people and pixels: linking social science and remote sensing to understand underlying causes and impacts of fires in Indonesia. Human Ecology 33:465–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dourojeanni MJ (2006) Estudio de caso sobre la carretera Interoceánica en la Amazonía sur del Perú. Bank Information Center, LimaGoogle Scholar
  21. Dourojeanni MJ, Barandiarán A, Dourojeanni D (2009) Amazonía Peruana en 2021. ProNaturaleza, LimaGoogle Scholar
  22. Dudley N (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. International Union for Conservation of Nature, GlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dudley N, Belokurov A, Borodin O, Higgins-Zogib L, Hockings M, Lacerda L et al (2004) Are protected areas working? An analysis of protected areas. World Wildlife Federation, GlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Figueroa F, Sanchez-Cordero V (2008) Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodiversity Conservation 17:3223–3240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garcia A, Limachi L (2008) Propuesta de zonificación ecológica y ecónomica del departamiento de Madre de Dios—Socioeconomia. GOREMAD, IIAP, Puerto MaldonadoGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaveau DLA, Wandono H, Setiabudi F (2007) Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: have protected areas halted forest loss and logging, and promoted re-growth? Biological Conservation 134:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaveau DLA, Epting J, Lyne O, Linkie M, Kumara I, Kanninen M et al (2009) Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra. Journal of Biogeography 36:2165–2175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gestión (2011) La Interoceánica Sur será entregada en el primer trimestre del 2011. Gestión, Lima, Peru. http://gestion.pe/noticia/280423/interoceanica-sur-entregada-primer-trimestre-2011. Accessed on 17 Apr 2011
  29. GOREMAD IIAP (2008) Propuesta de zonificación ecológica y económica del departamiento de Madre de Dios. GOREMAD, IIAP, Puerto MaldonadoGoogle Scholar
  30. Government of Peru (2000) Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre. Ley N 27308. Government of Peru, LimaGoogle Scholar
  31. Government of Peru (2001a) Reglamento de la Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre. Decreto Supremo N 014–2001-AG. Government of Peru, LimaGoogle Scholar
  32. Government of Peru (2001b) Resolución Ministerial Nº 0566–2001-AG. Aprueban Disposiciones Complementarias para el Otorgamiento de Concesiones para Conservación. Government of Peru, LimaGoogle Scholar
  33. Government of Peru (2002) Resolución Ministerial Nº 0314–2002-AG. Aprueban Disposiciones Complementarias para el Otorgamiento de Concesiones para Ecoturismo. Government of Peru, LimaGoogle Scholar
  34. Granoff LME (2008) Peruvian forest law: seeing the people for the trees. New York University Environmental Law Journal 16:533–562Google Scholar
  35. Hayes TM (2006) Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34:2064–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hilborn R, Arcese P, Borner M, Hando J, Hopcraft G, Loibooki M et al (2006) Effective enforcement in a conservation area. Science 314:1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hockings M, Cook CN, Carter RW, James R (2009) Accountability, reporting, or management improvement? Development of a state of the parks assessment system in New South Wales, Australia. Environmental Management 43:1013–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Horwich RH, Lyon J (2007) Community conservation: practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx 41:376–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Imbernon J (1999) A comparison of the driving forces behind deforestation in the Peruvian and the Brazilian Amazon. Ambio 28:509–513Google Scholar
  40. INEI (2008) Censos Nacionales 2007: XI de Población y VI de Vivienda. INEI, LimaGoogle Scholar
  41. Infield M, Namara A (2001) Community attitudes and behaviour towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35:48–60Google Scholar
  42. Joppa L, Pfaff A (2010a) Reassessing the forest impacts of protection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2010b) Global protected area impacts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 278:1633–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kerekes CB, Williamson CR (2010) Propertyless in Peru, even with a government land title. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69:1011–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Killeen TJ (2007) A perfect storm in the Amazon wilderness: development and conservation in the context of the initiative for the integration of the regional infrastructure of South America (IIRSA). Conservation International, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  46. Killeen TJ, Calderon V, Soria L, Quezada B, Steininger MK, Harper G et al (2007) Thirty years of land–cover change in Bolivia. Ambio 36:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kirkby CA, Giudice-Granados R, Day B, Turner K, Velarde-Andrade LM, Dueñas-Dueñas A et al (2010) The market triumph of ecotourism: an economic investigation of the private and social benefits of competing land uses in the Peruvian Amazon. PLoS One 5:e13015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kirkby CA, Giudice R, Day B, Turner K, Soares-Filho BS, Oliveira-Rodrigues H et al (2011) Closing the ecotourism-conservation loop in the Peruvian Amazon. Environmental Conservation 38:6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kumar K (1986) Conducting key informant interviews in developing countries. AID Program Design and Evaluation Methodology Report No. 13. A.I.D., Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Langholz JA, Krug W (2004) New forms of biodiversity governance: non-state actors and the private protected area action plan. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 7:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Laurance WF, Albernaz AKM, Schroth G, Fearnside PM, Bergen S, Venticinque EM et al (2002) Predictors of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Biogeography 29:737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leverington F, Costa KL, Courrau J, Pavese H, Nolte C, Marr M et al (2010) Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas—a global study, 2nd edn. The University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  53. Linkie M, Smith RJ, Leader-Williams N (2004) Mapping and predicting deforestation patterns in the lowlands of Sumatra. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1809–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marshall MN (1996) The key informant technique. Family Practice 13:92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mendoza E, Perz S, Schmink M, Nepstad D (2007) Participatory stakeholder workshops to mitigate impacts of road paving in the Southwestern Amazon. Conservation and Society 5:382–407Google Scholar
  56. Mosquera C, Chávez ML, Pachas VH, Moschella P (2009) Estudio diagnóstico de la actividad minera artesanal en Madre de Dios. In: Borrador Final de Trabajo, CooperAcción, Caritas, Conservación Internacional Perú, Puerto MaldonadoGoogle Scholar
  57. Nagendra H (2008) Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio 37:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Naughton-Treves L (2004) Deforestation and carbon emissions at tropical frontiers: a case study from the Peruvian Amazon. World Development 32:173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K (2005) The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:219–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Naughton-Treves L, Alvarez-Berrios N, Brandon K, Bruner A, Holland MB, Ponce C et al (2006) Expanding protected areas and incorporating human resource use: a study of 15 forest parks in Ecuador and Peru. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 2:32–44Google Scholar
  61. Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Noy C (2008) Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11:327–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Oliveira PJC, Asner GP, Knapp DE, Almeyda A, Galvan-Gildemeister R, Keene S et al (2007) Land-use allocation protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science 317:1233–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:19224–19231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pearl J (2009) Understanding propensity scores. In: Pearl J (ed) Causality: models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://www.amazon.com/Causality-Reasoning-Inference-Judea-Pearl/dp/0521773628
  66. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Andam K, Ferraro P (2009) Location affects protection: observable characteristics drive park impacts in Costa Rica. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 9:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pfliegner K, Moshi E (2007) Is joint forest management viable in protection forest reserves? Experiences from Morogoro region. The Arc Journal 21:17–20Google Scholar
  68. Pinheiro J, Bates D (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Puyravaud JP (2003) Standardizing the calculation of the annual rate of deforestation. Forest Ecology and Management 177:593–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ricketts T, Soares-Filho B, da Fonseca G, Nepstad D, Pfaff A, Petsonk A (2010) Indigenous lands, protected areas, and slowing climate change. PLoS Biology 8:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Cowling RM et al (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ruiz-Pérez M, Almeida M, Dewi S, Costa EML, Pantoja MC, Puntodewo A et al (2005) Conservation and development in Amazonian extractive reserves: the case of Alto Juruá. Ambio 34:218–223Google Scholar
  73. Samoilys MA, Martin-Smith KM, Giles BG, Cabrera G, Anticamara JA, Brunio EO et al (2007) Effectiveness of five small Philippines’ coral reef reserves for fish populations depends on site-specific factors, particularly enforcement history. Biological Conservation 136:584–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Rivard B, Calvo J, Moorthy I (2002) Dynamics of tropical deforestation around national parks: remote sensing of forest change on the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica. Mountain Research and Development 22:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Scharlemann JPW, Kapos V, Campbell A, Lysenko I, Burgess ND, Hansen MC et al (2010) Securing tropical forest carbon: the contribution of protected areas to REDD. Oryx 44:352–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schmitt CB, Belokurov A, Besançon C, Boisrobert L, Burgess ND, Campbell A et al (2008) Global ecological forest classification and forest protected area gap analysis. Analyses and recommendations in view of the 10% target for forest protection under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Freiburg University Press, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  77. Schmitt CB, Burgess ND, Coad L, Belokurov A, Besançon C, Boisrobert L et al (2009) Global analysis of the protection status of the world’s forests. Biological Conservation 142:2122–2130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. SERNANP (2011) Cuadro consolidado del SINANPE. Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado. http://www.sernanp.gob.pe/. Accessed on 20 Dec 2011
  79. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC (2005) Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modelling in observational studies: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58:550–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shanley P, Rodrigues-Gaia G (2002) Equitable ecology: collaborative learning for local benefit in Amazonia. Agricultural Systems 73:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Ramos CA et al (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440:520–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Soares-Filho BS, Moutinho P, Nepstad D, Anderson A, Rodrigues H, Garcia R et al (2010) Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:10821–10826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sommerville M (2005) An analysis of deforestation trends across Madagascar’s protected area system (1980–2000) and implications for future management. Master’s dissertation, University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  84. Southworth J, Marsik M, Qiu Y, Perz S, Cumming G, Stevens F et al (2011) Roads as drivers of change: trajectories across the tri-national frontier in map, the Southwestern Amazon. Remote Sensing 3:1047–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. SPDA (2011) Iniciativa para la Conservación Privada y Comunal. Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA). http://www.conservacionprivada.org/. Accessed on 20 Dec 2011
  86. Swenson JJ, Carter CE, Domec JC, Delgado CI (2011) Gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon: global prices, deforestation, and mercury imports. PLoS One 6:e18875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van der Werf GR, Morton DC, DeFries RS, Olivier JGJ, Kasibhatla PS, Jackson RB et al (2009) CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience 2:737–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yu DW, Levi T, Shepard GH (2010) Conservation in low-governance environments. Biotropica 42:569–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zanutto E (2006) A comparison of propensity score and linear regression analysis of complex survey data. Journal of Data Science 4:67–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anni Johanna Vuohelainen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lauren Coad
    • 3
  • Toby R. Marthews
    • 3
  • Yadvinder Malhi
    • 3
  • Timothy J. Killeen
    • 4
  1. 1.Proforest, South Suite, Frewin Chambers, Frewin CourtOxfordUK
  2. 2.School of Geography, Environmental Change InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.School of Geography, Environmental Change InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.Conservation InternationalWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations