Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achard F (2002) Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297:999–1002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Achard F, Stibig HJ, Eva HD, Lindquist EJ, Bouvet A, Arino O et al (2010) Estimating tropical deforestation from earth observation data. Carbon Management 1:271–287

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez NL, Naughton-Treves L (2003) Linking national agrarian policy to deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon: a case study of Tambopata, 1986–1997. Ambio 32:269–274

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 105:16089–16094

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (1999) Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models. The World Bank Research Observer 14:73–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 107:16738–16742

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bleher B, Uster D, Bergsdorf T (2006) Assessment of threat status and management effectiveness in Kakamega Forest, Kenya. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:1159–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:56

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadenillas R, Susanibar D, Chávez G (2008) Propuesta de zonificación ecologica y economica del departamiento de Madre de Dios Fauna. GOREMAD, IIAP, Puerto Maldonado

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell A, Miles L, Lysenko I, Hughes A, Gibbs H (2008) Carbon storage in protected areas: technical report. UNEP WCMC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 189–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements T (2010) Reduced expectations: the political and institutional challenges of REDD. Oryx 44:309–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Curran L, Trigg S, McDonald A, Astiani D, Hardiono Y, Siregar P (2004) Lowland forest loss in protected areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science 303:1000–1003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC (2005) Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications 15:19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:1031–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 33:465–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dourojeanni MJ (2006) Estudio de caso sobre la carretera Interoceánica en la Amazonía sur del Perú. Bank Information Center, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Dourojeanni MJ, Barandiarán A, Dourojeanni D (2009) Amazonía Peruana en 2021. ProNaturaleza, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley N (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa F, Sanchez-Cordero V (2008) Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico. Biodiversity Conservation 17:3223–3240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia A, Limachi L (2008) Propuesta de zonificación ecológica y ecónomica del departamiento de Madre de Dios—Socioeconomia. GOREMAD, IIAP, Puerto Maldonado

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 134:495–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 36:2165–2175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • GOREMAD IIAP (2008) Propuesta de zonificación ecológica y económica del departamiento de Madre de Dios. GOREMAD, IIAP, Puerto Maldonado

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Peru (2000) Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre. Ley N 27308. Government of Peru, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Peru (2001a) Reglamento de la Ley Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre. Decreto Supremo N 014–2001-AG. Government of Peru, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Peru (2001b) Resolución Ministerial Nº 0566–2001-AG. Aprueban Disposiciones Complementarias para el Otorgamiento de Concesiones para Conservación. Government of Peru, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Peru (2002) Resolución Ministerial Nº 0314–2002-AG. Aprueban Disposiciones Complementarias para el Otorgamiento de Concesiones para Ecoturismo. Government of Peru, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Granoff LME (2008) Peruvian forest law: seeing the people for the trees. New York University Environmental Law Journal 16:533–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes TM (2006) Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34:2064–2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilborn R, Arcese P, Borner M, Hando J, Hopcraft G, Loibooki M et al (2006) Effective enforcement in a conservation area. Science 314:1266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 43:1013–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwich RH, Lyon J (2007) Community conservation: practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx 41:376–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbernon J (1999) A comparison of the driving forces behind deforestation in the Peruvian and the Brazilian Amazon. Ambio 28:509–513

    Google Scholar 

  • INEI (2008) Censos Nacionales 2007: XI de Población y VI de Vivienda. INEI, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:48–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Joppa L, Pfaff A (2010a) Reassessing the forest impacts of protection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185:135–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2010b) Global protected area impacts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 278:1633–1638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerekes CB, Williamson CR (2010) Propertyless in Peru, even with a government land title. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 69:1011–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Killeen TJ, Calderon V, Soria L, Quezada B, Steininger MK, Harper G et al (2007) Thirty years of land–cover change in Bolivia. Ambio 36:600–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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:e13015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:6–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar K (1986) Conducting key informant interviews in developing countries. AID Program Design and Evaluation Methodology Report No. 13. A.I.D., Washington, DC

  • 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 7:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 29:737–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  • Linkie M, Smith RJ, Leader-Williams N (2004) Mapping and predicting deforestation patterns in the lowlands of Sumatra. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1809–1818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall MN (1996) The key informant technique. Family Practice 13:92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5:382–407

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Maldonado

  • Nagendra H (2008) Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio 37:330–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naughton-Treves L (2004) Deforestation and carbon emissions at tropical frontiers: a case study from the Peruvian Amazon. World Development 32:173–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:219–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2:32–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20:65–73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Noy C (2008) Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11:327–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira PJC, Asner GP, Knapp DE, Almeyda A, Galvan-Gildemeister R, Keene S et al (2007) Land-use allocation protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science 317:1233–1236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 103:19224–19231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 9:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfliegner K, Moshi E (2007) Is joint forest management viable in protection forest reserves? Experiences from Morogoro region. The Arc Journal 21:17–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Puyravaud JP (2003) Standardizing the calculation of the annual rate of deforestation. Forest Ecology and Management 177:593–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 428:640–643

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 34:218–223

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 136:584–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:352–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 44:352–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 142:2122–2130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 58:550–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanley P, Rodrigues-Gaia G (2002) Equitable ecology: collaborative learning for local benefit in Amazonia. Agricultural Systems 73:83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Ramos CA et al (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440:520–523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 107:10821–10826

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Oxford

  • 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 3:1047–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPDA (2011) Iniciativa para la Conservación Privada y Comunal. Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA). http://www.conservacionprivada.org/. Accessed on 20 Dec 2011

  • Swenson JJ, Carter CE, Domec JC, Delgado CI (2011) Gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon: global prices, deforestation, and mercury imports. PLoS One 6:e18875

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Werf GR, Morton DC, DeFries RS, Olivier JGJ, Kasibhatla PS, Jackson RB et al (2009) CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience 2:737–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu DW, Levi T, Shepard GH (2010) Conservation in low-governance environments. Biotropica 42:569–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanutto E (2006) A comparison of propensity score and linear regression analysis of complex survey data. Journal of Data Science 4:67–91

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Proforest, South Suite, Frewin Chambers, Frewin Court, Oxford, OX1 3HZ, UK

    Anni Johanna Vuohelainen

  2. School of Geography, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

    Anni Johanna Vuohelainen

  3. School of Geography, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

    Lauren Coad, Toby R. Marthews & Yadvinder Malhi

  4. Conservation International, Washington, DC, USA

    Timothy J. Killeen

Authors
  1. Anni Johanna Vuohelainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren Coad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Toby R. Marthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yadvinder Malhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timothy J. Killeen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anni Johanna Vuohelainen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vuohelainen, A.J., Coad, L., Marthews, T.R. et al. The Effectiveness of Contrasting Protected Areas in Preventing Deforestation in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environmental Management 50, 645–663 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9901-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9901-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation