Abstract
AbstractAimThe establishment of protected areas is among the most widespread responses to mitigate species loss. Although protected areas are often assumed to have conservation benefits, negative impacts have also been documented. One potential negative outcome is leakage, whereby protected areas displace land‐use activities harmful to conservation into adjacent areas. This can undermine protection by accelerating loss of species or skewing judgements of effectiveness. This study assessed the prevalence of deforestation leakage in a pan‐tropical and subtropical selection of 120 protected areas.LocationTropical and subtropical forest regions of America, Africa and Asia.Time period2001–2017.Major taxa studiedThreatened species of amphibians, birds and terrestrial mammals.MethodsWe used Global Forest Change data to assess the average yearly rate of deforestation in protected areas, protected area buffer zones and statistically matched, unprotected control areas. We calculated and compared irreplaceability of habitat for threatened amphibian, bird and terrestrial mammal species between protected areas and buffer zones.ResultsIn 55 cases, deforestation rates were higher in buffer zones than in protected and control areas, suggesting a relatively high prevalence of deforestation leakage stemming from protected areas. In 78.2% of documented leakage cases, reduced deforestation in protected areas was not sufficient to offset the amount of deforestation in 10 km buffer zones to a level that would be expected without protection. In 90.9% of leakage cases, the irreplaceability of species in the 10 km buffer zone was greater than that of the protected area, implying a negative impact of leakage on threatened species.Main conclusionsThe results suggest that protected areas are generally effective at preventing deforestation within their jurisdiction; however, leakage patterns can undermine conservation success because buffer zones often contain habitat for threatened species. We recommend accounting for the possibility of leakage when designing new protected areas and networks.
Highlights
Protected areas (PAs) are a cornerstone of efforts to conserve species and natural resources throughout the world (Chape, Spalding, & Jenkins, 2008)
In 55 cases, deforestation rates were higher in buffer zones than in protected and control areas, suggesting a relatively high prevalence of deforestation leakage stemming from protected areas
In 78.2% of documented leakage cases, reduced deforestation in protected areas was not sufficient to offset the amount of deforestation in 10 km buffer zones to a level that would be expected without protection
Summary
Protected areas (PAs) are a cornerstone of efforts to conserve species and natural resources throughout the world (Chape, Spalding, & Jenkins, 2008). Several studies have shown that PAs are an effective means of conservation of biodiversity (Bruner, Gullison, Rice, & Da Fonseca, 2001; Coetzee, Gaston, & Chown, 2014; Geldmann et al, 2013; Gray et al, 2016; Nagendra, 2008; Nelson & Chomitz, 2009) They can result in unintended consequences that undermine conservation efforts (Bode, Tulloch, Mills, Venter, & Ando, 2015; Pfeifer et al, 2012; Renwick, Bode, & Venter, 2015; Visconti et al, 2019). This study advances previous efforts by using propensity score matching to quantify and analyse deforestation leakage surrounding tropical and subtropical PAs. The objective of this study was to identify cases of deforestation leakage in a pan-tropical and subtropical selection of 120 PAs by comparing deforestation rates among PAs, unprotected PA buffer zones and unprotected control areas. We sought to assess the impact of deforestation leakage from PAs across extensive areas and to assess the main drivers of deforestation in buffer zones of PAs with deforestation leakage
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
