A Global Analysis of Deforestation in Moist Tropical Forest Protected Areas.
A Global Analysis of Deforestation in Moist Tropical Forest Protected Areas.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0143886
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Spracklen DV
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Spracklen BD;Kalamandeen M;Galbraith D;Gloor E;Spracklen DV
已经建立了保护区来保护热带森林，但它们在减少森林砍伐方面的有效性尚不确定。为了探索这个问题，我们将2000-2012年期间全球森林损失的高分辨率数据与保护区数据相结合。对于每个PA，我们量化了PA内的森林损失，在PA边界外1公里，5公里，10公里和15公里的缓冲区，以及PA边界内1公里的缓冲区。我们分析了4大洲56个国家的3376个热带和亚热带潮湿森林保护区。我们发现，73%的保护区经历了巨大的森林砍伐压力，在外部1 km缓冲区内，a-1森林损失>0.1%。保护区内的森林损失最大的是亚洲（0.25% a-1），而非洲（0.1% a-1）、新热带地区（0.1% a-1）和澳大拉西亚（澳大利亚和巴布亚新几内亚; 0.03% a-1）。我们将PA的性能（P）定义为内部1 km缓冲区的森林损失与没有PA时发生的损失的比率，计算为外部1 km缓冲区的损失，校正了两个缓冲区之间的森林砍伐压力差异。为了消除地形造成的潜在偏差，我们分析了一个PA子集（n = 1804），其中内外1 km缓冲区的坡度和海拔相似（分别在1°和100 m范围内）。我们发现，与预期的内部缓冲区森林损失相比，该子集中41%的PA将内部缓冲区的森林损失减少了至少25%（P<0.75）。子集保护区的中位表现（）为0.87，这意味着PA内的森林损失减少了13%。我们发现PA在澳大拉西亚（）最有效，在新热带（）和非洲（）中等成功，但在亚洲（）无效。我们发现，许多国家的保护区对森林流失几乎没有保护，特别是在亚洲、西非和中美洲的部分地区。在整个热带地区，保护区在国家一级的平均有效性随着人均国内生产总值的提高而提高。虽然热带和亚热带潮湿森林保护区确实减少了森林损失，但差异很大的表现表明，特别是在亚洲，改善保护的机会很大。
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 () 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 (), moderately successful in the Neotropics () and Africa (), but ineffective in Asia (). 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.