The effect of protected areas on forest disturbance in the Carpathian Mountains 1985–2010
The effect of protected areas on forest disturbance in the Carpathian Mountains 1985–2010
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/cobi.12835
复制
发表时间：
2017-06
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
V. Butsic;Catalina Munteanu;P. Griffiths;J. Knorn;V. Radeloff;J. Lieskovský;D. Mueller;T. Kuemmerle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
V. Butsic;Catalina Munteanu;P. Griffiths;J. Knorn;V. Radeloff;J. Lieskovský;D. Mueller;T. Kuemmerle
保护区是森林保护的基石，但在社会经济和体制危机时期它们并不总是有效。东欧的喀尔巴阡山脉是一个生态优越的地区，拥有广泛的半自然和古老森林。自 1990 年以来，喀尔巴阡山脉国家（捷克共和国、匈牙利、波兰、罗马尼亚、斯洛伐克和乌克兰）经历了经济困难和制度变革，包括社会主义崩溃、加入欧盟和保护区迅速扩大。问题是，考虑到这些变化，喀尔巴阡山脉各个时期的保护区有效性有何变化。我们分析了 1985 年至 2010 年基于卫星的森林干扰数据集（即由于采伐或自然干扰造成的森林损失），并使用匹配统计数据和固定效应估计量来量化保护对森林干扰的影响。捷克共和国、斯洛伐克和乌克兰的保护区内的森林砍伐在某些时期明显少于保护区外；干扰的可能性降低了 1-5%。这些国家的保护有效性随着时间的推移而增强，而罗马尼亚的情况则相反。较旧的保护区在罗马尼亚和匈牙利最有效，但较新的保护区在捷克共和国和波兰更有效。严格的保护（国际自然保护联盟[IUCN]保护类别Ia-II）并不比景观级别保护（IUCN III-VI）更有效。我们认为，机构的实力、森林私有化、森林管理、保护区的事先分配以及各国加入欧盟的时间的差异，可以解释各国之间显着不同的有效性模式。我们的研究结果强调了保护区在广泛范围内的影响有多么不同，表明保护区的有效性随着时间和空间的推移是短暂的，并表明对保护区有效性的概括可能会产生误导。
Protected areas are a cornerstone for forest protection, but they are not always effective during times of socioeconomic and institutional crises. The Carpathian Mountains in Eastern Europe are an ecologically outstanding region, with widespread seminatural and old‐growth forest. Since 1990, Carpathian countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine) have experienced economic hardship and institutional changes, including the breakdown of socialism, European Union accession, and a rapid expansion of protected areas. The question is how protected‐area effectiveness has varied during these times across the Carpathians given these changes. We analyzed a satellite‐based data set of forest disturbance (i.e., forest loss due to harvesting or natural disturbances) from 1985 to 2010 and used matching statistics and a fixed‐effects estimator to quantify the effect of protection on forest disturbance. Protected areas in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and the Ukraine had significantly less deforestation inside protected areas than outside in some periods; the likelihood of disturbance was reduced by 1–5%. The effectiveness of protection increased over time in these countries, whereas the opposite was true in Romania. Older protected areas were most effective in Romania and Hungary, but newer protected areas were more effective in Czech Republic, and Poland. Strict protection (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] protection category Ia‐II) was not more effective than landscape‐level protection (IUCN III‐VI). We suggest that the strength of institutions, the differences in forest privatization, forest management, prior distribution of protected areas, and when countries joined the European Union may provide explanations for the strikingly heterogeneous effectiveness patterns among countries. Our results highlight how different the effects of protected areas can be at broad scales, indicating that the effectiveness of protected areas is transitory over time and space and suggesting that generalizations about the effectiveness of protected areas can be misleading.