Literature DB >> 21902720

A spatially explicit estimate of avoided forest loss.

Jordi Honey-Rosés1, Kathy Baylis, M Isabel Ramírez.   

Abstract

With the potential expansion of forest conservation programs spurred by climate-change agreements, there is a need to measure the extent to which such programs achieve their intended results. Conventional methods for evaluating conservation impact tend to be biased because they do not compare like areas or account for spatial relations. We assessed the effect of a conservation initiative that combined designation of protected areas with payments for environmental services to conserve over wintering habitat for the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in Mexico. To do so, we used a spatial-matching estimator that matches covariates among polygons and their neighbors. We measured avoided forest loss (avoided disturbance and deforestation) by comparing forest cover on protected and unprotected lands that were similar in terms of accessibility, governance, and forest type. Whereas conventional estimates of avoided forest loss suggest that conservation initiatives did not protect forest cover, we found evidence that the conservation measures are preserving forest cover. We found that the conservation measures protected between 200 ha and 710 ha (3-16%) of forest that is high-quality habitat for monarch butterflies, but had a smaller effect on total forest cover, preserving between 0 ha and 200 ha (0-2.5%) of forest with canopy cover >70%. We suggest that future estimates of avoided forest loss be analyzed spatially to account for how forest loss occurs across the landscape. Given the forthcoming demand from donors and carbon financiers for estimates of avoided forest loss, we anticipate our methods and results will contribute to future studies that estimate the outcome of conservation efforts. ©2011 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21902720     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01729.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  14 in total

1.  Self-selection into payments for ecosystem services programs.

Authors:  B Kelsey Jack; Seema Jayachandran
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Payment for Environmental Services: Hypotheses and Evidence.

Authors:  Lee J Alston; Krister Andersson; Steven M Smith
Journal:  Annu Rev Resour Economics       Date:  2013-06-01

3.  Evaluating heterogeneous conservation effects of forest protection in Indonesia.

Authors:  Payal Shah; Kathy Baylis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Naming and Shaming for Conservation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon.

Authors:  Elías Cisneros; Sophie Lian Zhou; Jan Börner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  How effective are biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico?

Authors:  Sébastien Costedoat; Esteve Corbera; Driss Ezzine-de-Blas; Jordi Honey-Rosés; Kathy Baylis; Miguel Angel Castillo-Santiago
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Post-crackdown effectiveness of field-based forest law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon.

Authors:  Jan Börner; Krisztina Kis-Katos; Jorge Hargrave; Konstantin König
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges.

Authors:  Gwenolé Le Velly; Céline Dutilly
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Emerging Evidence on the Effectiveness of Tropical Forest Conservation.

Authors:  Jan Börner; Kathy Baylis; Esteve Corbera; Driss Ezzine-de-Blas; Paul J Ferraro; Jordi Honey-Rosés; Renaud Lapeyre; U Martin Persson; Sven Wunder
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services.

Authors:  Driss Ezzine-de-Blas; Sven Wunder; Manuel Ruiz-Pérez; Rocio Del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Estimating the Counterfactual Impact of Conservation Programs on Land Cover Outcomes: The Role of Matching and Panel Regression Techniques.

Authors:  Kelly W Jones; David J Lewis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.