↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Protection Reduces Loss of Natural Land-Cover at Sites of Conservation Importance across Africa

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Protection Reduces Loss of Natural Land-Cover at Sites of Conservation Importance across Africa
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0065370
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison E. Beresford, George W. Eshiamwata, Paul F. Donald, Andrew Balmford, Bastian Bertzky, Andreas B. Brink, Lincoln D. C. Fishpool, Philippe Mayaux, Ben Phalan, Dario Simonetti, Graeme M. Buchanan

Abstract

There is an emerging consensus that protected areas are key in reducing adverse land-cover change, but their efficacy remains difficult to quantify. Many previous assessments of protected area effectiveness have compared changes between sets of protected and unprotected sites that differ systematically in other potentially confounding respects (e.g. altitude, accessibility), have considered only forest loss or changes at single sites, or have analysed changes derived from land-cover data of low spatial resolution. We assessed the effectiveness of protection in reducing land-cover change in Important Bird Areas (IBAs) across Africa using a dedicated visual interpretation of higher resolution satellite imagery. We compared rates of change in natural land-cover over a c. 20-year period from around 1990 at a large number of points across 45 protected IBAs to those from 48 unprotected IBAs. A matching algorithm was used to select sample points to control for potentially confounding differences between protected and unprotected IBAs. The rate of loss of natural land-cover at sample points within protected IBAs was just 42% of that at matched points in unprotected IBAs. Conversion was especially marked in forests, but protection reduced rates of forest loss by a similar relative amount. Rates of conversion increased from the centre to the edges of both protected and unprotected IBAs, but rates of loss in 20-km buffer zones surrounding protected IBAs and unprotected IBAs were similar, with no evidence of displacement of conversion from within protected areas to their immediate surrounds (leakage).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
Italy 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 108 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 24%
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 7 6%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 38 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 33%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 23 20%