Show simple item record

dc.description.abstractNational parks and other protected areas are at the forefront of global efforts to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, not all protection is equal. Some areas are assigned strict legal protection that permits few extractive human uses. Other protected area designations permit a wider range of uses. Whether strictly protected areas are more effective in achieving environmental objectives is an empirical question: although strictly protected areas legally permit less anthropogenic disturbance, the social conflicts associated with assigning strict protection may lead politicians to assign strict protection to less-threatened areas and may lead citizens or enforcement agents to ignore the strict legal restrictions. We contrast the impacts of strictly and less strictly protected areas in four countries using IUCN designations to measure de jure strictness, data on deforestation to measure outcomes, and a quasi-experimental design to estimate impacts. On average, stricter protection reduced deforestation rates more than less strict protection, but the additional impact was not always large and sometimes arose because of where stricter protection was assigned rather than regulatory strictness per se. We also show that, in protected area studies contrasting y management regimes, there are y2 policy-relevant impacts, rather than only y, as earlier studies have implied.eng
dc.relation.ispartofEnvironmental Research Letters. Vol.8(2), 2013, pp.025011 (7pp)spa
dc.rightsContent from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and
dc.sourceEnvironmental Research Letters. Vol.8(2), 2013, pp.025011 (7pp)spa
dc.titleMore strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailandeng
dc.subject.keywordimpact evaluationeng
dc.subject.keywordtreatment effectseng
dc.subject.keywordsustainable useeng
dc.subject.keywordintegrated management.eng
dc.rights.localAcceso restringidospa
dc.type.hasVersionObra publicadaspa
dc.contributor.departmentEscuela de Economía y Finanzasspa
dc.contributor.authorFerraro, Paul Jspa
dc.contributor.authorHanauer, Merlin Mspa
dc.contributor.authorMiteva, Daniela Aspa
dc.contributor.authorCanavire-Bacarreza, Gustavo Javierspa
dc.contributor.authorPattanayak Subhrendu Kspa
dc.contributor.authorE Sims, Katharine
dc.citation.journalTitleEnvironmental Research Letterseng
dc.citation.spage025011 (7pp)
dc.contributor.affiliationDepartment of Economics, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USAspa
dc.contributor.affiliationDepartment of Economics, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, USAspa
dc.contributor.affiliationDuke University, Durham, NC, USAspa
dc.contributor.affiliationCentro de Investigaciones Económicas y Financieras—CIEF, Escuela de Economía y Finanzas, Universidad EAFIT, Medellín, Colombiaspa
dc.contributor.affiliationDuke University, Durham, NC, USAspa
dc.contributor.affiliationDepartment of Economics and Environmental Studies Program, Amherst College, Amherst, MA, USAspa
dc.contributor.programEstudios en Economía y Empresaspa

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record