Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon
Nature Publishing Group
MetadataShow full item record
Schleicher, J., Peres, C., Amano, T., Llactayo, W., & Leader-Williams, N. (2017). Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Scientific Reports, 7 (11318)https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10736-w
State-controlled protected areas (PAs) have dominated conservation strategies globally, yet their performance relative to other governance regimes is rarely assessed comprehensively. Furthermore, performance indicators of forest PAs are typically restricted to deforestation, although the extent of forest degradation is greater. We address these shortfalls through an empirical impact evaluation of state PAs, Indigenous Territories (ITs), and civil society and private Conservation Concessions (CCs) on deforestation and degradation throughout the Peruvian Amazon. We integrated remote-sensing data with environmental and socio-economic datasets, and used propensity-score matching to assess: (i) how deforestation and degradation varied across governance regimes between 2006–2011; (ii) their proximate drivers; and (iii) whether state PAs, CCs and ITs avoided deforestation and degradation compared with logging and mining concessions, and the unprotected landscape. CCs, state PAs, and ITs all avoided deforestation and degradation compared to analogous areas in the unprotected landscape. CCs and ITs were on average more effective in this respect than state PAs, showing that local governance can be equally or more effective than centralized state regimes. However, there were no consistent differences between conservation governance regimes when matched to logging and mining concessions. Future impact assessments would therefore benefit from further disentangling governance regimes across unprotected land.
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/I019650/1); Cambridge Political Economy Society; Cambridge Philosophical Society; St John’s College; and the Geography Department at the University of Cambridge.
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10736-w
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/267697
Attribution 4.0 International, Attribution 4.0 International, Attribution 4.0 International, Attribution 4.0 International, Attribution 4.0 International
Recommended or similar items
The following licence files are associated with this item: