The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Protected areas: mixed success in conserving east Africa’s evergreen forests

Protected areas: mixed success in conserving east Africa’s evergreen forests
Protected areas: mixed success in conserving east Africa’s evergreen forests
In East Africa, human population growth and demands for natural resources cause forest loss contributing to increased carbon emissions and reduced biodiversity. Protected Areas (PAs) are intended to conserve habitats and species. Variability in PA effectiveness and ‘leakage’ (here defined as displacement of deforestation) may lead to different trends in forest loss within, and adjacent to, existing PAs. Here, we quantify spatial variation in trends of evergreen forest coverage in East Africa between 2001 and 2009, and test for correlations with forest accessibility and environmental drivers. We investigate PA effectiveness at local, landscape and national scales, comparing rates of deforestation within park boundaries with those detected in park buffer zones and in unprotected land more generally. Background forest loss (BFL) was estimated at ?9.3% (17,167 km2), but varied between countries (range: ?0.9% to ?85.7%; note: no BFL in South Sudan). We document high variability in PA effectiveness within and between PA categories. The most successful PAs were National Parks, although only 26 out of 48 parks increased or maintained their forest area (i.e. Effective parks). Forest Reserves (Ineffective parks, i.e. parks that lose forest from within boundaries: 204 out of 337), Nature Reserves (six out of 12) and Game Parks (24 out of 26) were more likely to lose forest cover. Forest loss in buffer zones around PAs exceeded background forest loss, in some areas indicating leakage driven by Effective National Parks. Human pressure, forest accessibility, protection status, distance to fires and long-term annual rainfall were highly significant drivers of forest loss in East Africa. Some of these factors can be addressed by adjusting park management. However, addressing close links between livelihoods, natural capital and poverty remains a fundamental challenge in East Africa’s forest conservation efforts
1932-6203
e39337-[10pp]
Pfeifer, Marion
56735a68-1c0c-4bcf-9f63-a17be906d9a9
Burgess, Neil D.
c56742a9-4441-4c6e-92e7-fb69c487ee54
Swetnam, Ruth D.
15cac81f-891a-4d4e-898e-6c9bddf25113
Platts, Philip J.
a389d869-ad8d-4904-a983-234d324bafc4
Willcock, Simon
89d9767e-8076-4b21-be9d-a964f5cc85d7
Marchant, Robert
cf4caf04-342c-4df0-b4f0-0784667f6915
Pfeifer, Marion
56735a68-1c0c-4bcf-9f63-a17be906d9a9
Burgess, Neil D.
c56742a9-4441-4c6e-92e7-fb69c487ee54
Swetnam, Ruth D.
15cac81f-891a-4d4e-898e-6c9bddf25113
Platts, Philip J.
a389d869-ad8d-4904-a983-234d324bafc4
Willcock, Simon
89d9767e-8076-4b21-be9d-a964f5cc85d7
Marchant, Robert
cf4caf04-342c-4df0-b4f0-0784667f6915

Pfeifer, Marion, Burgess, Neil D., Swetnam, Ruth D., Platts, Philip J., Willcock, Simon and Marchant, Robert (2012) Protected areas: mixed success in conserving east Africa’s evergreen forests. PLoS ONE, 7 (6), e39337-[10pp]. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039337).

Record type: Article

Abstract

In East Africa, human population growth and demands for natural resources cause forest loss contributing to increased carbon emissions and reduced biodiversity. Protected Areas (PAs) are intended to conserve habitats and species. Variability in PA effectiveness and ‘leakage’ (here defined as displacement of deforestation) may lead to different trends in forest loss within, and adjacent to, existing PAs. Here, we quantify spatial variation in trends of evergreen forest coverage in East Africa between 2001 and 2009, and test for correlations with forest accessibility and environmental drivers. We investigate PA effectiveness at local, landscape and national scales, comparing rates of deforestation within park boundaries with those detected in park buffer zones and in unprotected land more generally. Background forest loss (BFL) was estimated at ?9.3% (17,167 km2), but varied between countries (range: ?0.9% to ?85.7%; note: no BFL in South Sudan). We document high variability in PA effectiveness within and between PA categories. The most successful PAs were National Parks, although only 26 out of 48 parks increased or maintained their forest area (i.e. Effective parks). Forest Reserves (Ineffective parks, i.e. parks that lose forest from within boundaries: 204 out of 337), Nature Reserves (six out of 12) and Game Parks (24 out of 26) were more likely to lose forest cover. Forest loss in buffer zones around PAs exceeded background forest loss, in some areas indicating leakage driven by Effective National Parks. Human pressure, forest accessibility, protection status, distance to fires and long-term annual rainfall were highly significant drivers of forest loss in East Africa. Some of these factors can be addressed by adjusting park management. However, addressing close links between livelihoods, natural capital and poverty remains a fundamental challenge in East Africa’s forest conservation efforts

Other
fetchObject.action_uri=info_doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039337&representation=PDF - Version of Record
Available under License Other.
Download (1MB)

More information

Published date: 29 June 2012
Organisations: Environmental

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 342530
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/342530
ISSN: 1932-6203
PURE UUID: ffdbf10f-b564-4463-8ac5-0311532f579c

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 Sep 2012 11:07
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 11:53

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Marion Pfeifer
Author: Neil D. Burgess
Author: Ruth D. Swetnam
Author: Philip J. Platts
Author: Simon Willcock
Author: Robert Marchant

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×