ArticleEnvironmental management2014
Implications of spatial data variations for protected areas management: an example from East Africa.
Article in Environmental management, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geographic information systems and remote sensing technologies have become an important tool for visualizing conservation management and developing solutions to problems associated with conservation. When multiple organizations separately develop spatial data representations of protected areas, implicit error arises due to variation between data sets. We used boundary data produced by three conservation organizations (International Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Resource Institute, and Uganda Wildlife Authority), for seven Ugandan parks, to study variation in the size represented and the location of boundaries. We found variation in the extent of overlapping total area encompassed by the three data sources, ranging from miniscule (0.4 %) differences to quite large ones (9.0 %). To underscore how protected area boundary discrepancies may have implications to protected area management, we used a landcover classification, defining crop, shrub, forest, savanna, and grassland. The total area in the different landcover classes varied most in smaller protected areas (those less than 329 km(2)), with forest and cropland area estimates varying up to 65 %. The discrepancies introduced by boundary errors could, in this hypothetical case, generate erroneous findings and could have a significant impact on conservation, such as local-scale management for encroachment and larger-scale assessments of deforestation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25022887What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.