ArticleAmbio2021
Strictly protected areas are not necessarily more effective than areas in which multiple human uses are permitted.
Article in Ambio, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial identification of areas suitable for other effective area-based conservation measures in the European Union.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Current protected areas provide limited benefits for European river biodiversity.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Effect of reserve protection level and governance on tree cover loss and gain.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of protected areas in the Caucasus Mountains in preventing rangeland degradation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Access to Assets and Influence: Governance and Livelihoods in Protected Areas of the Annapurna and Everest Regions, Nepal.Human ecology: an interdisciplinary journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Applying deep learning on social media to investigate cultural ecosystem services in protected areas worldwide.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- A landscape persistence-based methodological framework for assessing ecological stability.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2024Article
- An Outcome-Oriented, Social-Ecological Framework for Assessing Protected Area Effectiveness.Bioscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies protected areas into six categories, ranging from strict nature reserves to areas where multiple human uses are permitted. In the past, many researchers have questioned the effectiveness of multiple-use areas, fueling an unresolved debate regarding their conservation value. The literature so far has been inconclusive: although several studies have found that strictly protected areas are more effective, others have found the opposite, and yet others that the two types do not differ. To help resolve this debate, we reviewed the literature on protected areas and conducted our own analysis using > 19 000 terrestrial protected areas worldwide. We found that the differences between strictly protected areas and areas in which multiple human uses are permitted are often small and not statistically significant. Although the effectiveness of protected areas worldwide varies, other factors, besides their assigned IUCN category, are likely to be driving this pattern.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.