ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022
Improving protected area effectiveness through consideration of different human-pressure baselines.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Threat reduction must be coupled with targeted recovery programmes to conserve global bird diversity.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- Fish diversity of Colombian Andes-Amazon streams at the end of conflict is a reference for conservation before increased land use.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Protection Effectiveness of Natural Protected Areas on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Based on Ecosystem Services.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Improving protected area effectiveness through consideration of different human-pressure baselines.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous assessments of the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) focused primarily on changes in human pressure over time and did not consider the different human-pressure baselines of PAs, thereby potentially over- or underestimating PA effectiveness. We developed a framework that considers both human-pressure baseline and change in human pressure over time and assessed the effectiveness of 338 PAs in China from 2010 to 2020. The initial state of human pressure on PAs was taken as the baseline, and changes in human pressure index (HPI) were further analyzed under different baselines. We used the random forest models to identify the management measures that most improved effectiveness in resisting human pressure for the PAs with different baselines. Finally, the relationships between the changes in the HPI and the changes in natural ecosystems in PAs were analyzed with different baselines. Of PAs with low HPI baselines, medium HPI baselines, and high HPI baselines, 76.92% (n=150), 11.11% (n=12), and 22.86% (n=8) , respectively, showed positive effects in resisting human pressure. Overall, ignoring human-pressure baselines somewhat underestimated the positive effects of PAs, especially for those with low initial human pressure. For PAs with different initial human pressures, different management measures should be taken to improve effectiveness and reduce threats to natural ecosystems. We believe our framework is useful for assessing the effectiveness of PAs globally, and we recommend it be included in the Convention on Biological Diversity Post-2020 Strategy.
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.