ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Assessment of the Ecological Protection Effectiveness of Protected Areas Using Propensity Score Matching: A Case Study in Sichuan, China.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. 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.
- Effectiveness of China's Protected Areas in Mitigating Human Activity Pressure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protected areas constitute a global strategic resource for enhancing the effectiveness of ecological protection, which can alleviate the impact of unsustainable human production and living activities on the ecological environment. However, the spatiotemporal evolution of ecological protection effectiveness needs to be quantitatively revealed. The net primary productivity (NPP) of plants is an important measure of the effectiveness of ecological protection efforts. The main purpose of this study is to use the relative change in the annual average NPP to evaluate the ecological protection effectiveness of protected areas. We compared the historical changes in the annual average NPP of protected areas in Sichuan Province from 2000 to 2019. We added the spatial coordinates to the impact factor system and adopted propensity score matching (PSM) in a quasi-natural experimental method to determine the experimental group and the control group. The ecological protection effectiveness of the protected areas in the study area in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 was measured and classified into three types of changes in protection effectiveness, namely effective, ineffective, or fluctuating. According to the administrative level, type, and spatial distribution, we determined the number and type of changes in the protection effectiveness of different protected areas. The results show that the annual average NPP of the protected areas in Sichuan Province generally fluctuated. The annual average NPP increased in 95.47% of the total protected area and decreased in 4.53%. The overall protection effectiveness of protected areas was positive and significant and gradually improved. Effective protected areas at the national, provincial, and county levels accounted for 40.27% of the total number of protected areas, and the other 14.77% of effective protected area was managed at other administrative levels. Among the different types of protected areas, the proportion of effective protected areas was highest in wild animal protected areas, followed by forest ecology protected areas, wild plant protected areas, and wetland ecology protected areas. The results of this study can provide an important reference for the verification and improvement of the ecological protection effectiveness of various protected areas.
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.