ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2024
Global drivers of mangrove loss in protected areas.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual-constraint spatial planning unlocks proactive blue carbon expansion across China's coastlines.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2026Article
- Safeguarding climate-resilient mangroves requires only a moderate increase in the global protected area.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Global drivers of mangrove loss in protected areas.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increasing efforts and investment in mangrove conservation, mangrove cover continues to decline globally. The extent to which protected area (PA) management effectively prevents mangrove loss globally across differing management objectives and governance types is not well understood. We combined remote sensing data with PA information to identify the extent and the drivers of mangrove loss across PAs with distinct governance types and protection levels based on categories developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Mangrove loss due to storms and erosion was prevalent across all governance types and most IUCN categories. However, the extent of human-driven loss differed across governance types and IUCN categories. Loss was highest in national government PAs. Private, local, shared arrangement, and subnational government agencies had low human-driven mangrove loss. Human-driven loss was highest in PAs with the highest level of restrictions on human activities (IUCN category I) due to mangrove conversion to areas for commodity production (e.g., aquaculture), whereas PAs that allowed sustainable resource use (e.g., category VI) experienced low levels of human-driven mangrove loss. Because category I PAs with high human-driven loss were primarily governed by national government agencies, conservation outcomes in highly PAs might depend not only on the level of restrictions, but also on the governance type. Mangrove loss across different governance types and IUCN categories varied regionally. Specific governance types and IUCN categories thus seemed more effective in preventing mangrove loss in certain regions. Overall, we found that natural drivers contributed to global mangrove loss across all PAs, whereas human-driven mangrove loss was lowest in PAs with subnational- to local-level governance and PAs with few restrictions on human activities.
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.