ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024
The role of funding in the performance of Latin America's protected areas.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential of different area-based governance mechanisms for achieving Global Biodiversity Framework goals.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The Effects of Land Management Policies on the Environment and People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- PROTOCOL: The Effects of Land Management Policies on the Environment and People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Evaluating protected areas' coverage of threats to terrestrial biodiversity.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conservationists have long argued that inadequate funding for managing protected areas (PAs) jeopardizes their ability to achieve conservation goals. However, this claim has rarely been substantiated by quantitative evaluations. To address this, we examined the impact of funding on PA effectiveness both at the scale of 17 national PA systems across Latin America and within a PA system (Ecuador), for which we had precise historical financial data. Most PAs reduced deforestation between 2000 and 2010, demonstrating their crucial role in forest conservation. However, large deficits in funding considerably reduced the effectiveness of PAs in Ecuador (on average, a unit decrease in deficit leads to a 3.07% increase in effectiveness in avoiding deforestation). While differences in effectiveness between individual PAs in Ecuador were associated with funding deficits, national-level socioeconomic metrics (e.g., the Human Development Index) were the major factor when comparing PA system-level effectiveness among countries. This result suggests that while funding plays a major role in the performance of individual PAs, the quality of the socioeconomic context at the country level is critical for the overall performance of the PA systems. We, therefore, emphasize that maximizing the effectiveness of PAs requires a multilevel approach that includes better and more strategic resource allocation for individual PAs, combined with actions for strengthening the governance and institutions that regulate PA systems.
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.