ArticlePloS one2026
Causal inference in conservation policy: Evaluating the effects of Protected Areas on deforestation and well-being in the Peruvian Amazon.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Peruvian Amazon, one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth, is under increasing pressure from deforestation, threatening both ecological wealth and local livelihoods. Protected Areas (PAs) have emerged as one of the main conservation strategies; however, questions remain regarding their effectiveness in reducing deforestation and their socioeconomic impact. This study evaluates the effects of PAs, their Buffer Zones (BZs), and Regional Conservation Areas (RCAs) on deforestation and household welfare between 2001 and 2023. Using causal inference methods, geographic Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) and staggered Difference-in-Differences (DiD), the analysis integrates high-resolution spatial data on forest loss with georeferenced household information. Results indicate that PAs significantly reduce long-term deforestation by 1.3 to 2.8 ha/km2, while BZs mitigate forest loss by 1.1 to 1.5 ha/km2. However, no significant deforestation effects are observed in the short term. Regarding welfare, households within BZs exhibit lower per capita income and expenditure, particularly near indirect-use PAs. The study also provides exploratory evidence on RCAs, a category rarely examined in the literature. Although their estimated effects are smaller and not statistically significant, their inclusion highlights the growing role of regional governance in conservation policy. These findings indicate that conservation outcomes strengthen over time and depend on local governance, institutional capacity, and the ability to contain pressures from extractive activities. This research contributes new empirical evidence to inform conservation policy design, emphasizing the need to integrate ecological and social dimensions into Protected Area management.
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.