Cargando…

Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness

Estimating the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) in reducing deforestation is useful to support decisions on whether to invest in better management of areas already protected or to create new ones. Statistical matching is commonly used to assess this effectiveness, but spatial autocorrelation a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Negret, Pablo Jose, Marco, Moreno Di, Sonter, Laura J., Rhodes, Jonathan, Possingham, Hugh P., Maron, Martine
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885028/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32343014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13522
_version_ 1783651532755959808
author Negret, Pablo Jose
Marco, Moreno Di
Sonter, Laura J.
Rhodes, Jonathan
Possingham, Hugh P.
Maron, Martine
author_facet Negret, Pablo Jose
Marco, Moreno Di
Sonter, Laura J.
Rhodes, Jonathan
Possingham, Hugh P.
Maron, Martine
author_sort Negret, Pablo Jose
collection PubMed
description Estimating the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) in reducing deforestation is useful to support decisions on whether to invest in better management of areas already protected or to create new ones. Statistical matching is commonly used to assess this effectiveness, but spatial autocorrelation and regional differences in protection effectiveness are frequently overlooked. Using Colombia as a case study, we employed statistical matching to account for confounding factors in park location and accounted for for spatial autocorrelation to determine statistical significance. We compared the performance of different matching procedures—ways of generating matching pairs at different scales—in estimating PA effectiveness. Differences in matching procedures affected covariate similarity between matched pairs (balance) and estimates of PA effectiveness in reducing deforestation. Independent matching yielded the greatest balance. On average 95% of variables in each region were balanced with independent matching, whereas 33% of variables were balanced when using the method that performed worst. The best estimates suggested that average deforestation inside protected areas in Colombia was 40% lower than in matched sites. Protection significantly reduced deforestation, but PA effectiveness differed among regions. Protected areas in Caribe were the most effective, whereas those in Orinoco and Pacific were least effective. Our results demonstrate that accounting for spatial autocorrelation and using independent matching for each subset of data is needed to infer the effectiveness of protection in reducing deforestation. Not accounting for spatial autocorrelation can distort the assessment of protection effectiveness, increasing type I and II errors and inflating effect size. Our method allowed improved estimates of protection effectiveness across scales and under different conditions and can be applied to other regions to effectively assess PA performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7885028
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78850282021-02-19 Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness Negret, Pablo Jose Marco, Moreno Di Sonter, Laura J. Rhodes, Jonathan Possingham, Hugh P. Maron, Martine Conserv Biol Contributed Papers Estimating the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) in reducing deforestation is useful to support decisions on whether to invest in better management of areas already protected or to create new ones. Statistical matching is commonly used to assess this effectiveness, but spatial autocorrelation and regional differences in protection effectiveness are frequently overlooked. Using Colombia as a case study, we employed statistical matching to account for confounding factors in park location and accounted for for spatial autocorrelation to determine statistical significance. We compared the performance of different matching procedures—ways of generating matching pairs at different scales—in estimating PA effectiveness. Differences in matching procedures affected covariate similarity between matched pairs (balance) and estimates of PA effectiveness in reducing deforestation. Independent matching yielded the greatest balance. On average 95% of variables in each region were balanced with independent matching, whereas 33% of variables were balanced when using the method that performed worst. The best estimates suggested that average deforestation inside protected areas in Colombia was 40% lower than in matched sites. Protection significantly reduced deforestation, but PA effectiveness differed among regions. Protected areas in Caribe were the most effective, whereas those in Orinoco and Pacific were least effective. Our results demonstrate that accounting for spatial autocorrelation and using independent matching for each subset of data is needed to infer the effectiveness of protection in reducing deforestation. Not accounting for spatial autocorrelation can distort the assessment of protection effectiveness, increasing type I and II errors and inflating effect size. Our method allowed improved estimates of protection effectiveness across scales and under different conditions and can be applied to other regions to effectively assess PA performance. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-08-13 2020-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7885028/ /pubmed/32343014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13522 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Contributed Papers
Negret, Pablo Jose
Marco, Moreno Di
Sonter, Laura J.
Rhodes, Jonathan
Possingham, Hugh P.
Maron, Martine
Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness
title Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness
title_full Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness
title_fullStr Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness
title_full_unstemmed Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness
title_short Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness
title_sort effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness
topic Contributed Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885028/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32343014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13522
work_keys_str_mv AT negretpablojose effectsofspatialautocorrelationandsamplingdesignonestimatesofprotectedareaeffectiveness
AT marcomorenodi effectsofspatialautocorrelationandsamplingdesignonestimatesofprotectedareaeffectiveness
AT sonterlauraj effectsofspatialautocorrelationandsamplingdesignonestimatesofprotectedareaeffectiveness
AT rhodesjonathan effectsofspatialautocorrelationandsamplingdesignonestimatesofprotectedareaeffectiveness
AT possinghamhughp effectsofspatialautocorrelationandsamplingdesignonestimatesofprotectedareaeffectiveness
AT maronmartine effectsofspatialautocorrelationandsamplingdesignonestimatesofprotectedareaeffectiveness