改善印度尼西亚保护区的福祉并减少毁林现象

IF 7.7 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Letters Pub Date : 2024-03-06 DOI:10.1111/conl.13010
Courtney Leslie Morgans, Sophie Jago, Noviar Andayani, Matthew Linkie, Michaela G. Y. Lo, Sonny Mumbunan, Freya A. V. St. John, Jatna Supriatna, Maria Voigt, Nurul L. Winarni, Truly Santika, Matthew J. Struebig
{"title":"改善印度尼西亚保护区的福祉并减少毁林现象","authors":"Courtney Leslie Morgans,&nbsp;Sophie Jago,&nbsp;Noviar Andayani,&nbsp;Matthew Linkie,&nbsp;Michaela G. Y. Lo,&nbsp;Sonny Mumbunan,&nbsp;Freya A. V. St. John,&nbsp;Jatna Supriatna,&nbsp;Maria Voigt,&nbsp;Nurul L. Winarni,&nbsp;Truly Santika,&nbsp;Matthew J. Struebig","doi":"10.1111/conl.13010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Protected areas (PAs) are central to sustainability targets, yet few evaluations explore outcomes for both conservation and development, or the trade-offs involved. We applied counterfactual analyses to assess the extent to which PAs maintained forest cover and influenced well-being across &gt;31,000 villages in Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia. We examined multidimensional aspects of well-being, tracking education, health, living standards, infrastructure, environment, and social cohesion in treatment and control villages between 2005 and 2018. Overall, PAs were effective at maintaining forest cover compared to matched controls and were not detrimental to well-being. However, impacts were highly heterogeneous, varying by island and strictness of protection. While health, living standards, and infrastructure aspects of well-being improved, education access, environmental conditions, and social cohesion declined. Our analysis reveals the contexts through which individual PAs succeed or fail in delivering multiple benefits and provides insights into where further on-ground support is needed to achieve conservation and development objectives.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"17 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving well-being and reducing deforestation in Indonesia's protected areas\",\"authors\":\"Courtney Leslie Morgans,&nbsp;Sophie Jago,&nbsp;Noviar Andayani,&nbsp;Matthew Linkie,&nbsp;Michaela G. Y. Lo,&nbsp;Sonny Mumbunan,&nbsp;Freya A. V. St. John,&nbsp;Jatna Supriatna,&nbsp;Maria Voigt,&nbsp;Nurul L. Winarni,&nbsp;Truly Santika,&nbsp;Matthew J. Struebig\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/conl.13010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Protected areas (PAs) are central to sustainability targets, yet few evaluations explore outcomes for both conservation and development, or the trade-offs involved. We applied counterfactual analyses to assess the extent to which PAs maintained forest cover and influenced well-being across &gt;31,000 villages in Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia. We examined multidimensional aspects of well-being, tracking education, health, living standards, infrastructure, environment, and social cohesion in treatment and control villages between 2005 and 2018. Overall, PAs were effective at maintaining forest cover compared to matched controls and were not detrimental to well-being. However, impacts were highly heterogeneous, varying by island and strictness of protection. While health, living standards, and infrastructure aspects of well-being improved, education access, environmental conditions, and social cohesion declined. Our analysis reveals the contexts through which individual PAs succeed or fail in delivering multiple benefits and provides insights into where further on-ground support is needed to achieve conservation and development objectives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Letters\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13010\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13010\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13010","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

保护区(PAs)是可持续发展目标的核心,但很少有评估同时探讨保护与发展的结果或其中的权衡。我们采用了反事实分析法来评估保护区在多大程度上维持了森林覆盖率并影响了印度尼西亚苏门答腊岛和加里曼丹岛 31,000 个村庄的福祉。我们考察了福祉的多个维度,追踪了 2005 年至 2018 年间治疗村和对照村的教育、健康、生活水平、基础设施、环境和社会凝聚力。总体而言,与匹配的对照组相比,保护区在维持森林覆盖率方面很有效,而且不会损害福祉。然而,不同的岛屿和不同的保护严格程度会产生不同的影响。虽然健康、生活水平和基础设施方面的福祉有所改善,但教育机会、环境条件和社会凝聚力却有所下降。我们的分析揭示了单个保护区在提供多重效益方面成功或失败的背景,并就实现保护和发展目标所需的进一步实地支持提供了见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving well-being and reducing deforestation in Indonesia's protected areas

Protected areas (PAs) are central to sustainability targets, yet few evaluations explore outcomes for both conservation and development, or the trade-offs involved. We applied counterfactual analyses to assess the extent to which PAs maintained forest cover and influenced well-being across >31,000 villages in Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia. We examined multidimensional aspects of well-being, tracking education, health, living standards, infrastructure, environment, and social cohesion in treatment and control villages between 2005 and 2018. Overall, PAs were effective at maintaining forest cover compared to matched controls and were not detrimental to well-being. However, impacts were highly heterogeneous, varying by island and strictness of protection. While health, living standards, and infrastructure aspects of well-being improved, education access, environmental conditions, and social cohesion declined. Our analysis reveals the contexts through which individual PAs succeed or fail in delivering multiple benefits and provides insights into where further on-ground support is needed to achieve conservation and development objectives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Letters
Conservation Letters BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Conservation Letters is a reputable scientific journal that is devoted to the publication of both empirical and theoretical research that has important implications for the conservation of biological diversity. The journal warmly invites submissions from various disciplines within the biological and social sciences, with a particular interest in interdisciplinary work. The primary aim is to advance both pragmatic conservation objectives and scientific knowledge. Manuscripts are subject to a rapid communication schedule, therefore they should address current and relevant topics. Research articles should effectively communicate the significance of their findings in relation to conservation policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
High Fish Biomass and Low Nutrient Enrichment Synergistically Enhance Stability in a Seagrass Meta-Ecosystem How Do We Identify Anthropogenic Allee Effects in the Wildlife Trade? Hunting for Sustainability: Indigenous Stewardship in the Cofán Territory of Zábalo Collective PES Contracts Can Motivate Institutional Creation to Conserve Forests: Experimental Evidence First Evidence of Individual Sharks Involved in Multiple Predatory Bites on People
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1