Assessment of forest conservation in the Cangshan Nature Reserve based on propensity score matching

doi:10.17520/biods.2017086

Abstract

Abstract:

The establishment of protected areas is one of the most common measures of biodiversity conservation. Regular assessment can help improve management and promote conservation in protected areas. According to administrative divisions, we divided the Cangshan Nature Reserve into three parts: Dali City, Eryuan County and Yangbi County, as sub-study areas. The evaluation was based on propensity score matching and paired-samples t-test. Elevation, slope, distance to the nearest settlement, and distance to the nearest road were four chosen covariates. Since the Cangshan Nature Reserve was upgraded to the national level in 1994, we compared forest changes between 1995 and 2015. Partial correlation analysis was carried out between each covariate and forest change to analyze the impact factors. Results indicated that in Dali City, the forest change value inside the Cangshan Nature Reserve was significantly higher than that found outside. Forest coverage inside the Cangshan Nature Reserve in Dali City was the highest among all regions. The forest change rates both inside and outside the Cangshan Nature Reserve in Eryuan County were higher than the other two counties. There was no significant difference in forest change value between areas inside and outside of the nature reserve in Eryuan County. In Yangbi County, the forest change rates both inside and outside of Cangshan Nature Reserve were the lowest among three counties, but the forest change value found within 10 km outside of the nature reserve was significantly higher than that found in areas beyond 10 km, which indicates that the existence of the Cangshan Nature Reserve performed positive neighborhood leakage in surrounding areas within 10 km. The four covariates all affected forest change in different areas in a variety of ways. The propensity score matching and sub-regional methodology for the assessment of the Cangshan Nature Reserve provided a new technical method and example for other conservation assessment studies.

http://jtp.cnki.net/bilingual/detail/html/SWDY201709014

Key words: propensity score matching, neighborhood leakage, assessment of conservation, forest coverage change

Bing Chen, Fangzheng Liu, Yubo Zhang, Jinhong Du, Wei Wang, Junsheng Li. Assessment of forest conservation in the Cangshan Nature Reserve based on propensity score matching[J]. Biodiv Sci, 2017, 25(9): 999-1007.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/10.17520/biods.2017086

https://www.biodiversity-science.net/EN/Y2017/V25/I9/999

Figures/Tables 5

References 38

[1]	Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Robalino J (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected areas networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 16089-16094. DOI URL PMID
[2]	Armsworth PR, Daily GC, Kareiva P, Sanchirico JN (2006) Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 5403-5408. DOI URL PMID
[3]	Brockington D, Igoe J (2006) Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conservation and Society, 4, 424-470.
[4]	Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, da Fonseca GAB (2001) Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science, 291, 125-128. DOI URL PMID
[5]	Caro TM, Gardner TA, Stoner C, Fitzherbert EB, Davenport TRB (2009) Assessing the effectiveness of protected areas: paradoxes call for pluralism in evaluating conservation performance. Diversity and Distributions, 15, 178-182. DOI URL
[6]	Clements T, Suon S, Wilkie DS, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods in Cambodia. World Development, 64, S125-S134. DOI URL
[7]	Coetzee BW, Gaston KJ, Chown SL (2014) Local scale comparisons of biodiversity as a test for global protected area ecological performance: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9, e105824. DOI URL PMID
[8]	Ervin J (2003) Rapid assessment of protected area management effectiveness in four countries. BioScience, 53, 833-841. DOI URL
[9]	Ewers RM, Rodrigues ASL (2008) Estimates of reserve effectiveness are confounded by leakage. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 113-116. DOI URL PMID
[10]	Gaston KJ, Jackson SF, Cantú-salazar G, Cruz-pi?ón G (2008) The ecological performance of protected areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 93-113. DOI URL
[11]	Gaveau DLA, Epting J, Lyne O, Linkie M, Kumara I, Kanninen M, Leader-Williams N (2009) Evaluating whether protected areas reduce tropical deforestation in Sumatra. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 2165-2175. DOI URL
[12]	Geldmann J, Barnes M, Coad L, Craigie ID, Hockings M, Burgess ND (2013) Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation, 161, 230-238. DOI URL
[13]	Hansen BB, Bowers J (2008) Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Statistical Science, 2, 219-236. DOI URL
[14]	Hansen BB, Klopfer SO (2006) Optimal full matching and related designs via network flows. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15, 609-627. DOI URL
[15]	Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA (2011) MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(8), 3-39. DOI URL
[16]	Huang FQ, Du CL, Sun MH, Ning B, Luo Y, An SL (2015) Propensity score matching in SPSS. Journal of Southern Medical University, 35, 1597-1601. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[黄福强, 杜春霖, 孙梦辉, 宁冰, 罗颖, 安胜利 (2015) 倾向评分配比在SPSS软件上的实现. 南方医科大学学报, 35, 1597-1601.] DOI URL
[17]	Imbens G (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 4-29. DOI URL
[18]	Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE, 4, e8273. DOI URL
[19]	Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2010) Reassessing the forest impacts of protection: the challenge of nonrandom location and a corrective method. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 135-149. DOI URL
[20]	Ma KP (2016) On key issues and possible solutions related to nature reserve management in China. Biodiversity Science, 24, 249-251. (in Chinese) DOI URL
	[马克平 (2016) 当前我国自然保护区管理中存在的问题与对策思考. 生物多样性, 24, 249-251.] DOI URL
[21]	Mas JF (2005) Assessing protected area effectiveness using surrounding (buffer) areas environmentally similar to the target area. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 105, 69-80. DOI URL PMID
[22]	Nagendra H (2008) Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio, 37, 330-337. DOI URL PMID
[23]	Naughton-Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K (2005) The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 219-252. DOI URL
[24]	Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B, Santilli M, Ray D, Schlesinger P, Lefebvre P, Alencar A, Prinz E, Fiske G, Rolla A (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology, 20, 65-73. DOI URL PMID
[25]	Pouzols FM, Toivonen T, Minin ED, Kukkala AS, Kullberg P, Kuuster? J, Lehtom?ki J, Tenkanen H, Verburg PH, Moilanen A (2014) Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature, 516, 383-386. DOI URL PMID
[26]	Randolph JJ, Falbe K, Manuel AK, Balloun JL (2014) A step-by-step guide to propensity score matching in R. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19.. (accessed on 2017-03-06)
[27]	Reese HM, Lillesand TM, Nagel DE, Stewart JS, Goldmann RA, Simmons TE, Chipman JW, Tessar PA (2002) Statewide land cover derived from multiseasonal Landsat TM data: a retrospective of the WISCLAND project. Remote Sensing of Environment, 82, 224-237. DOI URL
[28]	Ren GP, Young SS, Wang L, Wang W, Long YC, Wu RD, Li JS, Zhu JG, Yu DW (2015) Effectiveness of China’s national forest protection program and nature reserves. Conservation Biology, 29, 1368-1377. DOI URL PMID
[29]	Shen B (1998) Studies on the resource exploitation and biodiversity conservation in Dali Cangshan-Erhai Nature Reserve. Chinese Biodiversity, 6, 151-156. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[沈兵 (1998) 大理苍洱自然保护区生物多样性保护及其开发利用. 生物多样性, 6, 151-156.] DOI URL
[30]	Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014) Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montreal, Canada.
[31]	Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Ramos CA, Voll E, McDonald A, Lefebvre P, Schlesinger P (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature, 440, 520-523. DOI URL PMID
[32]	Sun M (2008) Cangshan Annals. The Nationalities Publishing House of Yunnan, Kunming. (in Chinese)
	[孙明 (2008) 苍山志. 云南民族出版社, 昆明.]
[33]	Wang L, Young SS, Wang W, Ren GP, Xiao W, Long YC, Li JS, Zhu JG (2016) Conservation priorities of forest ecosystems with evaluations of connectivity and future threats: implications in the Eastern Himalaya of China. Biological Conservation, 195, 128-135. DOI URL
[34]	Wang W, Pechacek P, Zhang MX, Xiao NW, Zhu JG, Li JS (2013) Effectiveness of nature reserve system for conserving tropical forests: a statistical evaluation of Hainan Island, China. PLoS ONE, 8, e57561. DOI URL PMID
[35]	Wang W, Xin LJ, Du JH, Chen B, Liu FZ, Zhang LB, Li JS (2016) Evaluating conservation effectiveness of protected areas: advances and new perspectives. Biodiversity Science, 24, 1177-1188. (in Chinese with English abstract) DOI URL
	[王伟, 辛利娟, 杜金鸿, 陈冰, 刘方正, 张立博, 李俊生 (2016) 自然保护地保护成效评估: 进展与展望. 生物多样性, 24, 1177-1188.] DOI URL
[36]	Wittemyer G, Elsen P, Bean WT, Coleman A, Burton O, Brashares JS (2008) Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Science, 321, 123-126. DOI URL PMID
[37]	[武冉 (2011) 我州天保工程一期工程顺利结束. 大理日报.]. (accessed on 2017-03-13)
[38]	Xin LJ, Zhu YP, Chen B, Jin YC, Luo JW, Wang W (2015) Effectiveness assessment of Cangshan Nature Reserve of Yunnan Province based on PSR model. Ecological Economy, 31(12), 125-128, 141. (in Chinese with English abstract)
	[辛利娟, 朱彦鹏, 陈冰, 靳勇超, 罗建武, 王伟 (2015) 基于PSR模型的云南苍山保护区保护成效研究. 生态经济, 31(12), 125-128, 141.]

子研究区域 Sub-study area		1995		2015		森林覆盖变化值 Forest coverage change (km²)	森林变化率 Forest change rate
子研究区域 Sub-study area		森林面积 Forest area (km²)	森林覆盖率 Forest coverage	森林面积 Forest area (km²)	森林覆盖率 Forest coverage	森林覆盖变化值 Forest coverage change (km²)	森林变化率 Forest change rate
大理市 Dali City	保护区内 Inside	166.15	78.74%	168.24	79.73%	2.09	1.26%
大理市 Dali City	保护区外 Outside	284.05	28.61%	320.33	32.26%	36.28	12.77%
洱源县 Eryuan County	保护区内 Inside	32.73	71.15%	34.43	74.85%	1.700	5.19%
洱源县 Eryuan County	保护区外 Outside	1004.14	38.86%	1151.36	44.56%	147.22	14.66%
漾濞县 Yangbi County	保护区内 Inside	117.26	80.32%	113.98	78.07%	-3.28	-2.80%
漾濞县 Yangbi County	保护区外 Outside	740.91	49.26%	776.95	51.66%	36.04	4.86%

子研究区域 Sub-study area		1995		2015		森林覆盖变化值 Forest coverage change (km²)	森林变化率 Forest change rate
子研究区域 Sub-study area		森林面积 Forest area (km²)	森林覆盖率 Forest coverage	森林面积 Forest area (km²)	森林覆盖率 Forest coverage	森林覆盖变化值 Forest coverage change (km²)	森林变化率 Forest change rate
大理市 Dali City	保护区内 Inside	166.15	78.74%	168.24	79.73%	2.09	1.26%
大理市 Dali City	保护区外 Outside	284.05	28.61%	320.33	32.26%	36.28	12.77%
洱源县 Eryuan County	保护区内 Inside	32.73	71.15%	34.43	74.85%	1.700	5.19%
洱源县 Eryuan County	保护区外 Outside	1004.14	38.86%	1151.36	44.56%	147.22	14.66%
漾濞县 Yangbi County	保护区内 Inside	117.26	80.32%	113.98	78.07%	-3.28	-2.80%
漾濞县 Yangbi County	保护区外 Outside	740.91	49.26%	776.95	51.66%	36.04	4.86%

研究区段 Survey region	匹配前 Before matching		匹配成功 Matched		未匹配成功 Unmatched
研究区段 Survey region	对照组 Control	处理组 Treated	对照组 Control	处理组 Treated	对照组 Control	处理组 Treated
DA_DB	336	211	26	26	310	185
DA_DC	465	211	36	36	429	175
DB_DC	465	336	232	232	233	104
EA_EB	428	46	40	40	388	6
EA_EC	2,050	46	45	45	2,005	1
EB_EC	2,050	428	414	414	1,636	14
YA_YB	352	146	16	16	336	130
YA_YC	1,152	146	34	34	1,118	112
YB_YC	1152	352	338	338	814	14

研究区段 Survey region	匹配前 Before matching		匹配成功 Matched		未匹配成功 Unmatched
研究区段 Survey region	对照组 Control	处理组 Treated	对照组 Control	处理组 Treated	对照组 Control	处理组 Treated
DA_DB	336	211	26	26	310	185
DA_DC	465	211	36	36	429	175
DB_DC	465	336	232	232	233	104
EA_EB	428	46	40	40	388	6
EA_EC	2,050	46	45	45	2,005	1
EB_EC	2,050	428	414	414	1,636	14
YA_YB	352	146	16	16	336	130
YA_YC	1,152	146	34	34	1,118	112
YB_YC	1152	352	338	338	814	14

	DA_DB	DA_DC	DB_DC	EA_EB	EA_EC	EB_EC	YA_YB	YA_YC	YB_YC
t	3.553	3.187	0.535	0.246	-1.359	-1.943	-0.970	0.283	2.772
df	25	35	231	39	44	413	15	33	337
P	0.002^*	0.003^*	0.593	0.807	0.181	0.053	0.347	0.779	0.006^*