Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRico-Straffon, Jimena
dc.contributor.authorWang, Zhenhua
dc.contributor.authorPfaff, Alexander
dc.coverage.spatialAmérica Latina y el Caribees_ES
dc.coverage.spatialPerúes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-21T17:17:50Z
dc.date.available2022-12-21T17:17:50Z
dc.date.issued2022-12-20
dc.identifier.citationRico-Straffon, J., Wang, Z., & Pfaff, A. (2022, December 20). Comparing Protection Types in The Peruvian Amazon: Multiple-Use Protected Areas Did No Worse for Forests. Retrieved from https://cafscioteca.azurewebsites.net/handle/123456789/1989en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttps://cafscioteca.azurewebsites.net/handle/123456789/1989
dc.description.tableofcontentsProtected areas (PAs), which restrict economic activities, are the leading land and marine policy for ecosystem conservation. Most contexts feature different types of protection that vary in their stringency of management. Using spatially detailed panel data for 1986-2018, we estimate PAs’ impacts upon forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Which type of protection has greater impacts on the forest is ambiguous, theoretically, given potential for significant differences by type in siting and enforcement. We find that the less strict multiple-use PAs, that allow local livelihoods, do no worse for forests than strict PAs: each PA type holds off small loss spikes seen in unprotected forests; and multipleuse, if anything, do a bit better. This adds to evidence on the coexistence of private activities with conservation objectives.es_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.subjectAmbientees_ES
dc.subjectEvaluación de impactoes_ES
dc.titleComparing Protection Types in The Peruvian Amazon: Multiple-Use Protected Areas Did No Worse for Forestses_ES
dc.typeworkingPaperes_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record