Effectiveness of protected areas in preventing rubber expansion and deforestation in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China.

Presentation cancelled by author

Effectiveness of protected areas in preventing rubber expansion and deforestation in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China.

(Oral)

Chaya Sarathchandra
sarathchandra@mail.kib.ac.cn

1.Key Laboratory for Plant Diversity and Biogeography of East Asia, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China, 2.Centre for Mountain Ecosystem Studies, Kunming Institute of Botany, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China 3.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China 4.World Agroforestry Centre, East &amp;amp; Central Asia Regional Office, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China 5.Department of Biological Science, Faculty of Applied sciences, Rajarata University, Mihintale, Sri Lanka., China
,
Jianchu Xu
1.Key Laboratory for Plant Diversity and Biogeography of East Asia, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China, 2.Centre for Mountain Ecosystem Studies, Kunming Institute of Botany, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China 3.World Agroforestry Centre, East &amp;amp; Central Asia Regional Office, Kunming 650201, Yunnan, China, China
,
Rhett Harrison
World Agroforestry Centre, East &amp;amp; Southern Africa Region, 13 Elm Road, Woodlands, Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia

DOI: 10.17011/conference/eccb2018/107006

SEE PEER REVIEW

Protected areas (PAs) are key refuges for the world’s remaining biodiversity, especially in the species rich tropics. However, the tropics also support high human population densities. Xishuangbanna supports a disproportionate fraction of China’s biodiversity (~25 %) within only 0.2% of China’s land surface area. With the increasing demand for natural rubber in China, rubber plantations have expanded rapidly within Xishuangbanna (by 153.4 km2 y-1). By 2010, they occupied 22.1% of its land surface area and were encroaching on PAs. We studied the degree to which PAs in Xishuangbanna were successful in preventing rubber expansion and other non-conservation land uses within their boundaries. We used matching methods to minimize bias due to PA location and to compare land use conversion rates. Matching analysis found that between 1988 and 2010, approximately 11 % of PAs land area was deforested, at a rate of 10.7 km2yr-1. This is significantly higher than the deforestation rate of 9.3 km2yr-1 that would be calculates by applying conventional analysis techniques. PAs were shown to be less effective than had previously been thought.

SEE PEER REVIEW

INTRO:
As I understand, PAs have higher deforestation rates than areas using conventional production techniques.
MERITS:
It is important to evaluate the effectiveness of PAs.
CRITIQUE:
Which type of areas has lower deforestation rates than PAs? It should be clearly stated. Currently, it is hard to understand what authors mean when they say "that would be calculates by applying conventional analysis techniques." (English used in this sentence is not correct either)

It would be better if authors give more details about the statistical analysis and sampling design.

DISCUSSION:
Other aspects of PAs could be researched in future to understand if they are not useful for other conservation issues, either.

- - -
INTRO:
The abstract explains the threat of rubber plantations on biodiversity in China and it concludes that protected areas are not effective enough to reduce the increase of rubber plantation.

MERITS:
The study draws attention on the deforestation rate for land use in China and reveals the increasing threat on PAs in Xishuangbanna, which is an important area with a high biodiversity ratio in the country.
CRITIQUE:
It is not possible to tell if the method was strong enough for concrete results and discussion. It could be better if the method was explained a little more.
DISCUSSION:
It would be easier to conclude confidently if the abstract would have some more explanation on method and results.

- - -
INTRO:
The authors study te enchroachment of huamn land-use, in this case rubber plantation expansion, and how protected areas can act as buffers against this expansion.
MERITS:
Very releant and topical conservation issue in Aisa, well reasoned setting of the study and aims, as well as intro to the context.
CRITIQUE:
Methods are not very well clarified. The authors state they used a matching method to correct for location bias, but it is unclear how this was used to select unprotected sites for comparison, if such a comparison was actually done. Results are only presented for the enchroachment within Protected Areas PAs, but it to really quantify their impact, one should compare to the matched situation outside of PAs. As a result, conclusions are also not well supported.
DISCUSSION:
I think it is a releant study, and the use of matching methods, if done properly, could generate very powerful evidence of the effectiveness of PAs. If themethods are clarified, and hopefully the matching is done so to select also unprotected sites for comparison, this would be a nice contribution to conservation science.

- - -
INTRO:
The research shows that protected areas in a Chinese region are subject to a high degree of deforestation.
MERITS:
The research sheds light on the intense human pressure on protected areas in the Chinese region Xishuangbanna. According to the manuscript, the applied matching analysis provides a more realistic quantification of the deforestation rate than other methods.
CRITIQUE:
Due to the very short abstract (175 words), it is hardly possible to judge methods, results, and implications.
DISCUSSION:
In general, evaluating the effectiveness of protected areas is a topic of international importance in the field of conservation biology. The calculated deforestation is, alarming (11% deforestation inside protected areas within a 12-year-period).

As the abstract does not give much detail, it is, however. hard to judge the overall quality of the research.

The contribution would benefit a lot from adding more information on data, methods, results, and implications. The size limit for the abstracts is 3000 characters, of which the authors used only a third.

One simple but interesting fact that could be added to the abstract is to tell whether the deforestation in the Chinese protected areas occurred legally or illegally.