Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B, Santilli M, Ray D, Schlesinger P, Lefebvre P, Alencar A, Prinz E, Fiske Greg, Rolla Alicia
The Woods Hole Research Center, P.O. Box 296, 13 Church Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2006 Feb;20(1):65-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x.
Conservation scientists generally agree that many types of protected areas will be needed to protect tropical forests. But little is known of the comparative performance of inhabited and uninhabited reserves in slowing the most extreme form of forest disturbance: conversion to agriculture. We used satellite-based maps of land cover and fire occurrence in the Brazilian Amazon to compare the performance of large (> 10,000 ha) uninhabited (parks) and inhabited (indigenous lands, extractive reserves, and national forests) reserves. Reserves significantly reduced both deforestation and fire. Deforestation was 1.7 (extractive reserves) to 20 (parks) times higher along the outside versus the inside of the reserve perimeters and fire occurrence was 4 (indigenous lands) to 9 (national forests) times higher. No strong difference in the inhibition of deforestation (p = 0. 11) or fire (p = 0.34) was found between parks and indigenous lands. However, uninhabited reserves tended to be located away from areas of high deforestation and burning rates. In contrast, indigenous lands were often created in response to frontier expansion, and many prevented deforestation completely despite high rates of deforestation along their boundaries. The inhibitory effect of indigenous lands on deforestation was strong after centuries of contact with the national society and was not correlated with indigenous population density. Indigenous lands occupy one-fifth of the Brazilian Amazon-five times the area under protection in parks--and are currently the most important barrier to Amazon deforestation. As the protected-area network expands from 36% to 41% of the Brazilian Amazon over the coming years, the greatest challenge will be successful reserve implementation in high-risk areas of frontier expansion as indigenous lands are strengthened. This success will depend on a broad base of political support.
保护科学家们普遍认为,需要多种类型的保护区来保护热带森林。但对于有人居住和无人居住的保护区在减缓最极端的森林干扰形式(即转变为农业用地)方面的相对成效,人们却知之甚少。我们利用基于卫星的巴西亚马孙地区土地覆盖和火灾发生情况地图,比较了大面积(超过10000公顷)无人居住的(公园)和有人居住的(原住民土地、采伐保护区和国家森林)保护区的成效。保护区显著减少了森林砍伐和火灾。保护区周边外侧的森林砍伐率是内侧的1.7倍(采伐保护区)至20倍(公园),火灾发生率则是4倍(原住民土地)至9倍(国家森林)。在抑制森林砍伐(p = 0.11)或火灾(p = 0.34)方面,公园和原住民土地之间未发现显著差异。然而,无人居住的保护区往往位于森林砍伐率和燃烧率较低的地区。相比之下,原住民土地的设立往往是为了应对边境扩张,尽管其边界沿线的森林砍伐率很高,但许多原住民土地完全防止了森林砍伐。经过几个世纪与国家社会的接触,原住民土地对森林砍伐的抑制作用依然很强,且与原住民人口密度无关。原住民土地占巴西亚马孙地区面积的五分之一,是公园保护面积的五倍,目前是亚马孙地区森林砍伐最重要的屏障。随着未来几年保护区网络在巴西亚马孙地区的覆盖范围从36%扩大到41%,最大的挑战将是在边境扩张的高风险地区成功实施保护区,同时加强原住民土地的保护。这一成功将取决于广泛的政治支持。