See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/51787268

Conservation in Sustainable-Use Tropical Forest Reserves

Article  in  Conservation Biology · December 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01770.x · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
78 273

1 author:

Carlos A. Peres
University of East Anglia
591 PUBLICATIONS   40,360 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Predicting biodiversity loss in forest islands created by a mega-dam in Brazilian Amazonia View project

Human-wildlife conflicts in Amazonian extractive reserves: spatial footprint and impact of subsistence hunters on forest vertebrates View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos A. Peres on 18 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COBI cobi_1770 Dispatch: September 15, 2011 CE: TOV
Journal MSP No. No. of pages: 6 PE: Amanda
1
2

3
4 Special Section Essay
5
6
7
8 Conservation in Sustainable-Use Tropical Forest
9 Q1
10
11
Reserves
12
13 CARLOS A. PERES
14 Centre for Biodiversity Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR47TJ, United Kingdom,
15 email: c.peres@uea.ac.uk
16
17
18
19 Introduction ined the degree of use of natural resources by resident
20 communities and used human population density as a
21 Although tropical forests retain most of the world’s terres- proxy for level of extraction. In both protected and un-
22 trial species, the relative merits of different approaches to protected areas, I also estimated responses of game verte-
23 ensure the long-term persistence of those species remain brate assemblages to hunting on the basis of the relative
24 highly contentious. Most would agree, however, that biomass extracted from a subset of the forest fauna. I used
25 both establishing protected areas and exercising some analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) to examine the associa-
26 form of restraint on extraction of forest resources are tion between human density and game biomass harvested
27 among the most effective of all viable conservation mea- across different reserve categories. Finally, I considered
28 sures. Deforestation, wildfires, logging, and hunting are the long-term capacity of sustainable-use forest reserves
29 among the leading drivers of species losses in tropical to maintain populations of all resident species.
30 forests, and de facto or de jure protection from these
31 threats can be conferred by either effective enforcement
32 of regulations or physical remoteness.
33 Attempts to assess conservation success of protected Survey of Sustainable-Use Reserves
34 areas at large scales have rested primarily on conventional
35 use of remote sensing to quantify spatial or temporal dif- The number and extent of protected areas worldwide
36 ferences in rates of change in land cover due to defor- have increased nearly 14-fold over the past 50 years. By
37 estation and wildfires, rather than on empirical demo- 2010, >120,000 reserves covered approximately 21 mil-
38 Q2 graphic or community-level metrics (Gaston et al. 2008). lion km2 , including 12.2% and 6.4% of Earth’s terrestrial
39 However, the former approaches fail to detect most and marine biomes, respectively (WDPA 2011). How- Q3
40 types of subcanopy anthropogenic disturbances that also ever, there are far fewer reserves formally designated as
41 result, directly or indirectly, in species losses (Peres strictly protected. Over 86% of all protected areas world-
42 et al. 2006). Moreover, the effects of habitat loss and wide permit some form of human use (Fig. 1). For exam-
43 degradation on population extirpations and declines ple, only <0.01% of the aggregate area of 980 marine re-
44 are nonlinear, so vegetation cover alone is rarely a ro- serves (covering approximately 19% of the world’s coral
45 bust proxy for the viability of terrestrial biotas. Remote- reefs) are relatively undisturbed no-take areas (Mora et al.
46 sensing data show vast tracts of apparently intact tropical 2006). Q5
47 forests, but in reality levels of hunting and other forms of The International Union for Conservation of Nature
48 extraction in these areas are often unsustainable (Peres & defines reserves as strictly protected (categories I–II)
49 Lake 2003). Fundamental questions yet to be answered or sustainable-use (categories III–IV) areas. Sustainable-
50 include whether ostensibly intact protected areas retain use reserves are often comanaged by local communi-
51 full complements of forest species and how the extent ties to support local livelihoods and preserve cultural
52 of cryptic patterns of disturbance is related to human legacies and ecosystem services. Both strictly protected
53 population density in both protected and unprotected and sustainable-use reserves, however, include areas with
54 areas. different management objectives that legally or illegally
55 I considered the global to regional emergence of contain human communities at varying densities. Strictly
56 sustainable-use reserves, emphasizing the world’s largest protected (n = 13,411) and sustainable-use reserves
57 tropical forest region, Amazonia. Sustainable-use reserves (n = 52,124) represent 38.6% and 61.4%, respectively,
58 often have intermediate levels of disturbance, so I exam- of all protected areas worldwide, but the prevalence of
1
Conservation Biology, Volume **, No. *, ***–***

C 2011 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01770.x
1 2 Sustainable-Use Tropical Forest Reserves
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 1. Extent of terrestrial protected areas over time (a) in terrestrial biomes worldwide (data from WCMC
20 2011), (b) in Brazil (data from MMA [2011]), and (c) in the Brazilian Amazon (data from MMA [2011] and
21 Amazonian state agencies) (black lines and circles, strictly protected reserves; gray lines and circles,
22 sustainable-use reserves). Data compiled in (a) include all reserves for which an International Union for Q4
23 Conservation of Nature category was assigned. Inset in (b) shows the aggregate areas (in millions of hectares) of
24 all strictly protected (black bars) and sustainable-use reserves (gray bars, excluding indigenous territories) in each
25 of the 5 major Brazilian biomes (AMZ, Amazonia; CER, Cerrado; ATF, Atlantic Forest; CAA, Caatinga; and PAN,
26 Pantanal).
27
28 sustainable-use reserves is much greater in the Neotrop- under the jurisdiction of FUNAI (National Indian Foun-
29 ics than in tropical areas of Africa and Asia (WDPA 2011). dation), and 9700 km2 are quilombos (designated Afro-
30 Sustainable-use reserves in Brazil are charged with the Brazilian communal territories). Thus, 80.4% of the area
31 difficult mission of ensuring both the usufruct access covered by protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon has
32 rights of local communities to natural resources and the been allocated to forest reserves where human residents
33 persistence of all species and ecological processes (MMA are empowered to pursue their livelihoods indefinitely.
34 2000). Policies supporting sustainable-use reserves are Yet little is known about the conservation success of
35 relatively recent and firmly grounded in social and polit- these reserves and how to best manage them for the
36 ical demands from disenfranchised communities rather long-term persistence of both traditional livelihoods and
37 than in the desire to conserve biological diversity. Strictly biotic integrity.
38 protected areas in Brazil were far more prevalent before
39 the 1980s, when they were seen as reliable conservation
40 instruments. Since 1991, however, approximately 63.1
41 million ha of new sustainable-use reserves were created Below-Canopy Conservation Success of Amazonian
42 in Brazilian Amazonia, accounting for 51.5% of the to- Reserves
43 tal designated protected area excluding indigenous lands
44 (Fig. 1). Designation was motivated by the intensification As of 2007, mean human population density per square
45 of land struggles, the subsequent political organization of kilometer within Amazonian strictly protected reserves
46 many local communities, and the emergence of extrac- (0.32 [SD 0.78], n = 37) was considerably lower than
47 tive reserve initiatives. As a result, the total number and in either sustainable-use (16.8 [SD 106.2], n = 86) or
48 combined extent of sustainable-use reserves and indige- indigenous reserves (6.4 [SD 31.5], n = 294). Exclud-
49 nous territories now outweigh that of strictly protected ing unoccupied reserves, human population density was
50 areas by factors of 5.5 and 4.1, respectively. negatively related to reserve area (slope = −0.52, R2 =
51 Nonprivate conservation areas across Brazilian Ama- 0. 60, n = 398, Fig. 2). Human population density ranged
52 zonia now encompass approximately 2,197,485 km2 in from fewer than 0.01/km2 in reserves >1 million ha to
53 721 protected areas, amounting to 44% of the region over 100/km2 in reserves <100 ha. For indigenous terri-
54 (IMAZON 2011). This accounts for 12.6% of Earth’s total tories, the relation between area and population density
55 terrestrial protected area, excluding Antarctica. Of the was stronger (R2 = 0.70, n = 294) and had a steeper re-
56 protected area in Brazilian Amazonia, 1,174,258 km2 are gression slope than either extractive reserves or strictly
57 in reserves managed by federal and state environmental protected reserves (F 1395 = 11.7, p < 0.001). Strictly pro-
58 agencies, approximately 1,086,950 km2 are Indian Lands tected reserves may be completely uninhabited (Fig. 2),

Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2011
 1 Peres 3
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Figure 2. Relation between forest
10 reserve size and the human
11 population density in 417
12 protected areas in Brazilian
13 Amazonia (data from Instituto
14 SocioAmbiental (2011) and
15 personal communication with
16 protected-area managers) (light
17 gray squares, indigenous
18 territories [n = 294]; dark gray
19 triangles, extractive reserves [n =
20 86]; solid circles, strictly protected
21 reserves [n = 37]). Reserves along
22 dashed gray line are unoccupied
23 (human density = 0). Gray areas
24 around LOESS smoothed curves
25 represent 95% CIs.
26
27
28 but otherwise share the same relation between popula- population growth rates are preferred by hunters across
29 tion density and area as other human-occupied reserves the Amazon (Jerozolimski & Peres 2003) and the Congo
30 (F 1395 = 0.32, p = 0.57). basins (Fa et al. 2005), but hunting patterns change when-
31 Vertebrate populations meet the subsistence protein ever local populations of preferred species become de-
32 needs of millions of forest dwellers worldwide, and pleted, when hunters gradually shift to smaller-bodied
33 the value of those vertebrates for local livelihoods ex- species with higher fecundity.
34 ceeds that of any other non-timber resource in tropical Local communities in sparsely settled areas derived
35 sustainable-use reserves. Fluvial and road networks ren- a much larger proportion of their game biomass from
36 der these reserves widely accessible to hunters (Peres & species with low population growth rates than species
37 Lake 2003), but hunting pressure depends on local con- with high population growth rates. On average, species
38 sumer demand and thus human population size. I, there- with low population growth rates accounted for >80%
39 fore, assessed the degree to which species have been of the biomass harvested where human density was
40 depleted by hunting in otherwise undisturbed forests <0.03 person/km2 , but <40% in areas with >1 per-
41 inside and outside protected areas. Building on a pre- son/km2 (Fig. 3a). Although this relation does not ac-
42 vious study (Jerozolimski & Peres 2003), I assembled a count for geographic variation in carrying capacity for
43 database—56,065 kills of 38 mammal species from 79 different species, many densely settled communities in
44 hunting studies representing 113 settlements across 7 both low- and high-productivity areas shifted to smaller-
45 Amazonian countries—from both published and unpub- bodied, high-fecundity species. In particular, the dietary
46 lished sources, including my studies at 8 indigenous and transition from species with low population growth rates
47 nontribal (caboclo) settlements. The sizes and locations to species with high population growth rates occurred
48 of these settlements and the total sampling effort (num- well before human density reached 1 person/km2 , a den-
49 ber of consumers ∗ number of sample days) were known, sity threshold below which hunting by tropical forest
50 so site- and species-specific mean per capita biomass har- dwellers is generally assumed to be sustainable (Robinson
51 vest rates (grams· \ per person per day) could be calcu- & Bennett 2000). This finding is relevant given that Ama-
52 lated. I also quantified the human density associated with zonian subsistence hunters with low incomes are often
53 each hunting catchment on the basis of the size of each severely limited in terms of ammunition, time, and energy
54 village and neighboring settlements within a 20-km ra- and regard pursuit of large-bodied species as most cost-
55 dius. I estimated the proportion of the total biomass ex- effective per unit of spent ammunition. Furthermore,
56 tracted from the 10 large-bodied species with the lowest there were no significant differences in responses of
57 fecundity (slow breeding and long lived) on the basis multiple prey species to differences in human popula-
58 of population growth rates (λ) < 1.3. Species with low tion density (F 1107 = 0.04, p = 0.84) or ethnicity (F 3105

Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2011
1 4 Sustainable-Use Tropical Forest Reserves
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Figure 3. (a) Relation between human population density (HPD) within a 20-km radius of Amazonian
22
settlements and the proportional biomass of low-fecundity vertebrate species (· < 1.3) extracted from the
23
aggregate number of prey items consumed at these settlements. (b) The size of forest reserves that these settlements
24
would occupy for any given pattern of offtake, predicted on the basis of the linear regression between HPD and
25
reserve area for all Amazonian indigenous, extractive, and strictly protected reserves for which human population
26
sizes are known (data from Jerozolimski & Peres (2003) with new data added).
27
28
= 0.25, p = 0.86) between protected and unprotected governed by human density. Many Amazonian extractive
29
areas. reserves and their analogues have relatively high human
30
As a heuristic exercise, I estimated the area of human- densities, often because their residents were subsidized
31
occupied reserves that would be associated with a given historically (e.g., by high rubber prices), and local initia-
32
pattern of game harvest for all sites for which reliable tives to create an extractive reserve are usually instigated
33
data on both human density and game harvest were avail- by politically savvy communities in heavily settled areas.
34
able. For offtakes to remain dominated by species with Consequently, population sizes of several game species in
35
low population growth rates (>50% of total biomass)— many Amazonian sustainable-use reserves with >0.1 per-
36
which could be interpreted as sustainable across the son/km2 have declined (Fig. 3) (Peres & Palacios 2007).
37
landscape—sustainable-use reserves would have to be For species with low population growth rates, high hu-
38
>100,000 ha (Fig. 3b). Also, only hunters from sparse set- man population densities reduce the effective reserve
39
tlements within reserves approaching 1 million ha would area. Moreover, most Amazonian sustainable-use reserves
40
be able to restrict their offtake to preferred species with have annual human population growth rates of 2.7% to
41
low population growth rates. 4.2% (IBGE 2010), which doubles overall consumer de-
42
mand every 16–27 years even if net migration is zero.
43
Over 370 million ha globally is under formal or in-
44
formal community-based management, and including
45 Long-Term Role of Sustainable-Use Reserves in agroforestry areas would likely double or treble this total
46
Retaining Tropical Species (Molnar et al. 2004). However, addressing the long-term
47
interests of both species conservation and local commu-
48
Human densities within and adjacent to tropical forest re- nities in the mission of sustainable-use reserves is a huge
49
serves worldwide differ widely. The increasing isolation challenge.
50
of protected areas (DeFries et al. 2005) and burgeoning Hunting has often been intense in Amazonian ex-
51
human populations in surrounding areas (Wittemyer et al. tractive and indigenous reserves settled by relatively
52
2008) militate against the long-term persistence of many dense human populations, and many populations of large-
53
species within reserve boundaries. Lowland Amazonia is bodied game species have been extirpated in these re-
54
atypical of many tropical forest regions in that human serves (Peres & Palacios 2007). But game vertebrates rep-
55
population densities within reserves are usually greater resent only one type of nontimber forest resource that
56
than those outside. Yet the degree to which natural re- is exploited at unsustainable levels in many areas with
57
source extraction can be defined as sustainable is largely high human density, and unsustainable hunting is not
58

Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2011
 1 Peres
2
3 the only factor driving forest degradation that cannot be
4 detected with conventional remote sensing (Peres et al.
5 2006). Yet, most reserves across a wide range of cate-
6 gories and human population densities have so far been
7 largely effective in retaining relatively intact forest cover
8 (Nepstad et al. 2006; Joppa et al. 2008; Soares-Filho et al.
9 2010). Several densely settled sustainable-use reserves,
10 however, have been deforested and severely degraded
11 (e.g., Pedlowski et al. 2005). By December 2009, Amazo-
12 nian sustainable-use reserves had lost 298,500 ha of forest
13 after they were formally established, whereas 108,100
14 ha have been deforested in strictly protected reserves
15 (IMAZON 2011). For example, >6.3% of the 970,570 ha
16 Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve has been deforested to
17 accommodate >10,000 head of cattle, an 11-fold expan-
18 sion in pasture area since the reserve was created in 1990.
19 This prominent extractive reserve was originally set aside
20 to ensure land-tenure rights of approximately 3000 fami-
21 lies of rubber tappers and Brazil-nut gatherers. However,
22 most of these families have gradually shifted their liveli-
23 hoods from nontimber resource extraction to livestock
24 husbandry, in part to compensate for the shortfall in avail-
25 able animal protein resulting from depleted populations
26 of game (G.K.C. Rosas, personal communication).
27 A total of 45.1% and 47.3% of the aggregate area des-
28 ignated in the Brazilian Amazon before December 2010
29 as sustainable-use and strictly protected reserves, respec-
30 tively, exhibit some level of anthropogenic canopy dis-
31 turbance as determined from satellite images (IMAZON
32 2011). Protected areas in Amazonia and most other trop-
33 ical forests have extremely limited funds and staff, so
34 enforcing reserve regulations and comanaging natural re-
35 sources with local communities are usually prohibitively
36 expensive. Each of the 305 staff assigned to oversee one
37 or more of 163 state-managed protected areas across
38 Brazilian Amazonia (excluding Rondônia) on average has
39 jurisdiction over 63,520 ha (194 staff) within strictly
40 protected reserves and 403,280 ha (111 staff) within
41 sustainable-use reserves (IMAZON 2011). This institu-
42 tional capacity is 3.2-fold greater than in 1993 (Peres &
43 Terborgh 1995), despite the addition of approximately
44 1,035,000 km2 of protected area over this period.
45
Indigenous, caboclo, and smallholder communities
46 across Amazonia do substantially aid in meeting several
47 conservation objectives, including prevention of illegal
48 logging, mining, and deforestation within tribal lands,
49 suppression of rampant land speculation, and protection
50
of communal subsistence fisheries. In all these cases, local
51 residents operating in areas with little governance inten-
52 tionally or inadvertently suppress forest conversion and
53 degradation, which are often driven by the private sector.
54 However, not all species can be maintained under the ju-
55
risdiction of traditional communities. The key question,
56 therefore, is what levels of biological integrity can one
57 realistically hope to maintain given different scenarios of
58 land-use and consumer population density.
5
The often raucous parks-versus-people debate is largely
counterproductive and has little effect on policy or gov-
ernment agencies managing tropical protected areas. Set-
ting aside >700,000 km2 of sustainable-use reserves in
Amazonia has resulted in little spatial redistribution of
human residents. In fact, most boundaries of Amazonian
protected areas are delineated and their management
categories assigned on the basis of prior human occu-
pation rather than on biological criteria. Yet involuntary
human displacements from protected areas, with or with-
out compensation, are ethically questionable, monetarily
prohibitive, and politically unfeasible. Rather, conditional
agreements with clear targets to be carried out by local
communities remain the best available option to achieve
conservation success. This often requires developing lo-
cal capacity through training; regulation of immigration;
setting sustainable harvest quotas; and zoning no-take ar-
eas within reserve boundaries. These targets are expen-
sive and labor intensive, and may deflect conservation
resources away from strictly protected areas. However,
many conservation approaches can also benefit local
communities outside protected areas, where the rate
of forest conversion is likely to be higher. Sustainable-
use reserves alone will not lift millions of tropical forest
dwellers out of poverty and they should not be seen as
key instruments of income generation. Yet such reserves
can contribute to the persistence of key ecosystem ser-
vices and viable populations across the entire range of
species life histories (and sensitivity to disturbance and
harvest) if they can be embedded within larger reserve
networks that include strictly protected areas.
Acknowledgments
I thank E. Dinerstein and E. Fleishman for inviting me to
contribute this essay, which was written during a study
leave at Duke University. E. Fleishman provided valuable
comments on the manuscript.
Literature Cited
DeFries, R., A. Hansen, A. C. Newton, and M. C. Hansen. 2005. In-
creasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past
twenty years. Ecological Applications 15:19–26
Fa, J. E., S. F. Ryan, and D. J. Bell. 2005. Hunting vulnerability, ecological
characteristics and harvest rates of bushmeat species in Afrotropical
forests. Biological Conservation 121:167–176.
Gaston, K. J., S. F. Jackson, L. Cantú-Salazar, and G. Cruz-Piñón. 2008.
The ecological performance of protected areas. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:93–113.
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı́stica). 2010.
Censo demográfico. IBGE, Rio de Janeiro. Available from
http://www.ibge.gov.br (accessed March 2011).
IMAZON (Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia). 2011.
Áreas protegidas na Amazônia Brasileira: avanços e desafios. IMA-
ZON and Instituto Socioambiental, São Paulo.
Instituto SocioAmbiental. 2011. XXXX. Instituto SocioAmbiental, City.
Available from url (accessed June 2010). Q6
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2011
1 6 Sustainable-Use Tropical Forest Reserves
2

3 Jerozolimski, A., and C. A. Peres. 2003. Bringing home the biggest Peres, C. A., and I. R. Lake. 2003. Extent of nontimber resource extrac-
4 bacon: a cross-site analysis of the structure of hunter-kill profiles in tion in tropical forests: accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters
5 neotropical forests. Biological Conservation 111:415–425. in the Amazon basin. Conservation Biology 17:521–535.
Joppa, L. N., S. R. Loarie, and S. L. Pimm. 2008. On the protection of Peres, C. A., and E. Palacios. 2007. Basin-wide effects of game harvest on
6
“protected areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Scinces vertebrate population densities in Amazonian forests: implications
7 105:6673–6678. for animal-mediated seed dispersal. Biotropica 39:304–315.
8 MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). 2000. Sistema nacional de Peres, C. A., and J. W. Terborgh. 1995. Amazonian nature reserves: an
9 unidades de conservação (SNUC). MMA, Brası́lia. analysis of the defensibility status of existing conservation units and
10 Molnar, A., S. J. Scherr, and A. Khare. 2004. Who conserves the world’s design criteria for the future. Conservation Biology 9:34–46.
forests? Forest Trends, Washington, D.C. Robinson, J. G., and E. L. Bennett. 2000. Carrying capacity limits to
11
Mora, C., S. Andréfouët, M. J. Costello, C. Kranenburg, A. Rollo, J. sustainable hunting in tropical forests. Pages 13–30 in J. G. Robin-
12 Veron, K. J. Gaston, and R. A. Myers 2006. Coral reefs and the global son and E. L. Bennett, editors. Hunting for sustainability in tropical
13 network of marine protected areas. Science 312:1750–1751. forests. Columbia University Press, New York.
14 Nepstad, D., et al. 2006. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by Soares-Filho, B., et al. 2010. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas
15 parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20:65–73. in climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy
Pedlowski, M., E. A. T. Matricardi, D. Skole, S. R. Cameron, W. Cho- of Scinces 107:10821–10826
16
mentowski, C. Fernandes, and A. Lisboa. 2005. Conservation units: WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2011. The world
17 a new deforestation frontier in the Amazonian state of Rondônia, database on protected areas. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, United King-
18 Brazil. Environmental Conservation 32:149–155. dom. Available from www.wdpa.org (accessed March 2011).
19 Peres, C. A., J. Barlow, and W. Laurance. 2006. Detecting anthro- Wittemyer, G., P. Elsen, W. T. Bean, A. Coleman, O. Burton, and J.
20 pogenic disturbance in tropical forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolu- S. Brashares. 2008. Accelerated human population growth at pro-
tion 21:227–229 tected area edges. Science 321:123–126.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2011
 1
2

3 Queries
4
5
6
7 Q1 AUTHOR: A running head short title was not supplied; please check if this one is suitable and, if not, please
8 supply a short title that can be used instead.
9
Q2 AUTHOR: Reference “Gaston et al. (2005)” has been changed to “Gaston et al. (2008)” as per reference listed.
10
Please check.
11
12 Q3 AUTHOR: Reference “WDPA (2011)” is not listed. Please check.
13 Q5 AUTHOR: Reference “Mora et al. (2008)” has been changed to “Mora et al. (2006)” as per reference listed. Please
14 check.
15
16 Q4 AUTHOR: Reference “MMA (2011)” is not listed. Please check.
17 Q6 AUTHOR: Please provide article title in reference “Instituto SocioAmbiental (2011).”
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58

View publication stats