4.7 Article

Global protected areas boost the carbon sequestration capacity: Evidences from econometric causal analysis

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 715, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137001

Keywords

Protected areas; Difference-in-difference; Carbon density index; Carbon sequestration capacity; Propensity score matching; Convention on Biological Diversity

Funding

  1. Key National Natural Science Foundation of China [41531176]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFA0604402]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon sequestration capacity is the key factor in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, further research is required on how to evaluate the impact of protected areas on carbon sequestration capacity from a global scale. To date, we propose a carbon density index of global protected areas (>10 km(2), 32,756 samples) by the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trad'eoffs carbon model over the period 1994-2015. Then, we use the propensity score matching and difference-in-difference methods to separate the time effect and policy effect of the construction of protected areas on carbon sequestration capacity. Our analysis reveals that the carbon sequestration capacity can be improved by 0.39% by constructing global protected areas. There are regional differences with carbon sequestration capacity improvement globally. Africa has the largest value of increased carbon sequestration capacity, followed by Asia, Oceania and Europe. Upgrading protected areas (0.05%), strictly implementing planning (0.18%) and enhancing the power of local governments (0.08%) are conducive to improving carbon sequestration capacity. The assessment of the carbon sequestration capacity dynamic with protected areas is of great significance to meet the Convention on Biological Diversity. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available