Fig 1.
Total deforestation 2000–2014 by forest type in the three states (Yucatan, Quintana Roo, and Campeche), comprising our study area.
Table 1.
Descriptive spatial statistics for tenure regimes and ecosystem types inside and outside protected areas (PA).
The unprotected pieces of protected properties have been excluded from the calculations in this table.
Fig 2.
Distribution of the land tenure types within our study area.
The areas with missing tenure information are in white and urban areas-in black.
Table 2.
Data sources and variable definitions.
Table 3.
Average effectiveness of protected areas by forest type proxied by the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT).
The observations falling within protected areas are labeled protected (or treated); the valid matched control -unprotected. The standard errors are given in parentheses and confidence intervals corresponding to each significance level—in square brackets. nt, nmc, ncp indicate treated (on support), matched control, and control pool observations, respectively. A negative sign of the ATT indicates that protection reduced the probability of forest loss.
Table 4.
Average direct impacts of protection by tenure regime, proxied by the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT).
The observations falling within protected areas (treatment) are compared to observationally similar unprotected pixels (control) in properties not intersecting a protected area. The standard errors are given in parentheses and confidence intervals corresponding to each significance level—in square brackets. nt, nmc, ncp indicate treated (on support), matched control, and control pool observations, respectively. A negative sign of the ATT indicates that protection reduced the probability of forest loss.
Table 5.
Average spillover effects from protection proxied by the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT).
The ATT captures the probability of forest loss in the unprotected portions of properties due to protection. In this case, a pixel is considered treated if it is within the unprotected portion of a protected property; the control group comprises of pixels located in fully unprotected properties. The standard errors are given in parentheses and confidence intervals corresponding to each significance level—in square brackets. nt, nmc, ncp indicate treated (on support), matched control, and control pool observations, respectively. A negative sign of the ATT indicates that protection reduced the probability of forest loss.
Table 6.
Average impact of tenure regimes on deforestation, proxied by the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT).
The standard errors are given in parentheses and confidence intervals corresponding to each significance level—in square brackets. nt, nmc, ncp indicate treated (on support), matched control, and control pool observations, respectively. A negative sign of the ATT indicates that deforestation in ejidos decreased the probability of forest loss relative to private property.
Fig 3.
Results from the post-matching partial linear models comparing pixels under protected areas (treatment) to observationally similar non-protected pixels regardless of tenure for (A) dry broadleaf forests, and (B) moist broadleaf forests. Negative values indicate that a treatment (presence of a protected area) was effective in reducing forest loss for a given baseline biomass value; the estimate is statistically significant if the confidence intervals do not span the 0 horizontal line.
Fig 4.
Results from the post-matching partial linear models comparing observationally similar protected and unprotected pixels under the 3 tenure regimes for (A) dry broadleaf forests (B) moist broadleaf forests. The negative values indicate that formal protection was effective in reducing forest loss relative to observationally similar pixel under the same tenure regime; the estimate is statistically significant if the confidence intervals do not span the 0 horizontal line. Because we could not find a viable specification for the ejidos and parceled ejidos in dry broadleaf forests, we do not provide estimates for those subsamples.
Fig 5.
Results from the post-matching partial linear models comparing observationally similar pixels in dry broadleaf forests.
Top panel: ejido (treatment group) compared to observationally similar private property pixels (control group); middle panel: ejido (treatment) compared to parceled ejido pixels (control); bottom panel: private property (treatment) compared to parceled ejido pixels (control). Negative values indicate that a treatment (pixels falling within protected and unprotected ejidos, respectively) was effective in reducing forest loss relative to observationally similar private properties; the estimate is statistically significant if the confidence intervals do not span the 0 horizontal line.
Fig 6.
Results from the post-matching partial linear models comparing observationally similar pixels in moist broadleaf forests.
Top panel: ejido (treatment group) compared to observationally similar private property pixels (control group); middle panel: ejido (treatment) compared to parceled ejido pixels (control); bottom panel: private property (treatment) compared to parceled ejido pixels (control). Negative values indicate that a treatment (pixels falling within protected and unprotected ejidos, respectively) was effective in reducing forest loss relative to observationally similar private properties; the estimate is statistically significant if the confidence intervals do not span the 0 horizontal line.