4.7 Article

Modeling social and land-use/land-cover change data to assess drivers of smallholder deforestation in Belize

Journal

APPLIED GEOGRAPHY
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 329-342

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.10.001

Keywords

LULCC; Belize; Drivers of deforestation; Protected area

Categories

Funding

  1. ESRC [ES/E021816/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/E021816/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study integrated remote sensing, household survey data, and spatial modeling to assess drivers of deforestation within the Community Baboon Sanctuary (CBS), Belize, an IUCN category IV protected area for the black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) established in 1985. We contrasted land-cover trends within the CBS, as well as a 120 m river buffer running within and outside the CBS (the focus of conservation). Additionally, we assessed the relative influence of selected household economic activity and demographic data, participation in two conservation initiatives, locational context, and land tenure on the probability of deforestation using binomial logit models. Social survey and land-cover change data was incorporated from 33 smallholder parcels from the years 2000-2004. Deforestation rates within the CBS totaled 30% between 1989 and 2004, following similar trends in Belize. Riparian areas were more likely to be deforested, as were areas closer to roads. Although cattle correlated with the leading driver of deforestation in the model, land tenure was not influential, despite its importance within the literature. Although involvement with conservation initiatives is correlated with decreased deforestation, other drivers are more influential, stressing the influence of other competing factors on forest preservation that must be considered with conservation development. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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