Reply to: Causal claims, causal assumptions and protected area impact

Jedediah F., Brodie and Mohd Azlan, Jayasilan and Cheng, Chen and Oliver R., Wearn and Mairin C. M., Deith and James G., C. Ball and Eleanor M., Slade and David F. R., P. Burslem and Shu, Woan Teoh and Peter J., Williams and Anh, Nguyen and Jonathan H., Moore and Scott J., Goetz (2025) Reply to: Causal claims, causal assumptions and protected area impact. Nature, 638. E42-E44. ISSN 1476-4687

PDF Causal claims, causal.pdf Download (1MB)

Abstract

In the accompanying Comment, Geldmann et al.1 incorrectly claim that protected area (PA) efficacy cannot be established without biodiversity data that predates establishment of the PA. Spatial correlates of diversity are known as a result of centuries of ecological research; our analyses controlled for these factors in a variety of ways in order to isolate the impacts of protection per se on bird and mammal biodiversity. The proposition of Geldmann et al. that our results are biased because PAs were established in areas with high natural biodiversity ignores these analytical controls, is naive to the realities of on-the-ground conservation, and has been disproved by recent research. Although we look forward to future work that improves on our predictions, our study provides robust estimates of the biodiversity impacts of PAs across hyperdiverse Southeast Asia2—information that is critically needed to support large-scale conservation objectives.

Actions (For repository members only: login required)

View Item