Advertisement
Research Article

On Population Growth Near Protected Areas

  • Lucas N. Joppa,

    Affiliation: Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America

    X
  • Scott R. Loarie,

    Affiliation: Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institute, Stanford, California, United States of America

    X
  • Stuart L. Pimm mail

    StuartPimm@me.com

    Affiliation: Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America

    X
  • Published: January 26, 2009
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004279

Reader Comments (8)

Post a new comment on this article

An alternate explanation

Posted by timbean on 03 Feb 2009 at 06:09 GMT

Almost all (44 of 45) countries are above the 1∶1 line, indicating that the datasets used to calculate buffer growth rates provide consistently higher rural growth rates than does the UN dataset.
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004279#pone-0004279-g003

It's also possible to find consistently higher "rural" growth rates in the spatially explicit model if you fail to mask out urban areas. Unfortunately, this is exactly the problem with using the CIESIN GRUMP data, as Joppa et al. have done. Although the urban extents they use do tend to fall on or around population centers, they by no means mask out all urban areas. As a consequence, calculating growth rates in rural areas by this method is, in fact, calculating growth rates in rural areas as well as most urban areas, leading to artificially-inflated rates.