{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["empirical impact evaluation"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'empirical impact evaluation' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":1,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=empirical+impact+evaluation","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"clipolin-000958","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/clipolin-000958","title":"The Deforestation Menace: Do Protected Territories Actually Shield Forests?","publisher":{"name":"Climate Policy Initiative","organization":"climate-policy-initiative"},"document_type":"research paper","language":"en","date_published":"2018-09","source_url":"https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/WP001-The-Deforestation-Menace.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The research finds that protected territories in the Brazilian Amazon effectively shield the vegetation within their boundaries from advancing deforestation, particularly in high-risk contexts. However, this protection does not reduce the overall level of deforestation in the region; instead, it appears to deflect clearing activities to unprotected areas. The shielding effect is most pronounced in protected areas for sustainable use and decreases as proximity to transport infrastructure increases.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"clipolin-000958#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Legal protection effectively shields forests within its domain from advancing deforestation, with significantly less forest being cleared in protected cells than in unprotected ones when both face equivalent pressures.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"clipolin-000958#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"While protection shields specific areas, it does not reduce the aggregate level of deforestation; instead, it deflects clearing activity to unprotected regions.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"clipolin-000958#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The shielding effect is most significant in protected areas for sustainable use, followed by strictly protected areas, while indigenous lands do not show a statistically significant shielding effect against advancing clearings for most of the sample period.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"clipolin-000958#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Proximity to transport infrastructure, including both paved and unpaved roads, nullifies the shielding effect of protection; the effect becomes more accentuated as cells become more isolated from roads.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"clipolin-000958#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Deforestation pressure is spatially persistent, where an increase in the intensity of forest clearing alerts within a 50km radius of a cell is associated with increased clearings inside that cell the following year.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"clipolin-000958#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Under an increase of one standard deviation in neighborhood alert intensity, the difference in forest clearings between unprotected and protected cells is 3% of the sample standard deviation or 26% of the sample mean.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"clipolin-000958#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["deforestation"],"geography_discussed":["Chile","Costa Rica","Indonesia","Mexico","Peru","Thailand"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["empirical impact evaluation","counterfactual simulation","spatial analysis"]}]}