Review of the quality of protected-area boundary datasets in Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, and Côte d'Ivoire to assess their suitability for legal-zoning analyses

This dataset provides the results of a review of the quality of protected-area boundary datasets in Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, and Côte d'Ivoire to assess their suitability for legal-zoning analyses.
This work was supported by the World Cocoa Foundation, with data provided by the respective countries.
Methodology:Protected area polygons were evaluated through visual interpretation using high-resolution satellite imagery. For each reviewed polygon, interpreters assessed whether the mapped boundaries accurately followed visible landscape features and examined the interior of the protected area for evidence of agriculture, cocoa cultivation, mining, urban development, or other land uses inconsistent with the protection status.

The assessment focused on protected areas located in or near cocoa-producing regions and areas experiencing recent deforestation pressure. Consequently, the reviewed polygons represent a targeted high-risk sample intended to identify operational issues affecting due-diligence implementation rather than a statistically representative assessment of each country's protected-area network.

During the interpretation, three recurring categories of issues were identified.

Type 1 – Boundary shift: The protected-area boundary is consistently displaced relative to the corresponding landscape boundary visible in satellite imagery. Historical imagery indicates that the landscape has remained stable, suggesting a georeferencing or digitization error rather than a genuine change in the protected-area boundary.
Type 2 – Local boundary misalignment: The protected-area boundary generally follows the correct location but does not accurately trace the true landscape boundary, such as forest edges or rivers, resulting in localized positional errors. These inaccuracies are typically caused by low-precision or generalized digitization.
Type 3 – Boundary geometry issues: The protected-area dataset contains geometric artefacts, including gaps, overlaps between adjacent polygons, or long straight boundary segments that do not correspond to visible landscape features. These issues indicate limitations in the digitization or editing of the vector dataset and may reduce its spatial consistency.
Type 4 – Other forms of encroachment: The protected-area boundary contains evidence of non-agricultural land uses that are inconsistent with its protection status, including urban development, mining activities, or other forms of anthropogenic disturbance.