Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-l8tfn Total loading time: 0.276 Render date: 2022-06-28T10:34:05.903Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Barriers and triggers to community participation across different stages of conservation management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2010

EMILIO RODRÍGUEZ-IZQUIERDO*
Affiliation:
School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, P Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
MICHAEL C. GAVIN
Affiliation:
School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, P Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
MIGUEL O. MACEDO-BRAVO
Affiliation:
Sede de CIMA en Tarapoto, Área de extensión, Jr. Leguía 244, Morales (San Martín), Perú
*
*Correspondence: Emilio Rodríguez-Izquierdo e-mail: 13emil@gmail.com

Summary

Local community involvement in natural resource management can be critical to conservation success. Community participation in conservation efforts varies widely, reflecting a continuum from protectionist conservation mechanisms to programmes driven by local communities. Conservation is not one event, but an iterative process with many steps (planning, implementation, monitoring) each with an opportunity for different levels of participation. Barriers and triggers to more community involvement in management of the Cordillera Azul National Park (Peru) were examined. Eleven conservation officials and 73 community members provided information on levels of participation achieved at three management stages: Park establishment, management plan development, and management implementation. Park establishment was not a participatory process, owing to the expediency of the conservation agenda and a narrow window of political opportunity. Community involvement increased during the management plan development and its implementation, with communities eager to participate and a public-private partnership introducing new participatory management tools. However, a perceived lack of capacity in terms of community skills, funding availability, time and sufficient conservation personnel, and the definitions of participation used by different stakeholders, limited community involvement in decision-making processes. If conservation is to achieve more effective community involvement, long-term adaptive co-management approaches are needed that clearly define local participation, build capacity of all stakeholders and monitor levels of participation across all stages of project management.

Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): designing the next generation (Part 2)
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. (2001) If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35: 193200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C.C. (2001) The role of community in natural resource conservation. In: Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-Based Conservation., ed. Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C.C., pp. 131. New Brunswick, USA: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A., Redford, K. & Fearn, E. (2008) Conservation and human displacement. In: State of the Wild 2008–2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans, ed. Fearn, E., pp. 198205. Washington., DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Barrow, E. & Murphree, M. (2001) Community conservation from concept to practice: a practical framework. In African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, ed. Hulme, D. & Murphree, M., pp. 2437. Oxford, UK: James Currey.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. (1994) Co-management: bridging the two solitudes. Northern Perspectives 22: 1820.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. (2003) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F. (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 1518815193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996) Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN [www document]. URL http://www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/tailor.htmlGoogle Scholar
Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L. & West, P.C. (2002) Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources 15: 4164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, L. & Berkes, F. (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75: 6576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapin, M. (2004) A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Magazine November/December: 1371.Google Scholar
Castro, A.P. & Nielsen, E. (2001) Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environmental Science and Policy 4: 229239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Third edition. CA, USA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Silva, P.P. (2004) From common property to co-management: lessons from Brazil's first maritime extractive reserve. Marine Policy 28: 419428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dearden, P., Bennet, M. & Johnston, J. (2005) Trends in global protected area governance, 1992–2002. Environmental Management 36: 89100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavin, M. C., Wali, A. & Vasquez, M. (2007) Working towards and beyond collaborative resource management: parks, people, and participation in the Peruvian Amazon. In: Connecting People, Participation and Place: Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods, ed. Kindon, S., Pain, R. & Kesby, M., pp. 6070. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gavin, M.C. & Anderson, G.J. (2007) Socioeconomic predictors of forest use values in the Peruvian Amazon: a potential tool for biodiversity conservation. Ecological Economics 60: 752762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, T., Galvin, M., Meroka, P., Alca, J. & Alvarez, A. (2008) Who gains from community conservation? Intended and unintended costs and benefits of participative approaches in Peru and Tanzania. The Journal of Environment and Development 17: 118144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, R.H. & Lyon, J. (2007) Community conservation: practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx 41: 376385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imperial, M.T. (1999) Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management 24: 449465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
INRENA (2006) Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul, Plan Maestro (2003–2008). Lima, Perú: INRENA.Google Scholar
Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A. & Lichtenfeld, L.L. (2000) Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources 13: 705715.Google Scholar
Kiser, L. & Ostrom, E. (1982) The three worlds of action: a meta-theoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Strategies of Political Inquiry, ed. Ostrom, E., pp. 179222. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kothari, A. (2006) Community conserved areas. In Managing Protected Areas: a Global Guide, ed. Lockwood, M., Worboys, G. & Kothari, A., pp. 549572. London, UK/Sterling, VA, USA: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Kumar, S. (2002) Methods for Community Participation: a Complete Guide for Practitioners. London, UK: ITDG.Google Scholar
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A. N., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubchenco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C. L., Schneider, S. H. & Taylor, W. W. (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:15131516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, M. & Craig, G. (2004) Community participation and empowerment: the human face of structural adjustment or tools for democratic transformation? In: Community Empowerment: A Reader in Participation and Development, ed. Craig, G. & Mayo, M., pp. 111. London, UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Meffe, G.K., Nielsen, L.A., Knight, R.L. & Schenborn, D.A. (2002) Ecosystem Management: Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation. Washinton, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Menzies, N.K. (2007) Our Forest, Your Ecosystem, Their Timber: Communities, Conservation, and the State in Community-Based Forest Management. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, P., Folke, C. & Berkes, F. (2004) Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environmental Management 34: 7590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redford, K.H. & Sanjayan, M.A. (2003) Retiring Cassandra. Conservation Biology 17: 14731474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J.G. & Redford, K.H. (2004) Jack of all trades, master of none: inherent contradictions among ICDP approaches. In: Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development, ed. McShane, T.O. & Wells, M.P., pp. 1033. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Salafsky, N. & Margoluis, C. (2004) Using adaptive management to improve ICDPs. In: Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development, ed. McShane, T.O. & Wells, M.P., pp. 372394. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sayer, J. & Wells, M.P. (2004) The pathology of projects. In Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development, ed. McShane, T.O. & Wells, M.P., pp. 3548. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Spiteri, A. & Nepal, S.K. (2006) Incentive-based conservation programs in developing countries: a review of some key issues and suggestions for improvements. Environmental Management 37: 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Struhsaker, T.T., Struhsaker, P.J. & Siex, K.S. (2005) Conserving Africa's rain forests: problems in protected areas and possible solutions. Biological Conservation 123: 4554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thakadu, O.T. (2005) Success factors in community based natural resources management in northern Botswana: lessons from practice. Natural Resources Forum 29: 199212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Field Museum of Chicago (2007) Park story [www document]. URL http://www.fieldmuseum.org/cordilleraazul/parkstory.htmlGoogle Scholar
Twyman, C. (2000) Participatory conservation? Community-based natural resource management in Botswana. The Geographical Journal 166: 323335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, M.P., McShane, T.O., Dublin, H.T., O'Connor, S. & Redford, K.H. (2004) The future of integrated conservation and development projects: building on what works. In: Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development, ed. McShane, T.O. & Wells, M.P., pp. 397419. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L. & West, P.C. (2002) Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent ‘protection paradigm’ in international biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15: 1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, K.R. & Rodríguez, L.O. (2006) Development of Peru's protected-area system: historical continuity of conservation goals. In: Globalization and New Geographies of Conservation, ed. Zimmerer, K.S., pp. 229254. Chicago, IL, USA/London, UK: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
24
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Barriers and triggers to community participation across different stages of conservation management
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Barriers and triggers to community participation across different stages of conservation management
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Barriers and triggers to community participation across different stages of conservation management
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *