Sanderson & Redford's (2003) correct insistence that poverty alleviation programmes ought more actively to include conservation would be well matched by an awareness of the impacts of some conservation policies, particularly the establishment of strictly protected areas, on local livelihoods.
Lands protected as wilderness
require the removal or exclusion of people and are
locally costly. Wilderness protection requires, we argue,
far more awareness of the nature and extent of these costs
wherever conservation interests have to be served by
people's absence.