Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity conservation is often characterized by two polarized narratives: the 'parks' position looks to exclude people from protected areas (PAs) (Terborgh & van Schaik 2002), and manages encroachment by law enforcement, whereas the 'people' position demands access and management rights for local residents (Neumann 1998; Adams & Hulme 2001). The 'parks' position, alternatively known as 'fences and fines' or 'fortress conservation' (Neumann 1998; Brockington 2002), developed from the colonial creation of PAs in Africa (Neumann 1998; Oates 1999) and the American 19th century environmental protection movement (Brockington 2002). The 'parks' position prioritizes the intrinsic value of biodiversity (Adams et al. 2004) and advocates top-down management of conservation areas (Buscher & Wolmer 2007). The 'people' position developed from social injustices resulting from PA creation, such as forced eviction (Brockington & Igoe 2006; Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau 2006), human wildlife conflict (Treves & Karanth 2003) and losses incurred by communities living adjacent to PAs (McNeely 1993; Adams & Infield 2003), as well as resistance by communities to the exclusionary 'parks' position (Hutton et al. 2005). To counter these injustices, community based conservation (CBC) was introduced (Adams & Hulme 2001), which advocated integrated conservation and development (Barrett & Arcese 1995), direct community management of resources (Child 2004) and at least negotiated access to resources (Barrow & Murphree 2001). In return, communities help protect the park from illegal activities (Adams & Hulme 2001; Archibald & Naughton-Treves 2001; Chhetri et al. 2003; Child 2004).
Either extreme in the people or parks arguments minimizes the interdependency between PAs and local people (Redford et al. 2006). Exploitation of the park purely for resource extraction would lead to the decline of critically endangered species, loss of ecosystem services for local communities and potentially loss of tourist revenues (Naughton-Treves et al. 2005; Burgess et al. 2007). Fears that CBC prioritizes development over conservation have led to resurgence in protectionist discourse (Oates 1999; Terborgh & van Schaik 2002; Hutton et al. 2005) and for more critical assessment of CBC (Buscher & Wolmer 2007). Ideally, conservation policy needs to consider all PA stakeholders: conservation organizations that value the protection of biodiversity and look to protect carbon sinks to combat global warming (Naughton-Treves et...