Copy
In this issue: Insights from a global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas and much more.
View this email in your browser
PCLG journal digest

Monthly Journal Digest

July 2015

People and protected areas


Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E., & Evans, K. L. (2015). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology, Published Online. http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12568
 
Protected areas (PAs) are a key strategy for protecting biological resources, yet their effectiveness can vary considerably, and they are often blamed for having negative impacts on local people. To achieve more effective and socially just conservation, we need to improve our understanding of the relationship between social impacts (positive and negative) and conservation outcomes of PAs. Here, the authors conduct a global analysis of how PAs affect the wellbeing of local people, the factors associated with these impacts, and crucially the relationship between PAs’ conservation and socioeconomic outcomes. They conclude that, while strict protection may be needed in some circumstances, the results of this study demonstrate that conservation and development objectives can be synergistic and highlight management strategies that increase the probability of achieving win-win scenarios that maximize conservation performance and development outcomes of PAs.

Mahapatra, A., Tewari, D. D., & Baboo, B. (2015). Displacement, Deprivation and Development: The Impact of Relocation on Income and Livelihood of Tribes in Similipal Tiger and Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Management, 56(2), 420–432. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0507-z
 
Resettlement policies in protected areas are often designed and implemented without consideration of the social and economic costs of exclusion. This study examined income and poverty profile of tribal residents in Similipal Tiger and Biosphere Reserve in India, relative to the households relocated out of the reserve. The results contradicted common perception about impoverishment outcome of relocation. It showed an increase in the per capita income for poorer segments with an overall 8 % increase in absolute household income and corresponding improvement in the poverty ratio (head count ratio) and FGT index (0.241) for the relocated community. Expulsion of people from forest reserves to support conservation is inadequate in restricting habitat use of locals unless suitable alternative livelihood options are available for forest dependent was proven from the study.

Conservation interventions and local people


Reid, H. (2015). Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: learning from community-based natural resource management. Climate and Development, 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1034233 (open access)
 
Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and its sister community-based adaptation (CBA) have gained traction over recent years, and policy-makers and planners are increasingly promoting ‘integrated’ EbA and CBA approaches. Improved learning from older natural resource management disciplines such as community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), however, could help inform EbA and CBA practice and policy-making. This viewpoint describes key lessons from CBNRM that EbA and CBA should address as they mature, including the need for EbA and CBA to ensure: communities are central to planning; the institutional, governance and policy context of initiatives is addressed; and, incentives and the need for better evidence of effectiveness is considered.
 
 
Leisher, C., Temsah, G., Booker, F., Day, M., Agarwal, B., Matthews, E., … Wilkie, D. (2015). Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes: a systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 4(1), 13. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-015-0039-2 (open access)
 
In the fields of environmental governance and biodiversity conservation, there is a growing awareness that gender has an influence on resource use and management. Several studies argue that empowering women in resource governance can lead to beneficial outcomes for resource sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Yet how robust is the evidence to support this claim? Here the authors focus on the forestry and fisheries sectors to answer the primary question: What is the evidence that the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affects resource governance and conservation outcomes? The objective is to produce a systematic map of the evidence highlighting, inter alia, the geographic distribution and quality of the evidence, the consistency and robustness of the findings, and where further research is needed.

Alternative natural resource use practices 


De Vasconcellos Pegas, F., Grignon, J., & Morrison, C. (2015). Interdependencies among Traditional Resource Use Practices, Sustainable Tourism, and Biodiversity Conservation: A Global Assessment. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1037939
 
Local communities are often encouraged to adopt alternative land-use practices to minimise their impacts on biodiversity while improving their livelihoods, and tourism is one of these practices. Using a review of the IUCN Red List database as well as nature-based tourism, ethnozoology, ethnobiology, and wildlife conservation and trade literature, the authors examined the influence of tourism on the traditional resource use–conservation balance and the potential outcomes for species conservation. The results of this study suggest that tourism can indeed support species conservation and protect traditional practices by providing alternative local sustainable development options.
 
Sainsbury, K., Burgess, N. D., Sabuni, F., Howe, C., Puis, E., Killenga, R., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2015). Exploring stakeholder perceptions of conservation outcomes from alternative income generating activities in Tanzanian villages adjacent to Eastern Arc Mountain forests. Biological Conservation, 191, 20–28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.001 (open access)
 
Alternative income-generating activities (IGAs) are widely implemented within conservation and development projects, but their impact is rarely evaluated. The “ranked outcomes” evaluation methodology converts qualitative information on planned and realised outcomes into a score for comparison between projects. The authors test this methodology in two ways using a set of small scale IGAs implemented in communities adjacent to the Uzungwa Scarp proposed Nature Reserve in the Tanzanian Eastern Arc Mountains. Ranked outcomes emerged as a flexible framework that defines the terms of the evaluation for all stakeholders from the outset, even in cases when evaluation and clear goal-setting are omitted from original project design and planning.
 
Lander, T., & Monro, A. (2015). Conservation of Brosimum alicastrum, an underutilized crop and keystone forest tree species; a potential win–win for conservation and development in Latin America. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(8), 1917–1930. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0913-9
 
Increasingly conservation programmes are expected to also meet human development goals. Achieving a solution where both conservation and development needs are aligned presents a challenge; however, in cases where species have the potential to impact on livelihoods such win–win scenarios may be achievable. The authors present the case study of Brosimum alicastrum (Moraceae), a forest tree and a crop species from Latin America. The study concludes that conservation of this species in conjunction with the development of this underutilised crop for food and fodder could achieve a win–win solution for conservation and development. 

Ecosystem services and livelihoods


Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., … Vira, B. (2015). Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (24), 7348–7355. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112 (open access).
 
Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. The authors explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: (i) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being; (ii) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and (iii) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.
 
Calvet-Mir, L., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Fisher, J., & Gross-Camp, N. (2015). Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 150–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.001
 
The authors undertake a review of academic literature that examines the effectiveness and equity-related performance of PES initiatives targeting biodiversity conservation in tropical and sub-tropical countries. The results indicate that analyses of PES effectiveness have to date focused on either ecosystem service provision or habitat proxies. Studies evaluating the impact of PES on livelihoods suggest more negative outcomes, with an uneven treatment of the procedural and distributive considerations of scheme design and payment distribution. The authors propose an agenda for future PES research aimed at in assessing environmental outcomes more rigorously and documenting social impacts in a more comparative form.
 
 
Wegner, G. (2015). Payments for ecosystem services (PES): a flexible, participatory, and integrated approach for improved conservation and equity outcomes. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–28. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9673-7
 
Over the past 20 years, payments for ecosystem services (PES) has become increasingly popular as a mechanism to promote environmentally sustainable land-use practices. The goal of this paper is to offer a comprehensive review of the PES literature, focusing on four major aspects of PES: (1) its efficiency in delivering environmental conservation, (2) its impacts on the well-being of local land users, (3) its interaction with local norms of distributive justice and environmental stewardship, and (4) its interplay with broader national policies and socio-economic trends. On the basis of this study, the authors propose a flexible, participatory, and integrated conceptualisation of PES, as more capable of delivering efficient, equitable, and resilient conservation outcomes.
 
 
Ferraro, P. J., Hanauer, M. M., Miteva, D. A., Nelson, J. L., Pattanayak, S. K., Nolte, C., & Sims, K. R. E. (2015). Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services and poverty by integrating modeling and evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (24), 7420–7425 http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406487112 (open access)
 
Research shows how the potential services from ecosystem conservation can be modeled, mapped, and valued; however, this integrative research has not been systematically applied to estimate the actual impacts of programs on the delivery of ecosystem services. We bridge this divide by showing how protected areas in Brazil, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand store carbon and deliver ecosystem services worth at least $5 billion. Impacts on carbon are associated with poverty exacerbation in some settings and with poverty reduction in others. We describe an agenda to improve conservation planning by (i) studying impacts on other ecosystem services, (ii) uncovering the mechanisms through which conservation programs affect human welfare, and (iii) more comprehensively comparing costs and benefits of conservation impacts.
Share
Tweet
Forward
Our current journal watch list includes: African Journal of Ecology; Agricultural Sciences News; Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment; AMBIO; Animal Conservation; Antipode; Biodiversity; Biodiversity and Conservation; Biological Conservation; Conservation and Society; Conservation Biology; Conservation Evidence; Conservation Letters; Development and Change; Diversity and Distributions; Ecological Economics; Ecology; Ecology and Society; Ecosystem Services; Environment and History; Environmental Conservation; Environmental Ethics; Ethics and the Environment; Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment; Global Environmental Change; Human Dimensions of Wildlife; International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management; International Journal of Environmental Studies; Journal for Nature Conservation; Local Environment; Management of Environmental Quality; Natural Resources Forum; Nature; Oryx; PNAS; Science; Society & Natural Resources; The Journal of Environment & Development; Trends in Ecology and Evolution; Wildlife Research; World Development.
Please contact us with your feedback and suggestions for any new journals we should add to our watch list.
Facebook
Facebook
Website
Website
Contact
Contact
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
This newsletter is one of a number of information services published by the Poverty and Conservation Learning Group (PCLG), an IIED led initiative. The activities of the PCLG are currently funded by the Arcus Foundation, and the UK Government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of these organisations.
 
Poverty and Conservation Learning Group  IIED      UK aid        Arcus Foundation      
Copyright © 2015 PCLG, All rights reserved.


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences    privacy policy

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp