lecture 1 intro communite Flashcards
sheppard et al 2010 has cbc been succesful ghana hippo sanctory
yesd- built tabo against killing , 7-8 more develpoment other regions , ecotourism
grawak 1999 what has comunity traditionally been seen as?
ssmall area/numvber individuals= homogneos social strucutre= set shared understanding how recources should be used= desirable recource use and conservation outcomes
grawal, gibson 1999 what should focus when looking at community
-diffrernt interests and actors
-how influence decsion making
-internal and external instiutions that shapoe decsion making
-focus making instituions better rather community
garwal and gibson what is a institution
-formal and informal norms shape interactions human and nature
-mediate action
-show power relations actors
-help accomplish taks
garwal and gibson 199 solution CBC
-focus abilty community create & inforce rules
-need rights to remove representives
-settle disputes in community
-gov stop invation rights & intracommunity conflict
Garwal and Gibson 1999 alternative view coomunty
comm groups vary: Size, composition, norm, resource dependence= institutional aragment and proceeses decision making and enforcemnt= recorce managment outcome
garwal and gibson 199 how to improve cbc
-more checks and balances
-local groups more power & abilty negotiate gov
-improve decision making process
-give adequate funds implement decisions
kumar 2005 what is the concept of community in natural resource managementeant
-no agreed term com
- impossible to define
-assuption = misleading recource managment
titz et al 2018 what term com imply
people-centered, participatory, grass routes approach
tiltz et al 2018 why CBC come about
-top down approaches not working
neo-liberalsim not working
titz et al if no clear commnity what should we focus on
-people centered-
state litrature who and where working
examples of historic cbc
-protected forest ancient world
-hunting reserves
-sacred groves
why modern conservation start west
-redicovery romantic vision nature
-scientific exploration natural world
-concerns destruction nature
what differences uk and USA conservation
-uk= issue smal cramped polluted= romantic vision country side protect landscape
-usa - everexpanding frontier= overexploitation nature, need to manage nature better
whats utilitarian perspective conserving nature
-concern about inefficany waste
-science based managment
-instrumental value nature
-anthropogenic focus
-promote extractive value
when yellow stone national park created
1872
idea national park
wildness area free from people , top down created by the state
how did national park exclude indigonous people
-physical- eviction people
-economic- prevent extractive use
-political- no role managment gov
conservation key event 1940
-concern wildlife be slaughtered when colonies handed back to locals
-creastion game reserve hunting
example game reserve
Tsavo
What was main decision 1962 first world conference national parks
legal protection parks against all human exploitation
what occurd 1960 conservation
-hit mainstram
-1961 creation wwf
what key trend conservation 1980
rise community based conservation. e.g community forest nepal, community based managment park africa
what ethical reason CBC
-well being
-right recources
-
pragmatic reason CBC
-communism proves states not manage resources
-state lacked the capacity manage
recognition importance of custimory institutions
-limit idea wilderness
-idea natives manage better
what are different levels CBC participation
-passive beneficiary without power projects imposed
-active decision maker
(continuum)
what different objectives CBC
-gov promoting political reason
- devolopment agency promote improve food security reduce poverty
-conserve biodiversity
why was CBF in nepal
-states nationalised forest = degradation overexploitation
lacked ownership exploit much possible needed to change this stop overexploitation
why communities should manage
more investment resources use them part of daily lives
what different approaches CBC
-integrated conservation and development programs (ICDPS)
-CBNRM
-collaborative management
-PES/direct payment
What ICDPS aims
=reduce conflcit people PS
income activites
-PA out reach
_revenue share
-try and reduce conflict
what CBNRM
-com take ownership
-sustainable managment
whats collabrative management
joint management com and state
Dresler et al view CBNRM
-not ideal in practice
- on the ground very differnt to theries
What preservationist used failure early CBC to argue
-biod only managed strict PA
- CBC= romantic ideal lack science
- sustainable use =rare
-waste conservation resources
-need protect 50% earth
why did early CBC fail?
-lack definition CBC
-lacked proper planning
-implementation flaws = not understand on the ground reality
-flawed understanding com
lele et al 2020 reasons CBC not working
-incomplete rights to com
-lack space to operate
-lack ability to work
geisier , de sousa 2001 how many refugees madagasca biosphere project 1990
35000
geisier , de sousa 2001 solutions to PA refugees
-land reform
-improve equity and effeciancy
-give local property rights
-shift smaller farms more efficient less envi impacts
-if no place go shouldn’t exlude people
What was barret et al 2015 framework to analyse a community
-interest- shared concerns, pursuits
-norms- standard of conduct and rules emerge long standing pattern interaction
-identity- individual or cloocetive (common traditions, interactions, shared struglles)
lee and newby socialogy definiton com
socioal organisation family, kinship and society
barret 2015 conclusion com
-myth
-complex
-need to undercover dynamics inclusion, exlusion
-com vulnerible exlusion
barret 2015 conclusion com
-myth
-complex
-need to undercover dynamics inclusion, exlusion
-com vulnerible exlusion
what make com resilent interest
collective, nested private interest
what makes com resilient normativity
-honour
-sociabilty
-trust
-communication
-peer pressure
what makes com resilient identity
-sense duty
-pluralist com identity
what make com vulneruble interest
-unchecked private interest
-captive collective interest
what makes com vulnerable normativity
-boundary construction
-othering
-role type casting
-ostracism
what makes com vulnerible identity
-rivildge self
-oppositional identity
-exenephobia
frite de bear 2012 is com developmetn resolve poverty
no- only 2.5% lived near reserve benfit
frit de bear 2012 is com useful concept
no, romantic ideal,just token rules managment
brockingston et al 2006 why is it difficult reconcile poverty reduction with conservation what going wrong
-lack info social impact pa
-not only focus indignous people
-understand ecologes coexistance- wildernes unrealist
what needed future cons brockingston 2006
reconcile harm past work out how to shape interactions human and nature
brooks et al 2006 how tried link development and conservation
-permited use natural recources, market acess, greater com involvemnt
brooks et al 2006 what done link conservation and dev
-utilistion- allow acess recources buffer zones
-market integration
-decentralisation-com input
-longitudal studies , mutipel measures
dressler et al 2010- how succesful has CBNRM been?
-very few successes
-desempowered people
based standadized practices not aligned local priorities
dresler et al 2010 can CBRNM be saved
- focus rights people not free markets
-prioritise social and envi justice
-marginal people need acess to land
-stratags deal changing politics and economcs
dressler et al 2010 what doese the future CBRNM depend on
future projects must be embedded socio,cultral relations, politics and recource needs
hutton et al 2011 what arguments been to return to barrier conservation
-biod conservscale problem olu sold strit areas ation moral imperitive
-CBA not based on science
-CBA romanitc unrelatistic ideal
-s. use rare
-people orientated approach failed
-CBA waste recources
-PA proven work
-
conclusion hutton 2011 should we return to barrier conservation
no, PAS won’t be enough alone. CBA failed improper implementation = could be improved
conclusion hutton 2011 should we return to barrier conservation
no, PAS won’t be enough alone. CBA failed improper implementation = could be improved
lele et al 2010 what must be adressed CBC
-desighn flaws
-simplified assumtions about rights
biological information and monitoring costs
-state intevention
lele et al 2010 why hasn’t non exclusion worked yet
-not enough state support
-lack space to function
-leoliberalistion limit effectiveness
-
lele et al 2010 problem with PAs
-problems moved else where
-prisitne area not meanigful goal
-extinctions still occur PAs
-cause conflcit
-not ethical exclude people
locals arnt destriyers of envi
Lele et al 2010 how to have non-exlusion conservation methods
-rights resource use distributed locals and state
-need understand economic and political trends when designing effective institutions
-need develop alternatives to neo-liberal way of thinkingti
odekap 2019 has decentralisation nepal helped people and biod
Y- reduction poverty and deforestation
why petrellio 2019 look into use term empowerment in conservation?
don’t use the term correctly= undermine role local involvement
whats the use of the term empowment been like in conservation
unclear inprecise
-used can help improve cons outcomes
-
what needed impove empowerment in conservation
-create a framework help employ
-need understanding nuance
-measure changes power and capacity
-look strategies create empowermen
-only use when its vitalt
what done CBC west african hippo reserve shepard 2010
-built taboo against killing hippos
-economic diversification
-ecotourism
-use com help collect data help build pride
