poverty reduction Flashcards
adams et al 2004 what are the 4 main ways viewing poverty reduction and conservation
1) poverty and cons separate policy realms
2) poverty critical constraint conservation
4)cons not comprimise povert reduction
5)poverty reduction depends living resource conservation
kaimouitz, skeil 2007 why conservation must include pov reduction
-recourses vital lives
- most outside pas
-need particportary aproach
-poor should be compensated strict protection
-only effective have trust locals
liesher et al 2013 how does cons relying onnon timber forest products
-create poverty traps
-overexploitation
-unpredictable incomes
-middle men
-output biod uncertan
liesher et al 2013 what different stratagies cons and poverty reduction
-non-timber forest products
-com based enterprises
-PES
-eco-toursim
-local managed marine area
-mangrove conservation
-e,ployment pa
-agroforestry
-grassland maangment
liesher et al 2013 what main challanges integrating poverty reduction and conservation
-house holds high physical , social capital more likely to benefit
-elite capture
-high disparities and inequalites within communites
-lack hard evidence links poverty and biod
conclusion link pov and cons liesher et al 2013
cons unlikly meet need poor need focus suatinable socail economic dev with links to cons
swich et la 2014 how much do we know links es and poverty allievation
gaps knowledge
-how change occur and how stop pov by using resouses
brockington and wilkie 2015 what are the main contestions with PAs
-historical- displacement people
-conceptual - waht sort of nature do parks conserve
-political- land rights , land grapping convtion
brockington and wilkie 2015 what are main iisues managing PA
-physical and economic displacement
-lack of quality data
-working out who entitled compensation- more people effected just indigenous
-governance - are protecting local or state benefits
gardner et al 2013 what lessons can we learn from sucessful com cons madagasca
-need multiple use
-co managed local com and ngo
-legal tecnical empowment recourse users
-try reduce dependece natural resouses
-important have saftey net
-marine easier to manage more renewable resorce
where opportunity cost need compensation
mace et al 2014 how have views nature cons changed over time
1)nature for itself- intact habitat no people
2) nature despite people
3) nature for people
4)people and nature
naidoo et al 2019 how much higher wealth do people have near PA
17%
how pas improve wellbeing naidoo et al 2019
1) pas increase household wealth when also tourism - money spent house hold assets
2) increase income spent food and nutrition
3) abundance animals sold income - money can be spent
4) pas improve envi and water quality = benefits
redford et al 2008 should cons be supporting poverty
no only o.025% world poor in extrmely wild places cons not help much poverty but could be useful create partnerships least acessbile places
sanderson et al 2003 what is needed to change to make cons and povert compatible
-freeze agri expansion, recover degraded land , enhance land already human use
-scale down rural develomnet , enhnace low output producers
- redesin animal husbandary emphasise indignous breed, low heard density , husbandry techniques benfit poor
-sustian fisheries small scale common proterty regime
