People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation

[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org on Monday, May 7, 2018, IP: 181.118.123.

183]

Review
People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and
Biodiversity Conservation
William M. Adams and Jon Hutton
Abstract: Action to conserve biodiversity, particularly through the creation
of protected areas (PAs), is inherently political. Political ecology is a field of
study that embraces the interactions between the way nature is understood
and the politics and impacts of environmental action. This paper explores the
political ecology of conservation, particularly the establishment of PAs. It dis-
cusses the implications of the idea of pristine nature, the social impacts of and
the politics of PA establishment and the way the benefits and costs of PAs are
allocated. It considers three key political issues in contemporary international
conservation policy: the rights of indigenous people, the relationship between
biodiversity conservation and the reduction of poverty, and the arguments of
those advocating a return to conventional PAs that exclude people.

Keywords: political ecology, conservation, biodiversity, population displace-

ment, resettlement, parks, protected areas, poverty and conservation, wilder-
ness
INTRODUCTION
IN 2004, 500 PEOPLE were removed from the Nechasar National Park in south-
ern Ethiopia, and resettled outside its borders (Pearce 2005). This forced dis-
placement was undertaken by the government of Ethiopia, in order to clear the
park of encumbrances before handing it over to a private Dutch-based organi-
sation awarded a contract to manage it, the African Parks Foundation (APF).1
William M. Adams, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EN,

UK.
Jon Hutton, UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 217 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge
CB3 0DL, UK.
Address for Correspondence

William M. Adams, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EN,
UK.
E-mail: [email protected]
Conservation and Society, Pages 147–183

Volume 5, No. 2, 2007
Copyright: © Adams and Hutton 2007. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and distribution of the article,
provided the original work is cited.
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org on Monday, May 7, 2018, IP: 181.118.123.183]
148 / Adams and Hutton
This, and related displacements in Omo National Park, were swiftly con-
demned by international human rights NGOs.2 Two years later, on 13 Decem-
ber 2006, the Botswana High Court ruled that the Botswana government’s
eviction of Bushmen from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve was ‘unlawful
and unconstitutional’, and that they had the right to live on their ancestral land
inside the designated area.3
These cases illustrate the contemporary importance of debates about the
place of people on land set aside for the conservation of nature.4 These have
received increasing attention from academic researchers and human rights
activists (e.g. Fairhead and Leach 2000; Colchester 2002; Chapin 2004;
Dowie 2005). The stated aim of the APF, which also runs parks in Zambia,
Malawi and South Africa, is ‘to restore, manage and maintain the natural re-
sources of the parks to ensure long-term ecological and financial sustainabil-
ity’.5 This framing of protected areas (PAs) in ecological and financial terms
excludes any consideration of the social and political context of the estab-
lishment and management of PAs, despite the obvious importance of such is-
sues. For whom are such areas set aside? On whose authority? At whose cost?
These issues are central to the growing public and policy debate about the
social impacts of conservation. That debate, however, is much broader than
just the question of the displacement of people from parks. It embraces the
whole relation between biodiversity conservation and human welfare, especially
the compatibility of conservation and poverty alleviation and the feasibility of
‘win-win’ policy strategies (Adams et al. 2004; Agrawal and Redford 2006).
There is growing policy literature about conservation and poverty in gen-
eral, and the specific issue of the social impacts of PAs. This draws to only a
limited extent on an explicit understanding of the political and economic di-
mensions of conservation policy. One important reason for this is the discipli-
nary gulf that exists between predominantly natural science-trained
conservation planners and predominantly social science-trained critics of con-
servation. This gulf is profound and long standing, but the need and opportu-
nity for creative approaches to bridge it are being addressed from both sides
(e.g. Brosius 1999a, 2006b; Mascia et al. 2003; Thornhill 2003; Campbell
2005).6 One particular feature of this divide is the different capacity of natural
and social scientists to engage with the politics of conservation action as a
subject for analysis. Social science integrates politics centrally within its
analysis of conservation; natural science typically places it outside, as a con-
straint on practical action. The field of political ecology offers productive
possibilities for developing understanding of political dimensions of conser-
vation (Stott and Sullivan 2000; Zimmerer and Basset 2003; Peet and Watts
2004; Robbins 2004).
Political ecology is a diverse and transdisciplinary field. It emerged in the
1970s, and developed in the 1980s, particularly as an explanatory framework
for the problem of soil erosion (Blaikie 1985; Blaikie and Brookfield 1987).
Political ecologists analyse environmental or ecological conditions as the
People, parks and poverty / 149
product of political and social processes, related at a number of nested scales

from the local to the global (Bryant and Bailey 1997). Thus political ecology
attempts to link an understanding of the logics, dynamics and patterns of eco-
nomic change the politics of environmental action and ecological outcomes
(Peet and Watts 2004), a set of relationships fundamental to conservation. Po-
litical ecologists typically engage in field-based empirical research (often
case-study research), a localised or regional approach with roots in geogra-
phy, anthropology, sociology and environmental history (Zimmerer and
Young 1998). Many of the insights of political ecology are shared with envi-
ronmental anthropology (e.g. Brosius 1999a, b; 2006b).
The field of political ecology explicitly addresses the relations between the
social and the natural, arguing that social and environmental conditions are
deeply and inextricably linked. Moreover, it emphasises not only that the ac-
tual state of nature needs to be understood materially as the outcome of politi-
cal processes, but also that the way nature itself is understood is also political.
Ideas about nature, even those that result from formal scientific experimenta-
tion, are formed, shared and applied in ways that are inherently political
(Escobar 1999). There is particular interest in the place of the apparatus of the
state in directing, legitimising and exercising power and control (Forsyth
2003; Peet and Watts 2004; Robbins 2004).
There is a growing literature explicitly drawing on a political ecological
analysis to explore conservation. Key issues include the politics and economy
of the spatial strategy of PA declaration in colonial and post-colonial contexts
(e.g. Schroeder 1999; Neumann 1992; 2004c; Brockington 2002), the role of
the state as the central agent in the direction, legitimisation and exercise of
power and control in the name of conservation (Peluso 1993; Neumann
2004b) and the role of non-governmental conservation actors (Bryant 2002;
Brosius 1999b; Hecht et al. 2006). This paper engages with this literature, ex-
amining the way conservation policies on the ground reflect wider and more
general ideas about nature, particularly through the development and applica-
tion of scientific knowledge (e.g. Fairhead and Leach 2003; Stott and Sullivan
2000) and the problematic relationship between PAs and human communities.
It should be noted that other important dimensions of the political economy of
conservation, such as the politics of global environmental change, are not dis-
cussed here. Anthropogenic climate change is increasingly recognised as a
significant global threat to biodiversity, and an analysis of political responses
and outcomes in specific environments and social contexts has considerable
promise, but lies beyond this paper. The focus here is on conservation policy
and its implications, especially through the establishment of PAs.
PEOPLE AND PROTECTED AREAS
PAs7 have been the mainstay of international conservation strategies since the
start of the twentieth century (Adams 2004), although their history is much
older. The place of people in PAs, particularly residents using local resources,
has varied, but it has long been problematic. The first national parks were es-
tablished in the USA in the late nineteenth century, and widely copied interna-
tionally in subsequent decades. The number of PAs expanded rapidly
following World War II, especially in regions such as Africa, which under-
went a ‘conservation boom’ at this time (Neumann 2002). In 1958, IUCN es-
tablished a Provisional Committee on National Parks, which developed into
today’s World Commission on PAs (Holdgate 1999).8 After 4 years, in 1962,
the United Nations General Assembly adopted a ‘World List of National
Parks and Equivalent Reserves’.9 Creation of this list demanded standardisa-
tion of the various models of PA then being developed in Europe, the USA
and the developing world, and IUCN duly developed a classification that de-
fined different kinds of PAs. This has been repeatedly refined over the years
(Ravenel and Redford 2005), and currently consists of six different categories,
including both highly exclusionary Category 1 and 2 PAs (including classic
National Parks) and a variety of other kinds of PAs that are more inclusive of
human activities, such as protected landscapes and reserves intended to main-
tain flows of products and services for human society.10
The area protected globally more or less doubled over the 1970s as the na-
tional park model spread to late adopters such as Latin American countries
(Harrison et al. 1982). The area in PAs continued to grow, doubling again be-
tween the fourth international parks congress in Caracas in 1993 and the fifth
in Durban in 2004 (Terborgh 2004). By 2005, over 100,000 PAs covered
more than 2 million km2, or 12 per cent of the earth’s land surface (Chape et
al. 2005). Systems of PAs existed in every country, wealthy and poor alike
(Naughton-Treves et al. 2005).
The social impact of PAs began to be widely recognised in the 1970s. The
idea that parks should be socially and economically inclusive slowly began to
become part of mainstream conservation thinking (e.g. Western et al. 1994;
Ghimire and Pimbert 1997; Hulme and Murphree 2001; Adams 2004).
UNESCO’s ‘biosphere reserve’ concept, developed in the 1970s, was based
on zoning, with a strictly protected core and a surrounding buffer zone where
only appropriate economic activity could take place. The specific issue of the
displacement of people from PAs was recognised by the 1970s. In 1975, the
IUCN General Assembly passed the Kinshasa Resolution on the Protection of
Traditional Ways of Life, calling on governments not to displace people from
PAs, and to take specific account of the needs of indigenous populations
(Colchester 2004). In 1984, the World Bank published guidelines that ruled
out resettlement of indigenous people (World Bank 1984). In 1975, the
UNESCO World Heritage Convention made specific provision for the conser-
vation of areas of historical and cultural significance, admitting to the UN
system PAs whose special qualities were created by human action.
By the 1980s, the whole conservation paradigm had changed to feature so-
cial inclusion rather than exclusion (Adams and Hulme 2001a; Hulme and
Murphree 1999). On paper at least, the needs of local people were firmly on
the conservation planning agenda. Community-based approaches dominated
debate about conservation strategies in the rural developing world in the last
two decades of the twentieth century (see for example Wells and Brandon
1992; Brosius et al. 1998; 2005, Adams and Hulme 2001a; 2001b; Hulme and
Murphree 1999; 2001; Ghimire and Pimbert 1996; Western et al. 1994; Wil-
shusen et al. 2002). ‘People and park’ projects were developed in many coun-
tries, although many involved simply a repackaging of existing approaches.
The World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980) marked a change in the ap-
proach taken by conservation planners to development, from damage limita-
tion (e.g. Dasmann et al. 1973) to a focus on sustainability (Adams 2001). The
World Conservation Strategy argued that sustainable development depended
on the conservation and sustainable use of living organisms and ecosystems.
This idea became an important element of mainstream sustainable develop-
ment thinking (Adams 2001), and the basis for a substantial flow of funds into
conservation work in the 1990s, for example through the Global Environment
Facility and the work of bilateral donors such as USAID.
Such funding was the primary fuel for the experiments that were made with
‘community’ approaches to conservation, including Integrated Conservation
and Development Projects (ICDPs) and community-based natural resource
management (CBNRM). Advocates of ‘sustainable use’, or ‘incentive-based
conservation’, propose that conservation can best be achieved by giving rural
people a direct economic interest in the survival of species, thus literally har-
nessing conservation success to the issue of secure livelihoods (Hutton and
Leader-Williams 2003). Sustainable use strategies based on hunting, for ex-
ample safari hunting in southern Africa, show some success, although they are
opposed by the animal rights movement and its supporters in Northern con-
servation NGOs (Duffy 2000). There is a better fit between the sustainable
use approach to non-consumptive uses of wildlife (e.g. ecotourism) and the
ethical and ecological predispositions of conservationists.
The issue of people in and around PAs was central to discussion at the
Third World Congress on National Parks in Bali in 1982 (McNeely and Miller
1984), as were the rights and needs of indigenous people at its successor in
Caracas in 1992 (McNeely 1993). The ‘Durban Accord’, agreed at the Fifth
World Parks Congress in 2003, defined a new paradigm for PAs, which would
integrate them with the interests of ‘all affected people’ such that they provide
benefits ‘beyond their boundaries on a map, beyond the boundaries of nation
states, across societies, genders and generations’ (World Conservation Union
2005: 220). Such language reflects very real struggles to define what PAs are
and what social (and indeed biological) purposes they might serve.
The relationship between people and nature, particularly in the context of PAs,
is highly political, embracing issues of rights and access to land and resources,
the role of the state (and increasingly non-state actors in NGOs and the pri-
vate sector), and the power of scientific and other understandings of nature.
This paper reviews this emerging political ecology of conservation. It looks

first at the significance of ideas about nature for the way conservation has
been thought about and practiced. It discusses the importance of Enlighten-
ment divisions between ‘natural’ and ‘human’, and the complex implications
of the idea of nature as pristine, something conceptually separate and physi-
cally set apart from the human, for example as ‘wilderness’. Second, it re-
views the social impacts of PAs, particularly on people displaced. It discusses
the nature, extent and significance of population displacement for conserva-
tion, and the issue of coercion. Third, it considers the political economy of
conservation benefits, which (like costs) tend to be unequally shared. Some
are widely spread (e.g. ecosystem services), while others are more restricted
(e.g. tourism revenues). Not all benefits are acquired legally. Fourth, the paper
considers the growing debate about the rights and needs of indigenous people
in the context of state designation of PAs. In many ways the issues this raises
are similar to general debates about people and parks, although ethnicity,
identity and indigenousness provide a more urgent political context as well as
extra complexities. Fifth, the paper reviews attempts to connect (or discon-
nect) the issues of poverty and conservation. The political ecology of conser-
vation is increasingly being framed in the context of the contrast between
global wealth and local poverty. Sixth, the paper considers the significance of
the renewal of calls for strictly protected parks that exclude resident people.
An important element here is the role of natural science in the thinking of
conservationists, and a corresponding lack of familiarity with political, social
and economic issues.
CONSERVATION AND THE IDEA OF NATURE
Political ecologists argue that the way nature is understood has profound po-
litical significance (Peet and Watts 2004; Neumann 2004c). This is certainly
true of conservation, where, especially in creating PAs, the state or other ac-
tors seek to make rules about who can use nature and where, when and how
they can do so. The establishment of PAs that exclude people reflects a con-
ceptual division between nature and human society that has deep roots in
Western thought. The displacement of people in this way needs to be under-
stood in the context of wider modern engagement with nature (Neumann
2004a). Indeed, conservation has to be understood in the historical context of
the wider political structure of colonial societies, and the extension of capital-
ism to the global periphery.
The efficient mastery of nature has been a central principle of the ‘formal
rationalisation’ associated with the modern state (Murphy 1994). Rationalisa-
tion is recognised as the dynamic and self-driving process that underpins capi-
talism and bureaucracy; it involves treating non-human nature as if it were
fully plastic, malleable to meet human demands (Murphy 1994). This ap-
proach to nature underpinned the development of science and the ambition of
European imperialism from the sixteenth century onwards, a process of tight-

ening ‘government’ of nature (Drayton 2000). Indeed modern state govern-
ance was built on the idea that nature could be understood, manipulated and
controlled for social benefit through the development of schematic (increas-
ingly scientific) knowledge (Scott 1998).
Thus, for example, a new science of forestry was developed in eighteenth-
century Prussia. Through this lens, the complex interactions of trees, wildlife
and people of former woodlands were re-expressed in narrow and simplified
scientific terms that allowed the calculation and measurement of productivity
and efficient physical management. Scientific forestry was adopted in the
nineteenth century, in France, in British colonial possessions (notably India,
where imperialism, science and environmentalism became inextricably inter-
linked, Barton 2002), and in the USA (Demerrit 2001). The abstraction of the
complex ecosystem of the forest in terms of statistical units allowed nature to
be represented in terms such as ‘maximum sustainable yield’ or ‘annual al-
lowable cut’. In the twentieth century, such thinking became the standard
global approach to ‘renewable resources’ such as forests.
Historically, therefore, science allowed nature to be classified, counted, and
(at least in theory) to be controlled by government bureaucracies set up to op-
timise relations between state, society and nature (Hays 1959; Willems-Braun
1997; Demerrit 2001; Mackenzie 2000). The same reductionist approach was
applied to the people in colonial territories (Mackenzie 2000). In forestry, and
in conservation, the dynamics of power and knowledge interacted in the regu-
lation of people and nature through what social theorists call ‘governmental-
ity’ and ‘biopolitics’ (Foucault 1975; McNay 1996; Bryant 2002).
The conceptual divisions between natural and human (e.g. between empty
and inhabited land, or wild and sown) were made physical on the landscape
by cartography, in both the USA and the British Empire (Adams 2003). Thus
the US government separated settlers, native peoples and nature both concep-
tually and in space (Jacoby 2001), while the government of colonial Tangany-
ika created ‘a new spatial order of nature and human occupation’ in Liwale
District (Neumann 2001: 662). This conceptual distinction led to the imposi-
tion by the state of physical separation between people and nature, and often
to a denial of rights and of historic human presence.
The most influential model for conservation in twentieth century was the
US national park, developed in the late nineteenth century, and epitomised by
Yellowstone and Yosemite (Runte 1987; 1990). This was founded on a con-
ception of nature as something pristine that could be distinguished and physi-
cally separated from human-transformed lands. The speed and scale of
human-induced ecological change in tropical environments, especially on is-
lands, was an important factor in the development of modern western envi-
ronmentalism from the seventeenth century (Grove 1992; 1995), and remained
important in the nineteenth century where the twentieth-century conservation
movement had its roots (Marsh 1965).
Like development, conservation in its modern form is a fruit of Enlighten-

ment thinking. The same conceptual distinction between ‘nature/natural’ and
‘human/social’ was essential to the creation of conservation as a practical pro-
ject. The idea of nature as ‘pristine’, with complexes of species existing in a
natural state, matched a view of humanity as a destructive force analytically
external to the natural world. In colonial Africa, governments explicitly con-
ceived PAs to protect beleaguered nature against such assaults: protected
against rapacious and unnatural humanity (Neumann 2004a). Not only was
‘nature’ physically set apart on the ground (in PAs), but also to a large extent
human-created natures were conceptually disqualified from consideration as
legitimate objects of conservation concern.
The idea of wilderness as a positive statement of the value of lands free
from human presence and believed un-transformed by human action has long
been a powerful motivator of conservation action (Nash 1973; Schama 1995;
Cronon 1995, Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2006). In the USA, and in Austra-
lia, wilderness became an important element in emergent national identity
(Nash 1973; Dunlap 1999; Pyne 1997). However, the extent of the human
transformation of the ecology of pre-Colonial North America has only been
widely recognised relatively recently (Denevan 1992; Whitney 1994). For
many years, previous human occupation of US parks was not acknowledged.
Indian heritage was excluded from maps, whose new place names featured the
parks’ ‘natural’ wonders. Indigenous people were actively suppressed by mili-
tary and bureaucratic action, and removed (Runte 1990; Jacoby 2001). Both
indigenous people and settlers found themselves increasingly prevented from
obtaining livelihoods from their former lands, now declared as parks (Jacoby
2001; Neumann 2004a).
In colonial Africa, strictly protected game reserves became the mainstay of
British colonial conservation through the first-half of the twentieth century, a
resort for gentleman hunters, whether traveller or colonial servant to experi-
ence hunt and kill ‘wild’ nature (MacKenzie 1988; Neumann 1996; Prender-
gast and Adams 2003; Adams 2004). Arguably, colonial conservationists
maintained and policed in British Africa a version of the Victorian sports-
man’s country estate, a private wild land, long after that world had disap-
peared at home (Neumann 1996). Areas such as the lowveld of Southern
Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) were idealised in colonial discourse as wild and
exotic lands, where colonial youth could develop a sporting spirit (Wolmer
2005) and African land was alienated to allow the creation of game reserves,
in a process that the archival record demonstrates was a self-conscious at-
tempt at wilderness creation in formerly inhabited lands. Similar ideologies
were at work elsewhere in Africa (Ranger 1999; Neumann 1996; 2001), and
in South Asia (Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2006).
This model of a state-designated game reserve was underpinned by the Brit-
ish tradition of private reserves where the elite could hunt, and where non-
proprietors lacked rights of access and use. Interestingly, in Britain itself,
there was an understanding that nature was not particularly pristine. When na-
tional parks were eventually designated in England and Wales (after 1949),
they were essentially planning designations, to protect beautiful lived-in land-
scapes (Sheail 1981; MacEwen and MacEwen 1982). They were created in
fairly remote hill or coastal areas such as the Peak District, Lake District,
Exmoor or Dartmoor (Sheail 1975; Adams 1996). These parks comprised mo-
saics of private landholdings, mostly under low-intensity agriculture and live-
stock farming. In contrast, PAs in the British Empire were imagined as
wilderness, not human-fashioned landscapes.
The ideas of pristine nature and un-peopled wilderness spread in the twenti-
eth century as an ideological framing of nature. Thus the idea of Africa as an
‘unspoiled Eden’ (Anderson and Grove 1987: 4), or ‘a lost Eden in need of
protection and preservation’ (Neumann 1998: 80) was a potent element in co-
lonial thinking about national parks in that continent. The ‘wilderness’ of the
Selous Game Reserve was created by the displacement of some 40,000 people
(Neumann 1998). This wilderness, like that of the first national parks in the
US, had to be created before it could be protected (Neumann 2004a).
Yellowstone and its successors in the USA became the dominant global
model for national parks, and with them came the concept of wilderness. In
London in 1906 a delegation from the recently established Society for the
Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire told the Secretary of State for
the Colonies that it was ‘the duty and the interest of Great Britain’ to follow
the US example in East Africa.11 That did not happen until the 1940s, but the
model was already being copied in the British Dominions (Australia 1879,12
Canada 1887 and New Zealand 1894), as it was in the Belgian Congo in 1925
and in South Africa in 1926 (Fitter with Scott 1974; McNamee 1993). Later,
the Yellowstone model of state-owned exclusive ‘wilderness’ parks was
adopted in East Africa and then globally (Neumann 2002; Jepson and
Whittaker 2002; Adams 2004). With the Yellowstone model often went the
same experience of evictions and exclusions, for example in Australia, Russia
and Canada (Poirier and Ostergren 2002; Langton 2003; McNamee 1993) and
widely in European colonial territories (Homewood and Rodgers 1991; Neu-
mann 1998; Ranger 1999) and elsewhere (Colchester 1997; 2002).
The demarcation of separate spaces for nature and human settlement con-
tinues to the present day, an integral aspect of the way the modern state classi-
fies, organises and simplifies complexity (Scott 1998). The specific idea that
sparsely settled lands can usefully be described as ‘wilderness’ or ‘Eden’ con-
tinues to dominate popular accounts of PA creation. It is typical that the title
chosen by National Geographic for an article about the 1200 km ‘mega tran-
sect’ by American biologist Michael Fay through central Africa, which helped
stimulate a decision by the President of Gabon to announce a series of thirteen
new national parks in 2002 (some of which turned out to be inhabited by
hunter-gatherer people), was entitled ‘Saving Africa’s Eden’ (Quammen
2003).
The ideas of wilderness, or pristine nature, set apart in PAs and sheltered
from human impacts, also continues to underlie the science-based planning
approaches to the selection of PAs developed in the 1990s (Margules and
Pressey 2000). Satellites, imaging systems, global positioning systems and
geographic information science software allowed new assessments of land
cover change to be made and repeated. Computers, of increasing power and
decreasing cost, provided new mechanisms for information storage and ex-
change. The aim of this development of ‘cartographically enabled priority set-
ting’ (Brosius 2006a) or ‘conservation biogeography’ (Whittaker et al. 2005)
was to concentrate conservation effort on areas of greatest need in a system-
atic response to the challenge of extinction (Myers et al. 2000: 853). This new
biodiversity science was inherently global in scope, both in the scale of its
analysis and in its view of conservation resources as essentially globally
flexible (Zimmerer 2006a, b; Brooks et al. 2006). Priority-setting approaches
such as the idea of ‘hotspots’ (Myers et al. 2000; Mittermeier et al. 2005)
have proliferated (Mace et al. 2000). Brooks et al. (2006) identity nine ‘global
biodiversity prioritisation templates’ developed by NGOs, variously mapping
the vulnerability of habitat and its irreplaceability in terms of living diversity.
The power of conservation planning lies in the development of protocols
that identify categories of both nature and people, and fix them into a planning
process that sets priorities, and uses GIS analysis and maps to specify zones
and targets for action (Fairhead and Leach 2003). In the Philippines, largely
external perceptions of biodiversity led to a process of strategic conservation
planning by international conservation NGOs (Bryant 2002). This used expert
knowledge of the distribution of species and ecosystems to frame and focus
government policy. Local uses of nature had little or no place in this analysis,
and local people played little or no part in the planning process itself.
THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF PARKS
The spatial strategy of setting aside PAs for conservation has inevitable social
and economic impacts. These have long been acknowledged (McNeely and
Miller 1984; McNeely 1993; Adams and Hulme 2001a) and are relatively well
understood and widely reported (Emerton 2001; O’Riordan and Stoll-
Kleeman 2002a; Igoe 2006). Direct costs to neighbours include hazards from
crop raiding wild animals such as elephants, buffalo, primates and a host of
smaller species (Naughton-Treves 1997; Sekhar 1998; Woodroffe et al. 2005).
Problems include crop damage, the labour and opportunity costs of crop de-
fence (e.g. impacts on children who do not attend school), physical hazard
(and fear of hazard) and death. Park neighbours can also be exposed to corrupt
rent-seeking behaviour by PA staff, particularly linked to minor infringements
of park boundaries (e.g. impoundment of stock alleged to be grazing ille-
gally), or of regulations (e.g. informal charges to avoid arrest or fines for cut-
ting fuelwood, or collecting medicinal plants).
The greatest social impacts of PAs, however, relate to population displace-

ment. The issue of resident people in PAs is widely recognised (West and
Brechin 1991), especially in the case of indigenous people (Colchester 2002;
Chatty and Colchester 2002). There have been a number of reviews the prob-
lem (e.g. Geisler 2003a; Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2006; Agrawal and
Redford 2007). The complexity and enduring nature of post-resettlement im-
pacts is known from research on the short- and long-term impacts of forced
displacement in contexts such as dam construction (e.g. Scudder 1993; 2005;
Cernea and McDowell 2000).
Displacement from PAs needs to be understood in a broad context. In 2004,
the World Bank changed its guidelines on resettlement, extending the defini-
tion of ‘involuntary displacement’ to include the restriction of access to re-
sources in PAs, even where no physical removal occurs (Cernea 2006).13 The
phrase ‘involuntary restriction of access’ covers restrictions on the use of re-
sources imposed on people living outside a PA as well as those living inside
it. In the context of PAs, displacement includes loss of rights to residence,
loss of rights to use land and resources, foreclosure of rights to future use and
loss of non-consumptive use values, for example access to places of religious
or cultural value. The economic cost to local or national economies of PAs
can be considerable. Agricultural benefits foregone can be significant (e.g.
Norton-Griffiths and Southey 1995), even if offset by factors such as carbon
storage in protected forest vegetation (e.g. Kremen et al. 2000).
Population displacement from PAs has a direct impact on livelihoods (e.g.
Brechin et al. 2003; Chatty and Colchester 2002; McElwee 2006). Forced re-
settlement exposes displaced people and those in receiving communities to a
wide range of risks of impoverishment (Scudder 1993; Cernea and McDowell
2000). These include landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, economic mar-
ginalisation, food insecurity, increased morbidity and mortality, loss of access
to common property and services and social disarticulation (Cernea 1997).
There is no accepted estimate of the total numbers of people displaced from
PAs across the globe. Most published studies focus on particular cases, for
example in Nicaragua (Kaimowitz et al. 2003), Tanzania (Neumann 1998;
Brockington 2002), Uganda (Feeny 1999) or Zimbabwe (Ranger 1999). Some
widely quoted cases of eviction, notably Turnbull’s account of the plight of
the Ik people following removal from Kidepo National Park, have subse-
quently been judged inaccurate (Turnbull 1974; Heine 1985). Others are still
inadequately documented (Colchester 2002).
Attempts to establish the scale of evictions quantitatively are still experi-
mental. Some estimates, derived by multiplying average population densities
and the area of PAs, lead to surprisingly high figures. Geisler and de Sousa
(2001) suggested there may be 14 m to 24 m ‘environmental refugees’ as a re-
sult of exclusionary conservation in Africa alone. Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau
(2003) estimated that 40,000 to 45,000 people had been displaced or directly
affected economically by displacement from nine PAs in central Africa. They
subsequently argue that 120–150,000 people have been displaced or impover-

ished by 12 parks in six central African countries (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau
2006). The analysis on which these figures are based has been challenged, and
they clearly need to be treated with considerable scepticism (Maisels et al.
2007). However, the currently published evidence base does indicate that
population displacement is a real, and in many instances a significant, prob-
lem associated with PA establishment in a number of contexts (Brockington
and Igoe 2006; Agrawal and Redford 2006).
A number of commentators have drawn attention to the use of force in pro-
grammes of involuntary population displacement. States claim legitimate
power to enforce socially desirable outcomes, and on this ground, the protec-
tion of nature as state policy has often involved coercion, particularly where it
has involved the displacement of human communities from PAs (Peluso
1993). The military-style control of PAs that arose from the model of US Na-
tional Parks has been maintained and developed in many countries, most
prominently perhaps in Kenya (Leakey and Morell 2001). Parker (2004)
graphically describes the bombing of fleeing Somali poachers in Tsavo Na-
tional Park in the 1950s with hand grenades. Neumann (2004b) analyses the
moral context for the use of extreme force in conservation, drawing attention
to the bizarre existence of ‘shoot-to-kill’ policies against poachers in coun-
tries where poaching is not a capital offence. As Peluso (1993) observes, in
this militaristic worldview conservationists are constructed as heroes, literally
fighting to protect nature against humankind. Military action is legitimised by
the ontological separation between people and nature, and the construction of
nature’s value and threatened state.
Population displacements for one purpose can often end up serving another.
Thus in colonial Tanganyika, the attempt to separate nature and people in Li-
wale District was driven in part by the sanitary objective of reducing sleeping
sickness, concentrating people in agricultural districts, and leaving land fur-
ther from the coast, deemed both wild and unhealthy, for nature (Neumann
2001). Similarly, the Parc National Albert expanded onto land cleared in 1933
by the colonial state as part of its drastic sleeping sickness campaign in the
Belgian Congo (Fairhead and Leach 2000; cf. Lyons 1985). Conservation
planners have often been entrepreneurial in this way in recognising the value
of ‘created wilderness:’ the land lost by the Meru Mbise people on Tanzania
to the Arusha National Park in Tanzania was initially taken for white settler
farms and forest reserves, only subsequently being purchased by the state and
conservation NGOs to extend the park (Neumann 1998). Similarly, the violent
forced resettlement of Tonga people from their land along the River Zambezi
before the flooding of the reservoir behind the Kariba Dam in the 1950s
(Howarth 1961) preceded the creation of new ‘wilderness’ PAs in Zimbabwe
(McGregor 2005).
Attitudes to human presence in PAs have of course varied, even in colonial
Africa. ‘Squatters’ were evicted from the Pongola Game Reserve in the nine-
teenth century, and its successor the Sabi Game Reserve, but were later (after
1905) tolerated because they provided a source of labour and rent, although
the administration continued to complain of their resistance to discipline and
their poaching (Carruthers 1995). The more common historical pattern is for
initial acceptance of human presence in a park to give way to intolerance ei-
ther as ideas about the need to protect ‘pristine’ nature change or as human
populations grow, or both. Thus, Brooks (2005) reports a measure of tolerance
of people in and adjacent to the Hluhlue Game Reserve in the Zululand in the
1930s, prior to fencing and eventual eviction in the 1940s. Brockington
(2002) describes the eventually successful attempt to evict Parakuyo and
Maasai pastoralists from the Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania, in 1988, a
full four decades after it was first designated.
Ironically, too, the displacement of people from PAs has long been depend-
ent on identity. Tourists and scientists have conventionally been tolerated in
PAs even where local resource users have been excluded. It is easy to imagine
why conservationists might think that the work of scientists should be dealt
with differently from other human activities, because of the role of natural
science in conservation planning. However, it is more surprising that tourism
(whose impacts were recognised early in the twentieth century, and whose
depredations strengthened the case for Federal involvement in national parks
in the USA in the first place) has been so widely treated differently to other
kinds of human activity. As discussed in the next section, tourists were on
balance thought useful, and their impacts judged a price worth paying. Tour-
ism was tolerated; hunting and other forms of resource use by local people
mostly were not.
The use of force by the state in the defence of PAs is but one example of
the wider issue of governance and conservation. Where conservation organi-
sations work in countries with poor human rights and governance records
(such as Burma, Graham-Rowe 2005) there are major ethical issues for con-
servationists to face: as the journal Nature observed, ‘a true believer in any
cause can ignore uncomfortable facts that conflict with its goals’ (Nature
2005: 855). While the importance of issues of governance and corruption is
beginning to be acknowledged by conservation practitioners (Smith et al.
2003), interest so far is as much in the ways these limit the effectiveness of
conservation as wider issues of rights and justice (Zerner 2000).
Terborgh (1999) suggests that ‘order and discipline’ is needed to preserve
biodiversity in the ‘dysfunctional societies’ of many developing countries (p.
192). He extends his argument for stronger governance to call for internationally
financed elite forces legally authorised to carry arms and make arrests (Ter-
borgh 1999). Such forces already exist, outside the control of any state. Clynes
(2002) describes the work of non-governmental para-military ‘counter-
poaching’ activities in the Central African Republic, organised by Africa
Rainforest and River Conservation specifically to combat commercial Sudanese
poaching gangs.14 Neumann (2004b) argues that there has been a systematic
qualitative shift in the level of violence with which biodiversity protection

strategies are pursued in Africa, as the moral tension between fear of extinc-
tion and respect for human rights tightens. Whatever the balance of rights and
wrongs in particular cases, it is clear that, as Brockington (2004) cynically notes,
coercion has apparently become a feasible long-term conservation strategy
where conservation interests are powerful and local opposition is weak.
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CONSERVATION BENEFITS
Of course, PAs also bring benefits. Most fundamentally, perhaps, people lo-
cally and regionally can benefit through ecosystem services. The Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment identified four kinds of service, provisioning services
such as food, water, timber and genetic resources; regulating services such as
waste treatment or the regulation of climate or flooding; cultural services such
as recreation and aesthetic enjoyment; and supporting services such as soil
formation, nutrient cycling and plant pollination (World Resources Institute
2005). It is widely recognised that the presence of habitat in PAs reflects a
real, and potentially measurable, contribution to human welfare. The idea of
payments for ecosystem services provides a possible mechanism for the con-
version if these values into streams of revenue.
The biodiversity and landscape of PAs can also provide the resource for a
tourist industry. Local people can receive a share of revenues from tourist fees
and from related economic activities (e.g. tourist facilities). Arrangements can
include direct employment, land leasing or licensing arrangements, commu-
nity equity or profit-share schemes, or independent locally owned commercial
activities (such as selling curios, food or cultural performances to tourists;
McNeely and Miller 1984; Wells and Brandon 1992; World Conservation Un-
ion 2005). The idea of parks as the foundation for the development of a tourist
industry is long established. In Africa at least, national park advocates prag-
matically turned a blind eye to such impacts. They proposed National Parks to
provide protection from development that might otherwise attract a short-
sighted government, for example mining or agriculture (Hingston 1932).
However, by a neat twist of logic, they also argued that national parks pro-
vided the basis for economic development, in the form of the tourist industry
(Adams 2004). Tourism, by train and later by motor car, was central to argu-
ments for the development of national parks in the USA and Canada (Runte
1987; McNamee 1993; Wilson 1992), and a little later in South Africa (Car-
ruthers 1995; Brooks 2005).
Economic benefits are also available to park neighbours if development in-
vestment is targeted on ‘support zones’ around a PA (e.g. Archabald and
Naughton-Treves 2001). However, such benefits are often much smaller than
planners predict (Walpole and Thouless 2005), and many actors in addition to
local people demand a share of available funds, including local and national
government agencies and departments (Adams and Infield 2003).
Access to benefits from conservation (such as social investment or devel-

opment funds, or profit sharing from tourist enterprise) is typically in the
hands of employees of the state national park authority. It is subject to rules of
eligibility (e.g. formalised membership of a selected community in immediate
proximity to the park border) and compliance with a range of regulations. In
such arrangements, there is ample room for elite capture of revenues. Paudel
(2006) analyses the distributional inequities of conservation programmes in
Nepal, even those intended to benefit local people. PA staff such as low-paid
manual workers employed in and around PAs may themselves face economic
hardships (Sodikoff 2007).
The illegal extraction of economic benefits from PAs can also be signifi-
cant. Direct illegal benefits for local, communities (or others) come from
practices such as hunting, grazing, collecting food or making charcoal. Indi-
rectly, benefits come from corrupt practices associated with the licensing of
use or access by state agencies and their employees, or the extraction of ille-
gal rents through granting or overlooking illegal access, or threatening local
people with punishment for real or imagined trespass (Brandon et al. 1998;
Smith et al. 2003). The conventional strategies to counter such illegal activi-
ties are revenue sharing (discussed above), ‘community outreach’ activities
such as education (e.g. Infield and Namara 2001; Holmes 2003), and more in-
tense and effective policing. However, outreach activities are notoriously dif-
ficult to focus on those who break the law, and rhetoric is a poor counter to
hunger and grievance against injustice. Persuasion of itself does little to out-
weigh economic incentives to break the law: poaching clearly often pays
(Milner-Gulland and Leader-Williams 1992). The cost of intense policing can
be large (Leader-Williams and Albon 1988), and the exercise of arbitrary
power by conservation agencies is deeply problematic (Neumann 2004b).
The creation of PAs generates a stream of legal and illegal benefits but both
tend to reproduce existing economic inequalities within local communities
and wider society (Paudel 2006). There is no reason to expect illegal revenues
to be any more equitably distributed than those that are legal, since capacity to
hunt and willingness to bear risks vary between and within households. There
is also inequality in the less tangible benefits of the existence value of the
species and habitats preserved in PAs. A crude distributional logic applies to
these benefits, for while in theory they are available to local people, in prac-
tice they are chiefly appropriated by remote and relatively wealthy wildlife
lovers in developed countries (and to a lesser extent local urban elites), both
through surrogate knowledge about species survival and through direct tourist
experiences. These beneficiaries provide, of course, the funding for interna-
tional conservation organisations that advocate the establishment of PAs.
Thus the costs of PAs are mostly born locally, while benefits accrue globally
(Balmford and Whitten 2003). It is widely argued within conservation that
where people living with PAs face economic costs due to the park, they
should clearly be fully compensated (Adams and McShane 1992; Tacconi and
Bennett 1995; James et al. 1999). Logically, revenue for this purpose needs to
be derived in some way from those who enjoy the wider global benefits of
parks (Balmford and Whitten 2003). Some argue that payments for ecosystem
services may provide a mechanism for such funding, but the necessary institu-
tions have not yet been developed on anything but an experimental scale.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND PROTECTED AREAS
The broadening of international debate about people and conservation from

the 1980s transformed (and was transformed by) changes in thinking about the
issue of the rights of indigenous people in PAs. This reflects the growing
strength of the global indigenous people movement and their arguments about
social justice, and growing attention on the social, cultural and economic im-
pacts of parks on indigenous people. In the 1970s and 1980s, experience in
Canada and Australia stimulated changes in the way indigenous land title and
resource rights were understood globally (Colchester 1997; Langton 2003). In
Canada for example, the Berger inquiry into the Mackenzie Delta oil pipeline,
and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in 1984 helped change national park pol-
icy with regard to Aboriginal right and title (Berg et al. 1993). In Australia,
the Cape York Peninsula Heritage Bill, passed in 2007, provided a basis for
indigenous management of land in the region through activities such as aqua-
culture, grazing and agriculture, while protecting sensitive areas by designat-
ing ‘areas of international conservation significance’.15
Many have argued that there is substantial common interest between in-
digenous people, who wish to retain their rights to land (particularly forest
land) in the face of competing demands, and conservationists who wish to
maintain habitat for its biodiversity (e.g.Gadgil et al. 1993; Kemf 1993). Oth-
ers point out that such arguments tend to trade on essentialised and romanti-
cised images of the non-Western primitive ‘other’, the ‘ecologically noble
savage’, living in harmony with nature (Redford 1990; Conklin and Graham
1995). The interests of indigenous people in development even within the
broad frame of a forested landscape can be different from those of biodiver-
sity conservationists concerned to promote the survival of all species (Redford
and Stearman 1993; Redford and Sanderson 2000). Strategic alliances, based
on conservation support for securing indigenous land rights, are therefore pos-
sible, but not automatic and not necessarily easy (Redford and Stearman 1993;
McSweeny 2004). Attempts to broker partnerships, however, need to start
from the recognition of indigenous people as ‘equals at the discussion table’,
not (as so often in the past) as subaltern groups to whom rights might be con-
ditionally ceded by pragmatic conservation proprietors (Alcorn 1993). More-
over, such partnerships must address the widely embedded intolerant and
coercive approaches of park planners and managers to indigenous residents in
parks (Colchester 1997, 2002).
While arguments about the rights of indigenous people based on first occu-
pancy are unique, other aspects of their rights and needs are less distinct from
those of other long-standing rural residents. Moreover, the concept of indige-
nous people, which works so well in the Americas where European settlement
has been so overwhelming in its impact, is less useful in other areas (e.g.
tropical Africa), where many disputes about land rights between people of dif-
ferent ethnic identity can be less clear-cut. While indigenous people have
been the primary focus of campaigns, increasingly policy debate has broad-
ened to embrace the rights and needs of other local communities, whether
resident (e.g. in forests), or mobile (e.g. pastoral people).
The World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003 represented a major step for-
wards in this debate. In 2000 the IUCN World Commission on PAs and the
Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy created TILCEPA,
the Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity, and PAs.16 At the
Durban Congress in 2003, TILCEPA organised a cross cutting theme on
communities, equity and PAs, with various workshops and panel discussions
that ensured that this theme was represented in the various discussions at the
Congress. An ‘Indigenous Peoples Ad-Hoc Working Group’ was established
in January 2003, 120 indigenous participants were sponsored to attend the
conference, and various consciousness-raising events were held, including an
open discussion meeting between leaders of some of the major international
conservation NGOs and indigenous representatives (Brosius 2004).
As a result of this engagement, one of the ten outcomes of the Durban Ac-
tion Plan was that: ‘the rights of indigenous peoples, including mobile indige-
nous peoples, and local communities should be secured in relation to natural
resources and biodiversity conservation’ (World Conservation Union 2005).
There are numerous provisions here long demanded by non-governmental or-
ganisations representing indigenous people, including Key Target 10, which
calls for participatory mechanisms for the restitution of lands incorporated
into PAs without ‘free and informed prior consent’. There is also recognition
of a diversity of forms of PA governance, including co-managed and commu-
nity-managed PAs (community-conserved areas).17 The indigenous peoples’
initiative at Durban was pursued at the Conference of the Parties of the Con-
vention on Biological Diversity in Kuala Lumpur in February 2004, and the
World Conservation Congress in Bangkok in November 2004.
Issues of indigenousness, and ethnicity and identity more generally, add a
complex and important dimension to wider debates about the legitimacy and
impacts of PAs. The question of the rights of indigenous people has become a
central element in debates about the political ecology of conservation (Brock-
ington 2002; Chatty and Colchester 2002; Hecht et al. 2006)
POVERTY AND CONSERVATION
Rights-based thinking has influenced debate about conservation more broadly

through consideration of global poverty. Ideas about the social dimensions of
conservation policy changed in the 1990s in response to the new international
agenda for the elimination of poverty, reflected in the Millennium Develop-
ment Goals and the concept of National Poverty Reduction Strategies.18 At the
World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 the issue
of poverty took prominence, and the previously obvious links between con-
servation to poverty alleviation began to be questioned (Roe and Elliott 2004).
There was widespread engagement with the idea that there were ‘win-win’ so-
lutions that could achieve conservation and poverty-alleviation goals simulta-
neously (e.g. Timmer and Juma 2005).
Broad arguments continue to be made that the conservation of biodiversity
can and should contribute to poverty alleviation (e.g. Koziell and Saunders
2001; Roe et al. 2003; Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau 2004). Major pro-
grammes such as the United Nations Development Programme’s Equator Ini-
tiative19 aim precisely to reduce poverty through the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity (Timmer and Juma 2005). In September 2005,
a statement from the Secretariats of the five biodiversity conventions argued
that biodiversity underpinned all MDGs. Biodiversity could, they suggested,
help alleviate hunger and poverty, promote good human health and ‘be the ba-
sis for ensuring freedom and equity for all’.20 One such argument, that ecosys-
tem services underpinning welfare and livelihoods, particularly (although not
exclusively) of the poor was central to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(World Resources Institute 2005).
On the other hand, some argue that conservation and poverty are quite dif-
ferent problems and that parks and those who manage them should not be held
responsible for tackling the global human challenge of poverty. Brandon
(1998) suggests that parks were unfairly being made responsible for curing
structural problems such as poverty, unequal land and resource allocation,
corruption, injustice and market failure. Sanderson and Redford (2003b: 246)
note that ‘as conservationists we have neither the legitimacy nor the power to
redress the distributive inequalities nor the damages of development in our
work’. Some conservationists have expressed concern that the momentum of
the development agenda has been such that biodiversity conservation has been
forgotten (Sanderson and Redford 2003a) or even that conservation has ‘fallen
off the bandwagon’ (Sanderson 2005: 326).
Indeed, the environment was reflected in the MDGs only in Goal 7, which
referred broadly to the need ‘to ensure environmental sustainability’. How-
ever, the indicator selected for this goal (the ratio of area protected to main-
tain biological diversity to surface area) was conservative, reflecting only the
conventional PA approach.21 Without evidence that PAs contribute to the live-
lihoods of the poor, this sets up biodiversity conservation as a constraint on
poverty alleviation, not a means to achieve it. The Strategic Plan of the Con-
vention on Biological Diversity, adopted in 2002, also focused strongly on
PAs. A key element in its aim to achieve a significant reduction of the current
rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level by 2010 was
the completion of a world system of PAs. The first of twenty targets agreed
was that at least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions should be ef-
fectively conserved.
The debate on poverty and conservation has become more sophisticated as
well as more complex (Adams et al. 2004). Sanderson and Redford argue that
development has failed the truly poor, and there is ample room for conserva-
tion organisations (practicing ‘human-orientated small-scale conservation’) to
work with ‘small-scale low-output producers on the ecological frontier’ (San-
derson and Redford 2003a: 390). There are calls for new approaches to PAs,
and alternatives to PAs (Roe and Elliott 2004), and there is recognition of the
complexity of the linkages between biodiversity and poverty (Agrawal and
Redford 2006). These are dynamic and context specific, reflecting social and
political factors and issues of geography and scale (Kepe et al. 2004). Glob-
ally, the political challenge of conservation is increasingly being framed in
terms of the environmental claims of the rich vs the subsistence needs of the
poor. Global discourses of extinction bear directly on local issues of rights
and human welfare, a cross-scale engagement that political ecology is well
placed to explore (Stott and Sullivan 2000; Neumann 2004c).
NEW PARKS ADVOCATES
While some strands of thinking about people and parks are increasingly open
to the idea of people (especially but not exclusively) living within or profiting
from PAs, others are strongly opposed to this approach. In the 1990s, in a de-
liberate reversal of community-based approaches to conservation then current,
arguments for traditional socially exclusive parks were renewed (e.g. Kramer
et al. 1997; Brandon et al. 1998; Oates 1999; Struhsaker 1999; Terborgh
1999). This ‘resurgence of the protectionist paradigm’ (Wilshusen et al. 2002)
has been variously described by its critics as a ‘back to the barriers’ move-
ment (Hutton et al. 2005), and as ‘reinventing the square wheel’ (Wilshusen et
al. 2002).
Advocates of strictly protected ‘people-free parks’ (cf. Redford et al. 1998;
Schwartzman et al. 2000) or ‘hard parks’ (Terborgh 2004) reflect the long-
standing conservation conviction that the preservation of biodiversity is an
overwhelming moral imperative (Kramer et al. 1997; Terborgh 1999). They
draw on critiques (largely by social scientists) of community conservation and
the numerous attempts to combine conservation and development that domi-
nated conservation thinking in the 1980s and 1990s (Brandon and Wells 1992;
Barrett and Arcese 1995; Gibson and Marks 1995; Brosius et al. 1998; Wain-
wright and Wehrmeyer 1998; Adams and Hulme 2001b; Jeanrenaud 2002).
Advocates of strict parks suggest that while community approaches to conser-

vation waste scarce conservation resources, PAs work if they are strictly pro-
tected (Brandon et al. 1998; Bruner et al. 2001; Naughton-Treves et al. 2005),
well resourced and properly managed (Balmford et al. 2002).
An important factor underlying this renewed enthusiasm for PAs is the
question of the role and authority of natural science in conservation. The con-
text is the rapid advance in the competence, ambition and authority of conser-
vation science in recent years. Conservation scientists recognise that PAs have
in the past been selected in an ad hoc way. Some are poorly placed to repre-
sent biodiversity globally, and a new sophistication has developed in conser-
vation planning and the design of PA systems (e.g. Margules and Pressey
2000). In response to greater understanding of the biogeographic implications
of isolation and small reserve size for the survival of species (especially under
conditions of rapid climatic change), there has been an expansion of scale in
conservation planning, with park systems being analysed at the landscape
scale and in terms of global conservation priorities (e.g. Duffy 1997; Wolmer
2003; Fonseca et al. 2005). Conservation scientists have disputed the easy as-
sumption that people and non-human biodiversity can be accommodated to-
gether without conflict. Thus, Redford and Stearman (1993) argued that the
full range of biological diversity (genetic, species and ecosystem diversity)
was impossible if there was prevented by ‘virtually any significant activity by
humans’ (p. 252). Struhsaker (1999) offers a similar vision to Redford’s
‘empty forest’ (1992), noting of Ugandan forests that ‘in terms of conserving
biological diversity within intact and viable ecosystems, there is no substitute
for large areas that are protected against invasive and destructive human ac-
tivities’ (p. 329).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, some conservation enthusiasts appear to see social
critiques of parks as an attack on newly developed and newly influential con-
servation science and deplore the influence of non-scientific reasoning in
thinking about parks. Terborgh (1999) speaks of sustainable use as ‘a gray
zone’, one where ‘politics, economics, and social pressures, not science, de-
cide what is good for humans, with scarcely a nod to nature’ (p. 140). He
found the workshops on poverty alleviation, social injustice and indigenous
peoples’ rights at the World Parks Congress at Durban in 2003 ‘a culture
shock and a reality check’ (Terborgh 2004: 619). The way these issues were
discussed at Durban seemed to relegate science to a footnote in PA planning.
Fears for the authority of science in conservation relate to more general
concerns about the politics behind critiques of conservation from a social per-
spective. Spinage (1998), in the course of an extended and critical review of
the book Social Change and Conservation (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997), ar-
gued rather wildly that its authors variously exhibited ‘the left-wing radical-
ism of the opposition to the practice of traditional conservation’, and were
‘cloaked in Marxist and neo-populist dogma’ (p. 265). He argued that if
change is to come in conservation, ‘it should be based on ecological criteria
and not political ideology’ (p. 274). Such views ignore the way mainstream
thinking about parks had already changed to consider social issues (Colchester
1998), but they are not unique: Attwell and Cotterill (2000) link the move
away from traditional preservationist conservation to ‘postmodernist influ-
ences’, unhappily lumping under that umbrella everything they dislike about
social and political analysis of conservation practice. Soulé (1995) describes
the rise of social constructivism as part of ‘a cultural or social siege of nature’
(p. 147). Such comments reflect a lack of understanding of social science the-
ory as much as a coherent view of critiques of the social and political dimen-
sions of parks. Conservation planning is dominated by people trained in the
natural sciences, and who draw fairly exclusively on science-based paradigms
in their thinking. They are often not well placed to understand and respond to
social critiques of their ideas and methods. The influence of scientific ideas,
and the wider frame of reference it offers to conservation planners, is a key is-
sue in the political ecology of conservation (Bryant 2002; Fairhead and Leach
2003; Brosius 2006a).
THE POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF CONSERVATION
The political ecology of conservation is highly complex and diverse. Whether

in the work of contemporary scientific conservation planners, identifying and
lobbying for the preservation of hotspots, or the work of their colonial for-
bears, certain ideas of nature are formulated, purified and harnessed to social
action in ways that reveal profound differences in the power of different ac-
tors. Ideas of nature are laid out on the ground in PAs, and the needs, rights
and interests of people are bent to fit the resulting conservation landscape. All
this takes place against the backdrop of a wider social assault on nature
through processes of industrialisation, urbanisation, pollution, and the conver-
sion of terrestrial and marine ecosystems to industrial purposes.
Several current issues and trends can be identified. The first is the power of
conservation science as a strategy for analysing and understanding nature, and
for prioritising action. Meine et al. (2006) emphasise the hybrid, applied ‘mis-
sion-driven’ character of the discipline of conservation biology, and Mascia et
al. (2003) argue coherently that conservation must reach out beyond its tradi-
tional base in the natural science and generate conservations with all kinds of
other disciplines and actors. However, these are still minority views. Notwith-
standing the proliferation of often-incompatible proposals for conservation ac-
tion (Brooks et al. 2006), natural science analysis is still almost universally
accepted with conservation as the starting point for the analysis of conserva-
tion need and for the prescription of priorities for action.
The second trend that can be discerned relates to the growing scale and
scope of criticism of conservation. Notwithstanding the arguments of strict
park advocates, there is widespread international policy recognition that bio-
diversity conservation can and does have significant social impacts, and that
these need to be addressed. The importance and complexity of the trade-offs

between conservation and poverty are being widely recognised (Brockington
and Schmidt-Soltau 2004; Sanderson and Redford 2003a; Adams et al. 2004;
Agrawal and Redford 2006). Benign but uninformed hopes about common in-
terests need to be replaced by research-based understanding of the conditions
under which different outcomes can be expected (Gjertsen 2005; Sunderlin et
al. 2005). Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the whole range of social im-
pacts of conservation needs to be recognised and dealt with by those propos-
ing and managing PAs (Tacconi and Bennett 1995).
Third, conservation is undergoing a process of self-criticism and reform as
it seeks technical improvement and tighter self-regulation with respect to its
social policies and procedures. This process matches technically orientated
and regulation-based responses to wider environmental problems defined by
analysts as ‘ecological modernisation’ (Hajer 1995). Conservation planners in
governments and non-governmental organizations are urged to adopt estab-
lished methods such as Social Impact Assessment in search of more socially
equitable and effective conservation planning (Geisler 2003b). PAs share with
other major projects imposed by the state in partnership with international ac-
tors (notably large dams, Scudder 2005), the capacity to deliver significant
public goals but also to impose significant local costs. Those who plan and
manage PAs lag seriously behind in their response to these issues. A broad
constituency supports an end to forced displacement for conservation. Plan-
ning for resettlement must involve a serious commitment to equity and fi-
nance for the complex and challenging task of reconstruction (Cernea 1997).
In the central African case studies reviewed by Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau
(2003), no compensation was paid, or planning done to help those displaced
re-establish livelihoods elsewhere, or to help the communities that received
them. It is an obvious argument that standards for responsible resettlement es-
tablished by organisations like the World Bank need to be adopted by conser-
vation NGOs. Interestingly, in 2004 the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) agreed, under its Programme of Work on PAs, that resettlement of in-
digenous communities should only take place with full prior informed con-
sent.22
The fourth trend that can be identified is the continuing power of interna-
tional conservation organisations, particularly the largest non-governmental
organisations (Brosius 1999b, 2006a; Bryant 2002; Chapin 2004). However
desirable the improvements in the techniques of conservation practice, they do
not change the fundamental politics of global conservation. These organisa-
tions, and the scientists, intellectuals and supporters from whom they draw
their vision and strength, have remarkable power to define and delineate na-
ture, to determine who can engage with it and under what rules, and to divide
landscapes into zones that structure rights and access.
The trend towards ecological modernisation is certainly tending to contrib-
ute to the regulation of that power. Fortwangler (2003) argues that a commit-
ment to social justice and human rights is a necessary element in a legitimate

social mandate for conservation. It is argued that the strictures of corporate
social responsibility and transparency that have become a familiar trope for
international corporations equally applicable to non-governmental corpora-
tions, which are increasingly corporate in their structure and trans-national in
their scope (Brosius 1999b; Chapin 2004). Recognition is growing of the need
for a new understanding of conservation as a social and political process (e.g.
Brechin et al. 2002, 2003; O’Riordan and Stoll-Kleeman 2002b; Brosius et al.
2005). Conservation planning and management needs the kinds of ‘inver-
sions’ much debated in development planning in recent decades, from a top-
down expert-driven blueprint approach, towards participatory and inclusive
social learning (e.g. Pretty 2002) and towards shared governance and delibera-
tive democracy (O’Riordan and Stoll-Kleeman 2002b).
A fifth emerging trend in the political ecology of international biodiversity
conservation is the growing influence of neoliberal thinking. This takes sev-
eral forms. One is simply the increasingly corporate organisational structures
and cultures of conservation NGOs (Brosius 1999b, 2006a; Chapin 2004).
There is significant competition, for membership, grant income from trusts
and aid donors, and particularly for corporate funds (Chapin 2004). The rise
of conservation planning and the science-based solutions-orientated prioritisa-
tion strategies reviewed above reflects the desire to present conservation goals
in terms corporate sponsors will appreciate. The rapid diversification of bio-
diversity mapping algorithms (Brooks et al. 2006) to an extent reflects the de-
sire of each NGO to create its own classification (Redford et al. 2003). Thus,
for example, the definition of ‘hotspots’ by Conservation International was
not simply a contribution to scientific knowledge and the improvement of
conservation planning in general, it was also statement of the brand of the or-
ganisation and its capacity for leading-edge strategic thinking.
One consequence of the growing importance of neoliberal approaches to
conservation is the growing involvement of the private sector in the tenure
and management of PAs, raising complex issues of rights, ownership, govern-
ance and legitimacy. The concept of private parks, or parks managed by cor-
porate non-state actors, is of increasing salience in conservation (Langholz
and Krug 2004). The increasing engagement of the private sector in conserva-
tion landholding has been driven in part by growing dissatisfaction with the
effectiveness of tropical PAs (Kramer et al. 2002), and the fact that most bio-
diversity exists outside formally protected land, much of it private (Langholz
and Krug 2004). Policies to promote the conservation value of private land
have been widely developed, for example in the USA (Newburn et al. 2005;
Sanford 2006), in Europe (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003) and in southern Af-
rica, in the game ranching and safari industries (Duffy 2000; Suzuki 2001;
Wels 2004).
The 2003 World Parks Congress recommended revision of IUCN PA cate-
gories to include co-managed, privately managed and community-managed
PAs (World Conservation Union 2005, Recommendation V17) as well as

community-conserved areas (Recommendation V 26). The private sector was
recognised as one of the partners (with government bodies and agencies,
indigenous and local communities and NGOs) who could share management
authority, responsibility and accountability in co-managed PAs (Recommen-
dation V 25). However efficient such semi-privatised management may be at
some levels, it is clearly no guarantee of improved social policies or reduced
impacts. In Ethiopia, the clash between the rights and interests of Mursi peo-
ple and the desire of conservationists and the state to create national parks has
been recognised in the international literature for two decades (Turton 1987,
2002). Yet in 2004, when the APF signed an agreement with the government
to manage the Nechasar National Park, 463 houses of Guji people were
burned by Ethiopian park officials and local police to force them to leave.23
The APF has also taken over the Omo National Park in Southern Ethiopia, in-
habited by up to 50,000 people from various ethnic groups (Hurd 2006),
among others elsewhere in the continent.24 Informed commentators see little
in such private enterprise parks to still their fears for the rural poor.
There is increasing number of examples of conservation NGOs (and
wealthy individuals) purchasing or leasing land and resource rights from gov-
ernments, for example leasing logging concessions for sustainable conserva-
tion enterprise development rather than clear-cutting (Ellison 2003; Romero
and Andrade 2004). Neoliberal thinking is also behind the rise of experiments
with ‘direct payments’ for conservation (Ferraro and Kiss 2002; Balmford and
Whitten 2003). In these developments towards the ‘privatisation of nature’,
biodiversity conservation is simply reflecting wider neoliberal trends in global
environmental governance (Wolmer 2003; McCarthy 2006; Christiansen et al.
2005).
Despite the hopeful rhetoric of the 2003 World Parks Congress in Durban
about a new way of understanding and managing national parks, and its rec-
ommendation that all involuntary resettlement and expulsions of indigenous
peoples from their lands for PAs cease, population displacement and injustice
are still a feature of many PAs in the developing world (Colchester 2004;
Dowie 2005).25 In the Congo basin, for example, the creation of national
parks has awakened concern about the rights of indigenous hunters, amidst
fears of evictions (Nelson 2003), and the issue of the rights of indigenous
people in several Ethiopian parks remains hotly disputed, even if the case of
the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana has been resolved.26
Analysis of the social dimensions of conservation has begun to develop rap-
idly in recent years. Anthropologists in particular have made significant
strides in explaining the nature of knowledge and power to conservation plan-
ners (e.g. Brosius 1999a, 2006b). However, the debate between conservation
and much social and cultural anthropology, like that with political science and
indeed the social sciences more generally, is too often still a dialogue of the
deaf (Agrawal and Ostrom 2006). Like environmental anthropology, the em-
phasis of political ecology on the links between political economy and the ac-
tual state of the environment (Page 2003; Walker 2005) offers some potential
to open dialogue between social science-trained critics of conservation and
natural science-trained advocates. Communication across that divide is critical
if policy is to be made equitable and effective, and if conservationists and
their critics are ever to join forces to address, explain and engage the struc-
tures and processes driving the social and environmental changes they regard
as deleterious. Conservation biologists increasingly recognise the need to ad-
dress questions of the survival of non-human nature in landscapes substan-
tially dominated by human projects (Western 1989; Robinson 2006; Sarukhán
2006) and are being urged to seek to break down their traditional conceptual
distinctions between humans and nature (Folke 2006). Such ideas offer some
promise of a future for conservation planning that moves beyond exclusion to
imagine a conceptual and material place for human society within, and not
outside, nature.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for ideas and inspiration to Pete Brosius, Tom
McShane, Kent Redford, Michael Wright and other members of the MacAr-
thur ACSC group, to Bhaskar Vira, Dan Brockington and other members of
the UK Poverty and Conservation Working group, to Nigel Leader-Williams,
Eleanor Carter, Sarah Milne and Simon Batterbury. Paul Dickson, Liz Watson
and Noel Castree made helpful comments on earlier drafts. The comments of
two anonymous referees are appreciated. The opinions in this paper do not
represent those of our employers or any other organisation.
Notes
1. http://www.africanparks-conservation.com/ (15 November 2005).

2. Refugees International (http://www.refugeesinternational.org/) and Survival International
http://survival-international.org/. See also http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/alert.htm (29
November 2005).
3. http://www.survival-international.org/news.php?id=2128, accessed 14 December 2006. The
identity ‘bushmen’ is highly complex (Suzman 2000).
4. There is no universal term for the things that conservationists wish to protect. In this paper
‘nature’ is used to refer to all non-human life and the physical contexts in which they exist.
The term ‘biodiversity’ is widely used but problematic (Takacs 1996), as is the term ‘wild-
life’.
5. http://www.africanparks-conservation.com/peopleparks_localprotect.html (31 October
2005).
6. Leading this exploration is the Social Science Working Group of the Society for Conserva-
tion Biology, www.conbio.org/workinggroups/SSWG/Activities.CFM (8 January 2007).
7. In this paper the terms ‘parks’, ‘protected areas’ and the acronym ‘PAs’ are used inter-
changeably to refer to the whole range of protected areas which suit the flow of language.
‘National parks’ refer specifically to IUCN Category 2 protected areas, or lands described in
this way by national legislation that fit other categories.
8. www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa (28 November 2005).

9. www.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/data/cnppa.html (28 November 2005).
10. http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/theme/categories/what.html (24 July 2007). The catego-
ries were reviewed at a summit in May 2007, http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/theme/
categories/summit/summit.html (24 July 2007).
11. Rhys Williams to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, 9 June 1906, Journal of the Soci-
ety for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire 3: 14-19 (p. 15).
12. http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/content/media_260404_royal (12 July
2007).
13. See the World Bank’s 2004 Operation Policy 4.12: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institu-
tional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/0/CA2D01A4D1BDF58085256B19008197F6?OpenDocument
#foot (2 November 2005).
14. www.africa-rainforest.org/expeditions.html, 24 October 2004.
15. http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/52PDF/2007/CapeYorkPHB07.pdf (23 July 2007).
16. http://www.tilcepa.org/ (23 November 2005).
17. World Parks Congress recommendation V.17, see www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/
english/outputs/durban.htm#daa (23 November 2005).
18. www.developmentgoals.org and www.worldbank.org/poverty/strategies/index.htm.
19. http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiative/ (25 November 2005).
20. Text of the statement available at: http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/outreach/press/
default.aspx. The five biodiversity-related conventions are The Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD); the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES); the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of
Wild Animals (CMS, or the Bonn Convention) Convention on Wetlands (popularly known
as the Ramsar Convention); the World Heritage Convention (WHC). They have a joint web-
site at: http://www.biodiv.org/cooperation/joint.shtml (25 November 2005).
21. MDG Indicator 26: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp (18 November 2005).
22. The Convention on Biological diversity COP VII 2004 (Kuala Lumpur). Decision VII/28 on
Protected areas, paragraph 22 notes ‘that the establishment, management and monitoring of
protected areas should take place with the full and effective participation of, and full respect
for the rights of, indigenous and local communities consistent with national law and appli-
cable international obligations’. Source: http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=
COP-07&id=7765&lg=0 (28 November 2005).
23. See www.conservationrefugees.org/threatened.html (26 July 2006). See also sources at:
www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/alert.htm (11 August 2006).
24. See: http://survival-international.org/news.php?id=943 (25 November 2005).
25. IUCN’s ‘Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity, and Protected Areas’
(TILCEPA), led discussion of communities, equity and protected areas at the Durban Con-
gress in 2003, and continues to seek to open up debate on these issues http://www.tilcepa.
org/ (23 November 2005).
26. For information on Ethiopia see http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/alert.htm (29 November
2005).
REFERENCES
Adams, J.S. and T.O. McShane. 1992. The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation Without Illusion.
W.W. Norton and Co., New York.
Adams, W.M. 2001. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World.
2nd edition. Routledge, London.
Adams, W.M. 1996. Future Nature: A Vision for Conservation. Earthscan, London.
Adams, W.M. 2003. Nature and the colonial mind. In: Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Con-
servation in a Post-Colonial Era (eds. W.M. Adams and M. Mulligan), pp. 16-50. Earthscan,
London.
Adams, W.M. 2004. Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation. Earthscan, London.
Adams, W.M. and D. Hulme. 2001a. Conservation and communities: Changing narratives, policies
and practices in African conservation. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and
Performance of Community Conservation (eds. D. Hulme and M. Murphree) pp. 9-23. James
Currey, London.
Adams, W.M. and D. Hulme. 2001b. If community conservation is the answer, what is the ques-
tion? Oryx 35: 193-200.
Adams, W.M. and M. Infield. 2003. Who is on the gorilla’s payroll? Claims on tourist revenue
from a Ugandan National Park. World Development 31: 177-190.
Adams, W.M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington, et al. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradi-
cation of poverty. Science 306: 1146-1149.
Agrawal, A. and E. Ostrom. 2006. Political science and conservation biology: A dialog of the
deaf. Conservation Biology 20: 681-682.
Agrawal, A. and K. Redford. 2006. Poverty, Development, and Biodiversity Conservation:
Shooting in the Dark? Wildlife Conservation Society, New York (WCS Working Paper 26).
Agrawal, A. and K. Redford. 2007. Conservation and displacement: An overview. In: Protected
Areas and Human Displacement: A Conservation Perspective (eds. K.H. Redford and E.
Fearn), pp. 4-15, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York (Working Paper No. 29).
Alcorn, J. B. 1993. Indigenous peoples and conservation. Conservation Biology 7: 424-426.
Anderson, D. and R. Grove. 1987. The scramble for Eden: Past, present and future in African
conservation. In Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice (eds. D. Anderson
and R. Grove), pp. 1-12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Archabald, K. and L. Naughton-Treves. 2001. Tourism revenue-sharing around national parks in
Western Uganda: Early efforts to identify and reward local communities. Environmental
Conservation 28: 135-149.
Attwell C.A.M. and F.P.D. Cotterill. 2000. Postmodernism and African conservation science.
Biodiversity Conservation 9: 559-577
Balmford, A. and T. Whitten. 2003. Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could
the costs be met? Oryx 37: 238-250
Balmford, A., A. Bruner, P. Cooper, et al. 2002. Why conserving wild nature makes economic
sense. Science 297: 950-953.
Barrett, C .B. and P. Arcese. 1995. Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs)
Sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World Develop-
ment 23: 1073-1084
Barton, G.A. 2002. Empire Forestry and the Origins of Environmentalism. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge.
Berg, L., T. Fenge and P. Dearden. 1993. The role of aboriginal peoples in national park desig-
nation, planning and management in Canada. In: Parks and Protected Areas in Canada (eds.
P. Dearden and R. Rollins), pp. 225-252. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Blaikie, P. 1985. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Longman, London.
Blaikie, P. and H. Brookfield. 1987. Land Degradation and Society. Methuen, London and New
York.
Brandon, K. 1998. Perils to parks: The social context of threats. In: Parks in Peril: People, Politics
and Protected Areas (eds. K. Brandon, K.H. Redford and S.E. Sanderson), pp. 415-439. Island
Press, for the Nature Conservancy, Washington.
Brandon, K., K.H. Redford and S.E. Sanderson. 1998. Parks in Peril: People, Politics and Protected
Areas. Island Press, for the Nature Conservancy, Washington.
Brandon, K.E. and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World De-
velopment 20: 557.
Brechin S.R., P.R. Wilhusen, C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West (eds.). 2003. Contested Nature:
Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century. State
University of New York Press, New York.
Brechin S.R., P.R. Wilhusen, C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West 2002. Beyond the square wheel: To-
ward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political
process. Society and Natural Resources 15: 41-64.
Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve,
Tanzania. James Currey, Oxford.
Brockington, D. 2004. Community conservation, inequality and injustice: Myths of power in
protected area management. Conservation and Society 2: 411-432.
Brockington, D. and J. Igoe. 2006. Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Conservation
and Society 4: 424-470.
Brockington, D. and K. Schmidt-Soltau 2004. The social and environmental impacts of wilder-
ness and development. Oryx 38: 140-142.
Brooks, S. 2005. Images of ‘Wild Africa’: Nature tourism and the (Re)Creation of Hluhluwe
Game Reserve, 1930-1945. Journal of Historical Geography 31: 220-249.
Brooks, T.M., R.A. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, et al . 2006. Global biodiversity conserva-
tion priorities. Science 313: 58-60.
Brosius, J.P. 1999a. Anthropological engagements with environmentalism. Current Anthropol-
ogy 40: 27-309.
Brosius, J.P. 1999b. Green dots, pink hearts: displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest.
American Anthropologist 101: 36-57
Brosius, J.P. 2004. Indigenous peoples and protected areas at the World Parks Congress. Con-
servation Biology 18: 609-612.
Brosius, J.P. 2006a. Seeing communities: Technologies of visualization in conservation. In: The
Seductions of Community: Emancipations, Oppressions, Quandaries. (ed. G.W. Creed) SAR
Press, Santa Fe NM.
Brosius, J.P. 2006b. Common ground between anthropology and conservation biology, Conser-
vation Biology 20: 683-685
Brosius, J.P., A.L. Tsing and C. Zerner. 1998. Representing communities: Histories and politics
of community-based natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 11:
157-168
Brosius, J.P., A.L. Tsing and C. Zerner. 2005. Communities and Conservation: Histories and
Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Altamira Press, Walnut
Creek, CA, USA.
Bruner, A.G., R.E. Gullison, R.E. Rice and A.B. da Fonesca. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in pro-
tecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291: 125-128.
Bryant, R. and S. Bailey. 1997. Third World Political Ecology. Routledge, London.
Bryant, R.L. 2002. Non-governmental organizations and governmentality: ‘Consuming’ biodi-
versity and indigenous people in the Philippines. Political Studies 50: 268-292.
Campbell, L.M. 2005. Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology
19: 574-577.
Carruthers, J. 1995. The Kruger National Park: A Social and Political History. Natal University
Press, Durban.
Cernea, M.M. 1997. The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations.
World Development 25: 1569-1589.
Cernea, M. M. 2006. Population displacement inside protected areas: A redefinition of concepts
in conservation politics. Policy Matters 14: 8-26.
Cernea, M.M. and C. McDowell (eds.). 2000. Risks and Reconstruction Experiences of Reset-
tlers and Refugees. World Bank, Washington.
Cernea, M.M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2003. The end of forcible displacement? Conservation
must not impoverish people. Policy Matters 12: 42-51.
Cernea, M.M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2006. Poverty risks and national parks: Policy issues in
conservation and resettlement. World Development 34: 1808-1830.
Chape, S., J. Harrison, M. Spalding and I. Lysenko. 2005. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of
protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity target. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B 360: 443-455.
Chapin, M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch 17(6): 17-31.
Chatty, D. and M. Colchester (eds.). 2002. Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Dis-
placement, Forced Resettlement and Sustainable Development. Berghahn Press, New York.
Christiansen, J., R. Hall, H. Chandler, et al. (eds.) 2005. Privatisation; Nature for Sale: the Im-
pacts of Privatizing Water and Biodiversity. Friends of the Earth, Amsterdam.
Clynes, T. 2002. They shoot poachers, don’t they? Observer Magazine 24 November 2004, pp.
34-47.
Colchester, M. 1997. Salvaging nature: indigenous peoples and protected Areas. In Social Change
and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas
(eds. K. Ghimire and M. Pimbert), pp. 97-130. Earthscan, London.
Colchester, M. 1998. Who will garrison the fortress? A reply to Spinage. Oryx 32: 245-248.
Colchester, M. 2002. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Con-
servation. World Rainforest Movement, Montevideo.
Colchester, M. 2004. Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Cultural Survival Quarterly
281: 17-22
Conklin, B.A. and L.R. Graham. 1995. The shifting middle ground: Amazonian Indians and eco-
politics. American Anthropologist 97: 695-710.
Cronon, W. 1995. The trouble with wilderness, or, getting back to the wrong nature. In: Uncommon
Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature (ed. W. Cronon), pp. 69-90. W.W. Norton and Co., New
York.
Dasmann, R.F., J.P. Milton and P.H. Freeman. 1973. Ecological Principles for Economic Devel-
opment. Wiley, Chichester.
Demeritt, D. 2001. Scientific forest conservation and the statistical picturing of nature’s limits in
the Progressive Era United States. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19:
431-459.
Denevan, W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: The landscape of North America in 1492. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 82: 269-85.
Dowie, M. 2005. Conservation refugees: When protecting nature means kicking people out.
Orion November/December 2005 (http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-6om/Dowie.html).
Drayton, R. 2000. Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain and the ‘Improvement’ of the
World. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Duffy, R. 1997. The environmental challenge to the Nation-State: Superparks and National Parks
policy in Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies 23: 441-451.
Duffy, R. 2000. Killing for Conservation: Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe. James Currey, Oxford.
Dunlap, T.R. 1999. Nature and the English Diaspora: Environment and History in the United
States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ellison, K. 2003. Renting biodiversity: The conservation concessions approach. Conservation in
Practice 4: 20-29
Emerton, L. 2001. The nature of benefits and the benefits of nature: Why wildlife conservation
has not economically benefited communities in Africa. In: African Wildlife and Livelihoods:
The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation (eds. D. Hulme and M.
Murphree), pp. 208-226. James Currey, London.
Escobar, A. 1999. After nature: Steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. Current Anthropo-
logy 40: 1-30.
Fairhead, J. and M. Leach. 2000. The Nature Lords. Times Literary Supplement 5 May 2000, pp.
3-4.
Fairhead, J. and M. Leach. 2003. Science, Society and Power: Environmental Knowledge and
Policy in West Africa and the Caribbean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Feeny, P. 1999. Accountable Aid: Local Participation in Major Projects. Oxfam, Oxford.
Ferraro, P.J. and A. Kiss. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298: 1718-1719.
Fitter, R. and P. Scott. 1974. The Penitent Butchers: 75 Years of Wildlife Conservation. Fauna
Preservation Society, London.
Folke, C. 2006. The economic perspective; conservation against development versus conserva-
tion for development. Conservation Biology 20: 686-688
Fonseca, G.A.B. da, A. Bruner, R.A. Mittermeier, et al. 2005. On defying nature’s end: the case
for landscape-scale conservation. The George Wright Forum 221: 46-60.
Forsyth, T. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science. Routledge,
London.
Fortwangler, C.L. 2003. The winding road: Incorporating social justice and human rights into
protected areas policies. In Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with
Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century (eds. S.R. Brechin, P.R. Wilhusen, C.L. Fortwan-
gler and P.C. West), pp. 25-39. State University of New York Press, New York.
Foucault, M. 1975. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Gallimard, Paris (in transla-
tion 1997 Allen Lane, London).
Gadgil, M., F. Berkes and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.
Ambio 22: 151-156.
Geisler, C. 2003a. A new kind of trouble: evictions in Eden. International Social Science Jour-
nal 55: 67-78.
Geisler, C. 2003b. Your park, my poverty: Using impact assessment to counter the displacement
effects of environmental greenlining. In: Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodi-
versity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century (eds. S.R. Brechin, P.R. Wilhusen,
C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West), pp. 217-229. State University of New York Press, New
York.
Geisler, C. and R. de Sousa. 2001. From refuge to refugee: The African case. Public Administra-
tion and Development 21: 159-170.
Ghimire, K. and M. Pimbert (eds.). 1997. Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Poli-
tics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. Earthscan, London.
Gibson, C.C. and S.A. Marks. 1995. Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: An as-
sessment of community-based wildlife management programs in Africa. World Development
23: 941-57
Gjertsen, H. 2005. Can habitat protection lead to improvements in human well-being? evidence from
marine protected areas in the Philippines. World Development 33(2): 199-217.
Graham-Rowe, D. 2005. Under the gun. Nature 435: 870-872.
Grove, R.H. 1992. Origins of western environmentalism. Scientific American 267: 42-47.
Grove, R.H. 1995. Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Ori-
gins of Environmentalism, 1600-1800. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hajer, M.A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the
Policy Process. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Harrison J., K. Miller and J. McNeely. 1982. The world coverage of protected areas: Develop-
ment goals and environmental needs. Ambio 11: 239-245.
Hays, S.P. 1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation
Movement 1890-1920. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hecht, S.B., S. Kandel, I. Gomes, N. Cuellar and H. Rosa. 2006. Globalization, forest resurgence
and environmental politics in El Salvador. World Development 34: 308-323.
Heine, B. 1985. The mountain people: The Ik of north-eastern Uganda. Africa 55: 3-16.
Hingston, R.W.G. 1932. Proposed British National Parks for Africa. Geographical Journal 76:
1-24.
Holdgate, M. 1999. The Green Web: A Union for Conservation. Earthscan, London.
Holmes, C.M. 2003. The influence of protected area outreach on conservation attitudes and re-
source use patterns: A case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 37: 305-315.
Homewood, K.M. and W.A. Rodgers. 1991. Maasailand Ecology: Pastoralist Development and
Wildlife Conservation in Ngorogoro, Tanzania. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Howarth, D. 1961. The Shadow of the Dam. Collins, London.
Hulme D. and M. Murphree (eds.). 2001. African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and
Performance of Community Conservation. James Currey, Oxford.
Hulme, D. and M. Murphree. 1999. Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa.
Journal of International Development 11: 277-286.
Hurd, W. 2006. Rangers by Birth. Cultural Survival Quarterly 32 (available at:
http://209.200.101.189/publications/CSQ/csq-article.cfm?id=1910).
Hutton, J., W.M.Adams and J.C. Murombedzi. 2005. Back to the barriers? Changing narratives
in biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies 32: 341-370.
Hutton, J.M and N. Leader-Williams. 2003. Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation:
Realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx 37:215-226.
Igoe, J. 2006. Measuring the costs and benefits of conservation to local communities. Journal of
Ecological Anthropology 10: 72-77.
Infield, M. and A. Namara. 2001. Community attitudes and behaviour towards conservation: An
assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park,
Uganda. Oryx 35: 48-60.
IUCN. 1980. The World Conservation Strategy. International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, United Nations Environment Programme, World Wildlife Fund, Ge-
neva.
Jacoby, K. 2001. Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History
of American Conservation. California University Press, Berkeley.
James, A.N., K.J.Gaston and A. Balmford. 1999. Balancing the Earth’s accounts. Nature 401,
323-324.
Jeanrenaud, S. 2002. People-Oriented Approaches in Global Conservation: Is The Leopard
Changing its Spots? International Institute for Environment and Development, and Institute
for Development Studies, London.
Jepson, P. and R.J. Whittaker. 2002. Histories of protected areas: Internationalisation of conser-
vationist values and their adoption in the Netherlands Indies (Indonesia). Environment and
History 8: 129-172.
Kaimowitz, D., A. Faure and R. Mendoza. 2003. Your biosphere is my backyard: The story of
Bosowas in Nicaragua. Policy Matters 12: 6-15.
Kemf, E. (ed.). 1993. The Law of the Mother: Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas.
Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
Kepe,T., Saruchera M. and W. Whande. 2004. Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation:
A South African perspective. Oryx 38: 143-145.
Kleijn, D. and W.J. Sutherland. 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in
conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 4: 947-969.
Koziell, I. and J. Saunders (eds.). 2001. Living Off Biodiversity: Exploring Livelihoods and Bio-
diversity Issues in Natural Resource Management. International Institute for Environment
and Development, London.
Kramer, R.A., C.P. van Schaik and J. Johnson (eds.). 1997. The Last Stand: Protected Areas and
the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford University Press, New York.
Kramer, R.A., J. Langholz and N. Salafsky. 2002. The role of the private sector in protected area
establishment and management. In: Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical
Forests (eds. J. Terborgh, C. van Schaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao). Island Press, Covelo,
CA, USA.
Kremen, C., J.O. Niles, M.G. Dalton, et al. 2000. Economic incentives for rain forest conserva-
tion across scales. Science 288: 1828-1832.
Langholz, J. and W. Krug. 2004. New forms of biodiversity governance: Non-state actors and
the private protected area plan. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 7: 1-21.
Langton, M. 2003. The ‘wild’, the market and the native: Indigenous people face new forms of
global colonization. In: Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-
Colonial Era (eds. W.M. Adams and M. Mulligan), pp. 79-107. Earthscan, London.
Leader-Williams, N. and S.D.Albon. 1988. Allocation of resources for conservation. Nature 336:
533-535.
Leakey, R. and V. Morell. 2001. Wildlife wars: My Battle to Save Kenya’s Elephants. MacMil-
lan, London.
Lyons, M. 1985. From ‘death camps’ to cordon sanitaire: The development of sleeping sickness
policy in the Uele District of the Belgian Congo, 1903-1914. Journal of African History 26:
69-91.
Mace, G.M., A. Balmford, L.Boitani, et al. 2000. It’s time to work together and stop duplicating
conservation efforts. Nature 405: 393.
MacEwen, A. and M. MacEwen. 1982. National Parks: Conservation or Cosmetics? Allen and
Unwin, London.
Mackenzie, A.F.D. 2000. Contested ground: Colonial narratives and the Kenyan environment,
1920-1945. Journal of Southern African Studies 26: 697-718.
MacKenzie, J.M. 1988. The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism.
Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Maisles, F,. T. Sunderland, B. Curran, et al. 2007. Central Africa’s protected areas and the pur-
ported displacement of people: A first critical review of existing data. In: Protected Areas
and Human Displacement: A Conservation Perspective (eds. K.H. Redford and E. Fearn),
pp. 75-89, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York (Working Paper No. 29).
Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253.
Marsh, G.P. 1864. Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action.
Scribners, New York; Sampson Low, London (reprinted Harvard University Press, 1965).
Mascia, M.B., J.P. Brosius, T. Dobson, et al. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Con-
servation Biology 17: 649-650.
McCarthy, J. 2006. Neoliberalism and the politics of alternatives: Community forestry in British
Columbia and the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61:
84-104.
McElwee, P.D. 2006. Displacement and relocation redux: Stories from southeast Asia. Conservation
and Society 4: 396-403.
McGregor, J. 2005. Living with the river: Landscape and memory in the Zambezi Valley,
Northwest Zimbabwe. In Social History and African Environments (eds. W. Beinart and J.
McGregor), pp. 87-105. James Currey, Oxford.
McNamee, K. 1993. From wild places to endangered spaces: A history of Canadian national
Parks. In: Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management (eds. P.
Dearden and R. Rollins), pp. 17-44. Oxford University Press, Toronto.
McNay, L. 1996. Foucault: A Critical Introduction. Polity Press, Cambridge.
McNeeley, J.A. 1993. Economic incentives for conserving biodiversity: Lessons for Africa. Am-
bio 22: 144-150.
McNeely, J.A. and K.R. Miller (eds.). 1984. National Parks, Conservation and Development:
The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington,
DC, USA.
McSweeney, K. 2004. Indigenous population growth in the lowland Neotropics: Social science
insights for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 19: 1357-1384.
Meine, C., M. Soulé and R.F. Noss. 2006. ‘A mission-driven discipline’: The growth of conser-
vation biology. Conservation Biology 20: 631-51.
Milner-Gulland, E.J. and N. Leader-Williams. 1992. A model of incentives for the illegal exploi-
tation of black rhinos and elephants: Poaching pays in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Journal of
Applied Ecology 29: 388-401.
Mittermeier, R.A., P.R. Gil, M. Hoffman, et al. 2005. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically
Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions, Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Mexico,
CEMEX, Conservation International.
Murphy, R., 1994. Rationality and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry into a Changing Relationship.
Westview Press, Boulder.
Myers N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.M. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiver-
sity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.
Nash, R. 1973. Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Nature, 2005. Save the people too: Conservationists must pay attention to the needs of local hu-
man, as well as animal, populations. Nature 435; 855-856.
Naughton-Treves, L. 1997. Farming the forest edge: Vulnerable places and people around Kibale
National Park, Uganda. The Geographical Review 87: 27-46.
Naughton-Treves, L., M.B. Holland and K. Brandon. 2005. The role of protected areas in con-
serving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environmental Re-
sources 30: 219-252.
Nelson, J. 2003. After the World Parks Congress: Rights of indigenous communities still at stake
in central Africa. Indigenous Affairs 4: 14-19.
Neumann, R. P. 1992. The political ecology of wildlife conservation in the Mount Meru area,
northeast Tanzania. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 3: 85-98.
Neumann, R.P. 1996. Dukes, Earls and ersatz Edens: Aristocratic nature preservationists in co-
lonial Africa. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14: 79-98.
Neumann, R.P. 1998. Imposing Wilderness: Struggles Over Livelihood and Nature Preservation
in Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Neumann, R.P. 2001. Africa’s ‘last wilderness’: Reordering space for political and economic
control in colonial Tanzania. Africa 71: 641-665.
Neumann, R.P. 2002. The postwar conservation boom in British colonial Africa. Environmental
History 7: 22-47.
Neumann, R.P. 2004a. Nature-state-territory: Towards a critical theorization of conservation en-
closures. In: Liberation ecologies: environment, development, social movements (eds. R.
Peet and M. Watts), pp. 195-217. Routledge, London.
Neumann, R. P. 2004b. Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa.
Political Geography 23: 813-37.
Neumann, R.P. 2004c. Making Political Ecology. Hodder Arnold, London.
Newburn, D., S. Reed, P. Berck and A. Merenlender. 2005. Economics and land-use change in priori-
tizing private land conservation. Conservation Biology 19: 1411-1420.
Norton-Griffiths, M. and C. Southey. 1995. The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in
Kenya. Ecological Economics 12: 125-139.
O’Riordan, T. and S. Stoll-Kleeman, S. (eds.). 2002a. Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human
Communities: Protecting Beyond the Protected. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
O’Riordan, T. and S. Stoll-Kleeman. 2002b. Deliberative democracy and participatory biodiver-
sity. In: Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting Beyond the Pro-
tected (eds. T.O’Riordan and S. Stoll-Kleeman), pp. 87-112. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Oates, J. 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in
West Africa. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Page, B. 2003. The political ecology of Prunus africana in Cameroon. Area 35: 357-370.
Parker, I. 2004. What I Tell You Three Times Is True: Conservation, Ivory, History and Politics.
Librario, Elgin.
Paudel, N.S. 2006. Protected areas and the reproduction of social inequality. Policy Matters 14:
155-169.
Pearce, F. 2005. Humans losing out to Africa’s big game industry. New Scientist 2495, 21.
Peet. R. and M. Watts (eds.). 2004. Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social
Movements. Routledge, London.
Peluso, N. 1993. Coercing conservation: The politics of state resource control. Global Environ-
mental Change 3: 199-217.
Poirier R. and D. Ostergren. 2002. Evicting people from nature: Indigenous land rights and na-
tional parks in Australia, Russia and the United States. Natural Resources Journal 42:
331-351.
Prendergast, D.K. and W.M. Adams. 2003. Colonial wildlife conservation and the origins of the
Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire 1903-1914). Oryx 37:
251-260.
Pretty, J. 2002. People. Livelihoods and collective action in biodiversity management. In: Biodi-
versity, Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting Beyond the Protected (eds.
T.O’Riordan and S. Stoll-Kleeman), pp. 61-86. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pyne, S.J. 1997. Frontiers of fire. In: Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler So-
cieties (eds. T. Griffiths and L. Robin), pp. 19-34. Keele University Press, Keele.
Quammen, D. 2003. Saving Africa’s Eden. National Geographic 204(3): 48-75.
Rangarajan, M. and G. Shahabuddin. 2006. Displacement and relocation from protected areas:
Towards a biological and historical synthesis. Conservation and Society 4: 359-378.
Ranger, T. 1999. Voices from the Rocks: Nature, Culture and History in the Matopos Hills of
Zimbabwe. James Currey, Oxford.
Ravenel, R.M. and K.H. Redford. 2005. Understanding IUCN Protected Area categories. Natural
Areas Journal 25: 381-389.
Redford K.H., P. Coppolillo, E.W. Sanderson, et al. 2003. Mapping the conservation landscape.
Conservation Biology, 17: 116-131.
Redford, K.H. 1990. The ecologically noble savage. Orion 9: 25-29.
Redford, K.H. 1992. The empty forest. Bioscience 42, 412-422.
Redford, K.H. and A.M. Stearman. 1993. Forest-dwelling native Amazonians and the conserva-
tion of biodiversity—interests in common or in collision? Conservation Biology 7: 248-255.
Redford, K.H. and S.E. Sanderson. 2000. Extracting humans from nature. Conservation Biology
14: 1362-1364.
Redford, K., K. Brandon and S. Sanderson. 1998. Holding ground. In: Parks in Peril: People,
Politics and Protected Areas (eds. K. Brandon, K.H. Redford and S.E. Sanderson), pp.
455-463. Island Press, for the Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC, USA.
Robbins, P. 2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford.
Robinson, J. 2006. Conservation biology and real-world conservation. Conservation Biology 20:
658-669.
Roe, D. and J. Elliott. 2004. Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: Rebuilding the
bridges. Oryx 38: 137-139.
Roe, D., J. Hutton, J. Elliott, M. Saruchera and K. Chitepo. 2003. In pursuit of pro-poor conser-
vation; changing narratives … or more? Policy Matters 12: 87-91.
Romero, C. and G.I. Andrade. 2004. International conservation organizations and the fate of lo-
cal tropical forest conservation initiatives. Conservation Biology 18: 578-580.
Runte, A. 1987. National Parks: The American Experience. University of Nebraska Press, Lin-
coln.
Runte, A. 1990. Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Sanderson, S. 2005. Poverty and conservation: the new century’s “peasant question”?. World
Development 33: 323-332.
Sanderson, S. and K. Redford. 2003a. Contested relationships between biodiversity conservation
and poverty alleviation. Oryx 37: 389-390.
Sanderson, S. and K. Redford. 2003b. The defence of conservation is not an attack on the poor.
Oryx 38: 146-147.
Sanford, M.P. 2006. Extirpating the agriculture versus conservation dichotomy. Conservation
Biology 20: 253-254.
Sarukhán, J. 2006. Conservation biology: views from the ecological sciences. Conservation Bi-
ology 20: 674-676.
Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. HarperCollins, London.
Schroeder, R.A. 1999. Geographies of environmental intervention in Africa. Progress in Human
Geography 23: 359-378.
Schwartzman, S., A. Moreira and D. Nepstad. 2000. ‘Rethinking tropical forest conservation:
perils in parks’. Conservation Biology 14: 1351-1357.
Scott, J.C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition
have Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Scudder, T. 1993. Development-induced relocation and refugee studies: 37 years of continuity
among Zambia’s Gwembe Tonga. Journal of Refugee Studies 6: 123-152.
Scudder, T. 2005. The Future of Large dams: Dealing with the Social, Environmental and Po-
litical Costs. Earthscan, London.
Sekhar, N.U. 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas:
The case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Conservation 25:
160-171.
Sheail, J. 1975. The concept of national parks in Great Britain 1900-1950. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 66: 41-56.
Sheail, J. 1981. Rural Conservation in Inter-War Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Smith, R., R. Muir, M. Walpole, A. Balmford and N. Leader-Williams. 2003. Governance and
the loss of biodiversity. Nature 426: 67-70.
Sodikoff, G. 2007. An exceptional strike: A micro-history of ‘people versus park’ in Madagas-
car. Journal of Political Ecology 14: 10-33.
Soulé, M.E. 1995. The social siege of nature. In: Reinventing Nature? Responses to postmodern
deconstruction (eds. M.E. Soulé and G. Lease), pp. 37-170. Island Press, Washington.
Spinage, C. 1998. Social change and conservation misrepresentation in Africa. Oryx 32:
265-376.
Stott, P. and S. Sullivan (eds.). 2000. Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power. Arnold, Lon-
don.
Struhsaker, T.T. 1999. Ecology of an African Rain Forest: Logging in Kibale and the Conflict
Between Conservation and Exploitation. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Sunderlin, W. D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, et al. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in
developing countries: An overview. World Development 33: 1383-1402.
Suzuki, Y. 2001. Drifting rhinos and fluid properties; the turn to wildlife production in western
Zimbabwe. Journal of Agrarian Change 1: 600-625.
Tacconi, L. and J. Bennett. 1995. Biodiversity conservation: The process of economic assess-
ment and establishment of a protected area in Vanuatu. Development and Change 26:
89-110.
Terborgh, J. 1999. Requiem for Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Terborgh, J. 2004. Reflections of a scientist on the World Parks Congress. Conservation Biology
18: 619-620.
Thornhill, A. 2003. Social scientists and conservation biologists join forces. Conservation Biol-
ogy 17: 1476.
Timmer, V. and C. Juma. 2005. Taking root: Biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction
come together in the tropics. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development
47(4): 24-44.
Turnbull, C. 1974. The Mountain People. Pan Books, London.
Turton, D. 1987. The Mursi and National Park development in the lower Omo Valley. In: Con-
servation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice (eds. D.M. Anderson and R.H. Grove),
pp. 169-186. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Turton, D. 2002. The Mursi and the elephant question. In: Conservation and Mobile Indigenous
Peoples: Displacement, Forced Resettlement and Sustainable Development (eds. D. Chatty
and M. Colchester), pp. 97-118. Berghahn Press, New York.
Wainwright, C. and W. Wehrmeyer. 1998. Success in integrating conservation and development?
A study from Zambia. World Development 26: 933-944.
Walker, P.A. 2005. Political ecology: Where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography 29:
73-82.
Walpole, M.J. and C.R. Thouless. 2005. Increasing the value of wildlife though non-
consumptive use: Deconstructing the myths of ecotourism and community-based tourism in
the tropics. In: People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? (eds. R. Woodroffe, S. Thir-
good and A. Rabinowitz), pp. 122-139. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wells, M. and K. Brandon. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Areas with Local Com-
munities. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Wels, H. 2004. Private Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe: Joint Ventures and Reciprocity.
Brill Afrika-Studiecentrum Series vol. 2, Leiden.
West, P. and S.R. Brechin. 1991. Resident People and National Parks: Social Dimensions in In-
ternational Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Western, D. 1989. Conservation without parks: Wildlife in the rural landscape. In: Conservation
for the Twenty-first Century (eds. D. Western and M. Pearl), pp. 158-165. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Western, D., M. Wright and S. Strumm (eds.). 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in
Community-based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Whitney, G.G. 1994. From Coastal Wilderness to Fruited Plain: A History of Environmental
Change in Temperate North America from 1500 to the Present. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Whittaker, R.J., M.B. Araújo, P. Jepson, R.J. Ladle, J.E.M. Watson and K.J. Willis. 2005. Con-
servation biogeography: Assessment and prospect. Diversity and Distributions 11: 3-23.
Willems-Braun, B. 1997. Buried epistemologies: The politics of nature in (post) colonial British
Columbia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87: 3-31.
Wilshusen, P. R., S.R. Brechin, C.L. Fortwangler and P.C. West. 2002. Reinventing a square
wheel: Critique of a resurgent “Protection Paradigm” in international biodiversity conserva-
tion. Society and Natural Resources 15: 17-40.
Wilson, A. 1992. The Culture of Nature: North American Landscape from Disney to Exxon Val-
dez. Blackwell, Oxford.
Wolmer, W. 2003. Transboundary conservation: The politics of ecological integrity in the Great
Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Journal of Southern African Studies 29(1): 261-278.
Wolmer, W. 2005. Wilderness gained, wilderness lost: Wildlife management and land occupations in
Zimbabwe’s southeast lowveld. Journal of Historical Geography 31: 260-280.
Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood and A. Rabinowitz (eds.). 2005. People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexis-
tence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
World Bank. 1984. Tribal People and Economic Development: Human Ecologic Considerations.
World Bank, WA, USA.
World Conservation Union—IUCN. 2005. Benefits Beyond boundaries. Proceedings of the fifth
World Parks Congress. World Conservation Union, Cambridge UK.
World Resource Institute (ed.). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis Report (Mil-
lennium Ecosystem Assessment). Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Zerner, C. 2000. Toward a broader vision of justice and nature conservation. In: People, Plants
and Justice: The Politics of Nature Conservation (ed. C. Zerner), pp. 3-20. Columbia Uni-
versity Press, New York.
Zimmerer, K.S. 2006a. Cultural ecology: At the interface with political ecology—the new geog-
raphies of environmental conservation and globalization. Progress in Human Geography 30:
63-78.
Zimmerer, K.S. 2006b. Globalization and New Geographies of Conservation. University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago.
Zimmerer, K.S. and T.J. Bassett (eds.). 2003. Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to
Geography and Environment-Development Studies. Guilford, New York.
Zimmerer, K.S. and K.R. Young (eds.). 1998. Nature’s Geography: New Lessons for Conserva-
tion in Developing Countries. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org on Monday, May 7, 2018, IP: 181.118.123.

Keywords: political ecology, conservation, biodiversity, population displace-

William M. Adams, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EN,

Address for Correspondence

Conservation and Society, Pages 147–183

148 / Adams and Hutton

People, parks and poverty / 149

product of political and social processes, related at a number of nested scales

PEOPLE AND PROTECTED AREAS

150 / Adams and Hutton

People, parks and poverty / 151

152 / Adams and Hutton

This paper reviews this emerging political ecology of conservation. It looks

CONSERVATION AND THE IDEA OF NATURE

People, parks and poverty / 153

European imperialism from the sixteenth century onwards, a process of tight-

154 / Adams and Hutton

Like development, conservation in its modern form is a fruit of Enlighten-

People, parks and poverty / 155

156 / Adams and Hutton

THE SOCIAL IMPACTS OF PARKS

People, parks and poverty / 157

The greatest social impacts of PAs, however, relate to population displace-

158 / Adams and Hutton

subsequently argue that 120–150,000 people have been displaced or impover-

People, parks and poverty / 159

160 / Adams and Hutton

qualitative shift in the level of violence with which biodiversity protection

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CONSERVATION BENEFITS

People, parks and poverty / 161

Access to benefits from conservation (such as social investment or devel-

162 / Adams and Hutton

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AND PROTECTED AREAS

The broadening of international debate about people and conservation from

People, parks and poverty / 163

164 / Adams and Hutton

POVERTY AND CONSERVATION

Rights-based thinking has influenced debate about conservation more broadly

People, parks and poverty / 165

NEW PARKS ADVOCATES

166 / Adams and Hutton

Advocates of strict parks suggest that while community approaches to conser-

People, parks and poverty / 167

THE POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF CONSERVATION

The political ecology of conservation is highly complex and diverse. Whether

168 / Adams and Hutton

these need to be addressed. The importance and complexity of the trade-offs

People, parks and poverty / 169

ment to social justice and human rights is a necessary element in a legitimate

170 / Adams and Hutton

PAs (World Conservation Union 2005, Recommendation V17) as well as

People, parks and poverty / 171

1. http://www.africanparks-conservation.com/ (15 November 2005).

172 / Adams and Hutton

8. www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa (28 November 2005).

People, parks and poverty / 173

174 / Adams and Hutton

People, parks and poverty / 175

176 / Adams and Hutton