Household Consumption and Natural Resource Management around National Parks in Zambia

Bandyopadhyay, Sushenjit; Tembo, Gelson

doi:10.1080/19390450903350838

Cited by 51 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, there is little scientific evidence on the nature of this heterogeneity or the potential tradeoffs between environmental and socioeconomic outcomes (3,12). Retrospective causal analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of developing country protected areas is limited (6,10,11,13,14). Only the work in Thailand and Costa Rica (10,11,13) also included information on environmental outcomes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction

Ferraro

Hanauer²,

Sims³

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

249

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas are the dominant approach to protecting biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services. Because these protected areas are often placed in regions with widespread poverty and because they can limit agricultural development and exploitation of natural resources, concerns have been raised about their potential to create or reinforce poverty traps. Previous studies suggest that the protected area systems in Costa Rica and Thailand, on average, reduced deforestation and alleviated poverty. We examine these results in more detail by characterizing the heterogeneity of responses to protection conditional on observable characteristics. We find no evidence that protected areas trap historically poorer areas in poverty. In fact, we find that poorer areas at baseline seem to have the greatest levels of poverty reduction as a result of protection. However, we do find that the spatial characteristics associated with the most poverty alleviation are not necessarily the characteristics associated with the most avoided deforestation. We show how an understanding of these spatially heterogeneous responses to protection can be used to generate suitability maps that identify locations in which both environmental and poverty alleviation goals are most likely to be achieved.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction

Ferraro

Hanauer²,

Sims³

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

249

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, it may be argued that the designation of forests as reserves or protected areas can impose significant human costs on the poor by excluding resource use. Alternatively, protected areas have been shown to generate important local benefits by preserving access to the resource through cooperative management and by stimulating employment from tourism growth [33,49,50]. Referring to the example of forests, Fisher [15] concluded that the activities of the wealthy, who are most likely to participate in timber extraction activities, pose a greater ecological threat to poverty and food security, leaving poor households vulnerable to the degradation and depletion of forest resources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability

Richardson

2010

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food security in developing countries depends in part on the sustainable use of natural resources. Food security is usually examined through three dimensions, namely the availability, access, and utilization of food. Ecosystems directly and indirectly support each of these dimensions through the provision of critical ecosystem services that facilitate agricultural production, create income-generating opportunities, and provide energy for cooking. However, in some cases, household uses of natural resources undermine particular elements of food security, hindering national poverty reduction strategies and threatening the sustainability of critical ecosystem functions. I examine the role of ecosystem services in rural food security through the lens of its three dimensions, and highlight the tensions that stem from household-level interactions and uses. In some cases, uses of resources and services that support the access and utilization dimensions may undermine the ecosystem functions that support food availability. The conclusions underscore the importance for the integration of ecosystem services into food security plans and poverty reduction strategies in developing countries.

show abstract

“…In the majority of cases, however, research has found these initiatives lacking and correspondingly many refinements have been proposed. These have included calls for program designs to incorporate greater focus on cultural context (Waylen et al 2010), education (Peters 1998, Wainwright andWehrmeyer 1998), adaptive capacity (Armitage 2005), governance (Brechin et al 2002), social institutions Gibson 1999, Nelson andAgrawal 2008), social, physical, and economic capital (Garnett et al 2007), equitable distribution of benefits (Bandyopadhyay andTembo 2010, Yasuda 2011), gender issues (Wainwright and Wehrmeyer 1998), financial interfaces (Blaikie 2006), stronger connections between conservation and development goals (Martin et al 2011), and improved ecological monitoring (Kremen et al 1994). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation and Unscripted Development: Proximity to Park Associated with Development and Financial Diversity

Baird¹

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Decades of research on the social dynamics of biodiversity conservation has shown that parks and protected areas have added hardship to rural communities throughout much of the developing world. Nonetheless, some recent studies have found evidence of poverty alleviation near protected areas. To build on these conflicting accounts, I use a comparative, mixed-methods design to examine opportunistic, unplanned, i.e., unscripted, development in indigenous communities near Tarangire National Park (TNP) in northern Tanzania. I ask the questions: (1) How is proximity to TNP related to community-level infrastructural development? (2) How has the process of development changed over time? and (3) How is proximity to TNP related to infrastructure-related social outcomes at the household-level? Results from semistructured interviews show that, compared with distant communities, communities near TNP have developed more extensive education and water infrastructure in the past decade by procuring financial support from a greater diversity of external organizations, including wildlife-related organizations. Correspondingly, household survey results show that education measures are positively associated with proximity to TNP, controlling for other factors. These findings support the notion that development can accrue near protected areas in ways that are diverse, uncoordinated, and opportunistic, and correspondingly distinct from heralded community-based conservation, community-based natural resource management, and integrated conservation and development project initiatives.

show abstract

Household Consumption and Natural Resource Management around National Parks in Zambia

Cited by 51 publications

References 10 publications

Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction

Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction

Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability

Conservation and Unscripted Development: Proximity to Park Associated with Development and Financial Diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About