Induced volition: Resettlement from the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique

Milgroom, Jessica; Spierenburg, Marja

doi:10.1080/02589000802482021

Cited by 97 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although labelled as 'voluntary' , because the term 'involuntary' is politically problematic nationally and amongst international donors, the resettlement from Limpopo National Park was widely recognised as 'induced' by planning blight and economic decline [33]. Although consulted about resettlement, residents' views were then disregarded.…”

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…PAs are important to communities for grazing, agriculture, hunting, foraging and spiritual homes Relocation and loss of control over land and resources can result in resentment, poaching and antagonism Participating in the process of setting boundaries and securing land rights can be empowering Evidence synthesised from nine studies [30,33,34,40,41,44,48,50,51] from IUCN categories II after the Durban Accord, and from categories V and IV before the Durban Accord Access restrictions to protected areas (IUCN II) had implications for grazing cattle, hunting and collecting natural products [33,40,51]. Local people would like grazing rights in the park (IUCN II), especially during drought, and the opportunity to visit traditional areas and burial areas [51].…”

Section: Access To Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Establishing Protected Areas (PAs) is among the most common conservation interventions. Protecting areas from the threats posed by human activity will by definition inhibit some human actions. However, adverse impacts could be balanced by maintaining ecosystem services or introducing new livelihood options. Consequently there is an ongoing debate on whether the net impact of PAs on human well-being at local or regional scales is positive or negative. We report here on a systematic review of evidence for impacts on human well-being arising from the establishment and maintenance of terrestrial PAs. Methods: Following an a priori protocol, systematic searches were conducted for evidence of impacts of PAs post 1992. After article title screening, the review was divided into two separate processes; a qualitative synthesis of explanations and meaning of impact and a review of quantitative evidence of impact. Abstracts and full texts were assessed using inclusion criteria and conceptual models of potential impacts. Relevant studies were critically appraised and data extracted and sorted according to type of impact reported. No quantitative synthesis was possible with the evidence available. Two narrative syntheses were produced and their outputs compared in a metasynthesis.

show abstract

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Access To Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially in developing countries, where local residents often depend heavily on the natural resources in protected areas, and where land tenure rights are tenuous (figure 2), this results in severe impoverishment (Milgroom and Spierenburg 2008). However, beneficiary trade-offs are possible, if they are taken into account before planning, and attempts are made to study how biodiversity conservation could be combined with fostering local livelihoods and protecting local land rights.…”

Section: Evictions and Resettlement For Biodiversity Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting the Message Across Biodiversity Science and Policy Interfaces – A Review

Spierenburg¹

2012

GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

125espite the involvement of scientists in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the organization of a number of high-profile scientific biodiversity assessments such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), there is still a dominant narrative positing a huge gap between science and policy. Scientists complain that their warnings and urgent calls for action to conserve biodiversity do not seem to be taken seriously, and that scientific knowledge is ignored in the debates about agreements or policies, or "replaced by rhetoric" (Dietz and Stern 1998, p. 441). Some policy-makers indeed may ignore scientific knowledge that does not support their preferred policy options, while others complain they do not know what action to take given the uncertainty of some scientific conclusions. Yet, science is not undisputed either, as last year's public debates on Climategate showed, when scientists participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were accused of manipulating data to suit their own policy preferences.Some of the problems with the biodiversity science-policy nexus may stem very well, according to Dietz and Stern (1998) as well as Koetz et al. (2009Koetz et al. ( , 2008, from unreasonable expectations about how and how much science can contribute to wise decision-making. Often a technocratic approach is expected, both by researchers and policy-makers, in which science provides knowledge and information about the impacts of certain choices, and policy-makers use this information to design policies.However, in practice, the policy-making process is far from straightforward. Poli cy-makers have to weigh different socio-economic benefits and costs which are based on the values of biodiversity to society (Dietz and Stern 1998). To complicate matters, some of these valuations are subjective and emotional interpretations -both by policy-makers and their constituents (Bhattacharya et al. 2005). At the international level, trust -or a lack thereof -between states, especially in relation to capacities and the distribu tion of costs and benefits, also plays an important role in decision-making (Jessel 2012, Koetz et al. 2009. Each decision affects biodiversity, and effects take place at and across different scales, rendering both scientific predictions and decision-making complicated. > Getting the Message Across AbstractThis contribution analyses the difficulties of biodiversity policy-making and the role of science. It addresses biodiversity scientists' struggles to communicate the value of biodiversity to policy-makers, and the tensions between producing policyrelevant research and being perceived as too prescriptive.The author argues that it is important for biodiversity scientists to acknowledge and engage with the political aspects of biodiversity policies. A first step is to recognize the diversity of valuations and preferences among various stakeholders of different trade-offs, and the power relations between the stakeholders. A transparent presentation of a broad range of polic...

show abstract

“…Consequently, an increasing number of wildlife including lions and elephants from the Kruger migrating to the Mozambican section of the park had devastating effects on the lives and livelihoods of those living in the park (see Spierenburg et al, 2008;Milgroom, Spierenburg, 2008). To make matters worse, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and a Peace Parks Foundation consultant concluded that the area along the banks of Shingwedzi River where the majority of Mozambican people live is the most suitable for sustaining viable wildlife and tourism development Milgroom, Spierenburg, 2008). Resident people are being forced to relocate in order to create extra space for wildlife and to make the park more attractive for private investment (Ferreira, 2006;Munthali, 2007;Spierenburg et al, 2008;Milgroom, Spierenburg, 2008;Lunstrum, 2010).…”

Section: Synopsis Of Transfrontier Conservation Areas In Southern Africamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To make matters worse, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and a Peace Parks Foundation consultant concluded that the area along the banks of Shingwedzi River where the majority of Mozambican people live is the most suitable for sustaining viable wildlife and tourism development Milgroom, Spierenburg, 2008). Resident people are being forced to relocate in order to create extra space for wildlife and to make the park more attractive for private investment (Ferreira, 2006;Munthali, 2007;Spierenburg et al, 2008;Milgroom, Spierenburg, 2008;Lunstrum, 2010). As a result of these controversies, Wolmer (2003: 266) considers TFCAs as the latest in a line of top-down, market-oriented environmental interventions pushed on Africa by international bureaucracies (including the World Bank, bilateral donors, international conservation organizations) and the private sector.…”

Section: Synopsis Of Transfrontier Conservation Areas In Southern Africamentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple-land use practices in transfrontier conservation areas: the case of Greater Mapungubwe straddling parts of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe

Sinthumule

2016

Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) have recently emerged as the 21 st century approach to managing protected areas in southern Africa. Unlike national parks and other protected areas that place emphasis only on the protection of plant and animal species within their borders, transfrontier conservation areas promote conservation beyond the borders of protected areas. Consequently, this mega-conservation initiative encourage multiple land-use practices with the

show abstract

Induced volition: Resettlement from the Limpopo National Park, Mozambique

Cited by 97 publications

References 11 publications

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

Getting the Message Across Biodiversity Science and Policy Interfaces – A Review

Multiple-land use practices in transfrontier conservation areas: the case of Greater Mapungubwe straddling parts of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About