Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T20:39:49.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Poverty, livelihoods and the conservation of nature in biodiversity hotspots around the world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

By
Jetske Bouma ,
K. J. Joy  and
Maronel Steyn
Edited by
Pieter J. H. van Beukering ,
Elissaios Papyrakis ,
Jetske Bouma  and
Roy Brouwer
Pieter J. H. van Beukering
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Elissaios Papyrakis
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Jetske Bouma
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Roy Brouwer
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Globally, biodiversity is being depleted at an alarming rate (UN 2010). This is a problem, not only because biodiversity is intrinsically valuable, but also because it provides the basis for many ecosystem services that are crucial for human well-being. Biodiversity is best conserved in protected areas (Bruner et al. 2001) but the establishment of protected areas often has negative livelihood effects (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau 2006). Particularly, since biodiversity is highest in the poorest parts of the world (Fisher and Cristoph 2007), there is an ongoing debate about how to protect biodiversity while improving local livelihoods and alleviating poverty at the same time. Recently, literature has started emerging that suggests that linking conservation outcomes directly to local livelihood improvement is the best way of protecting biodiversity and alleviating poverty at the same time (Ferraro and Kiss 2002, Niesten and Milne 2009). In this chapter we assess local dependence on the surrounding ecosystem, but focus the analysis on the potential for community co-management of protected areas as a means of improving conservation and avoiding negative livelihood effects.

The study analyses the potential synergies for nature conservation and local livelihood improvement in four biodiversity hotspots around the world (India, South Africa, Vietnam, Costa Rica). This makes it possible to compare approaches and assess the interdependencies between nature conservation and local livelihoods. In all four regions biodiversity is conserved in protected areas, but the type of management, the type of ecosystem pressures and the type of livelihood strategies differ between the sites. The main aim of the analysis is get an understanding of whether synergies between nature conservation and local livelihoods are indeed possible, with a specific focus on the potential for community co-management in the different sites.

Type
Chapter
Information
Nature's Wealth
The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Poverty
 , pp. 74 - 106
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S. and Lovett, J. C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics, 48(2): 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29: 1649–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armitage, D., Marschke, M. and Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18: 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawa, K., Joseph, G. and Setty, S. (2007). Poverty, biodiversity and institutions in forest-agriculture ecotones in the Western Ghats and Eastern Himalaya ranges of India. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 12: 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F. (2006). From community-based resource management to complex systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E. and da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science, 291: 125–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1): 65–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cernea, M. M. and Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty risks and national parks: policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Development, 34(10): 1808–1830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N., Balmford, A. et al. (2008). Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology, 23(1): 31–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deland, C. (2006). Not just minor forest products: the economic rationale for the consumption of wild food plants by subsistence farmers. Ecological Economics, 59: 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, M, Oelofse, A., Van Jaarsveld, P. J., Wenhold, F. A. M. and Jansen van Rensburg, W. S. (2010). African leafy vegetables consumed by households in the Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal provinces in South Africa. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 23(1): 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, P. J. and Kiss, A. (2002). Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298(28): 1718–1719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, B. and Cristoph, T. (2007). Poverty and biodiversity: measuring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity hotspots. Ecological Economics, 62: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M., Hallam, D. and Bradley, J. (1997). Site Study; Ba Be National Park, Cao Bang Province, Vietnam. SEE-Vietnam Research Report 3. London: Society for Environmental Exploration.Google Scholar
Kerr, J. (2002). Watershed development, environmental services and poverty alleviation in India. World Development, 30: 1387–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubo, H. and Supriyanto, B. (2010). From fence-and-fine to participatory conservation: mechanisms of transformation in conservation governance at the Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park, Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(6): 1785–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiff, E. (1997). Rural land, water and local governance in South Africa: a case study of the Mutale River Valley. Resources Rural Livelihoods Working Paper Series. Paper No. 7.Google Scholar
Maffi, L and Woodley, E. (2010). Biocultural Diversity Conservation. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Makhado, R. A., Potgieter, M. J. and Wessels, D. C. J. (2009). Colophospermum mopane wood utilisation in the northeast of the Limpopo Province, South Africa. Ethnobotanical Leaflets, 13: 921–945.Google Scholar
Medvey, J. (2010). Benefits or burden? Community participation in natural resource management in the greater Kruger Park area. MSc thesis. IVM Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands, available at: .Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Murphee, M. (2009). The strategic pillars of communal natural resource management: benefit, empowerment and conservation. Biodiversity Conservation, 18: 2551–2562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niesten, E. and Milne, S. (2009). Direct payments for biodiversity conservation in developing countries: practical insights for design and implementation. Oryx, 43(4): 530–541.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325: 419–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plummer, R. and Fitzgibbon, J. (2004). Co-management of natural resources: a proposed framework. Environmental Management, 33(6): 876–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posel, D. and Casale, D. (2006). Migration and remittances in South Africa. Background document on migration and first set of draft questions for inclusion in the National Income Dynamics Study. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Department of Economics, p. 58.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1983). Poverty, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2): 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1995). Rationality and social choice. American Economic Review, 85(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Somanathan, E., Prabhakar, R. and Mehta, B. S. (2009). Decentralization for cost-effective conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(11): 4143–4147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, M. (2008). Coercion, voluntary compliance and protest: the role of trust and legitimacy in combating local opposition to protected areas. Environmental Conservation, 35(3): 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TEEB (2009). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. Summary: responding to the value of nature. Available at: .
Trepp, E. (2010). Chandoli National Park and Resettlement: impacts on local communities in Maharashtra, India. MSc thesis, IVM Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands, available at: .Google Scholar
Tshihwanambi, T. P. (2007). Consumption patterns of vitamin-A rich foods of 10–13 year old children living in a rural area in Venda. MSc thesis, Consumer Science, University of PretoriaGoogle Scholar
UN (2010). High-level meeting of the General Assembly as a contribution to the international year of biodiversity, A/64/865. United Nations General Assembly, New York.Google Scholar
Uribe, M. (2010). Terraba Sierpe Wetland’s Management plan: struggling for policy change and its implementation. MSc thesis, IVM Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands, available at: .Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×