Building healthy relationships between rangers and communities in and around protected areas

Abstract

Positive ranger-community relationships are vitally important to effective conservation in and around protected areas. In this paper we take a practical approach to identifying and examining the key issues and practices that affect the relationship, both where it is strained and where it is working well, and provide recommendations for action. The issues and the solutions are multi-layered, with embedded complexity based on history, cultural identity, and rights to access natural resources. Solutions require a deep understanding of and respect for the needs and aspirations of the community and its capacity to partner in conservation efforts. Similarly, rangers require effective support and training that enables alternative interactions with communities and greater professionalism. In general, the improvements will require building trustworthy relationships grounded in understanding and supported by strong collaborative management systems and governance. Essentially this means strengthening the social capital of conservation. Our problem analysis revealed that the internal and external factors affecting relationships can usefully be divided into six themes: law, policy, and safeguarding human rights; organizational systems and strategies; options for ranger-community interactions on-site; model systems and the role of communities in conservation and stewardship; and the role of both external supporters and disruptors. Our recommendations for action target conservation bodies at four levels-international, regional, national, and local. They are further clustered around four types of action grouped into: critical responses and crisis planning; establishing general guiding principles, systems, and management and governance; promoting the best models and practices; and strengthening of professional knowledge networks and support.

What drives local communities' attitudes toward the protected area? Insights from Bardia National Park, Nepal

“…These kinds of negative interactions have been documented in the same study site, BNP (Allendorf et al, 2007), and elsewhere in Africa (Tessema et al, 2010), India (Karanth & Nepal, 2012), and South America (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995). It perhaps calls for training and support to PA management authority to facilitate a trustworthy and good relationship with local communities (Woodside et al, 2021). Although the contemporary narrative paints pessimistic picture of park staff behavior and their approach to deal with local communities, recent scholarship calls for more nuanced planning and discussion to foster positive park‐people relationships.…”

“…It is thus likely that overlooking their perspective of their relationship with local communities may not resolve the park‐people conflict over resource access. We, therefore, argue that fostering this relationship would require policymakers and conservation practitioners looking beyond a single perspective to the park‐people relationship (Moreto & Charlton, 2021; Mutanga et al, 2015, 2016, 2017; Woodside et al, 2021).…”

Exploring the Perceptions and Experiences of Local Versus Non-Local Rangers: Insights From Across 11 Countries

“…Our findings also provide strong evidence that perceived adequacy of training and resource provision relate strongly (and positively) to the quality of ranger-community relations, perhaps because having more adequate training and resources enables rangers to be more able to cultivate positive relationships with local communities (Tables 4, 5). Community engagement is a core aspect of ranger work (Moreto et al, 2017a;Woodside et al, 2021) and amicable ranger-community relations can be associated with various benefits, like greater inclination amongst community members to adhere to conservation area rules and regulations and to report offenders, as well as improved ranger and community member well-being (Lee et al, 2009;Moreto et al, 2017a;WWF, 2019;Jacobsen, 2020;Zhang et al, 2020;Anagnostou et al, 2020;Mbanze et al, 2021;Woodside et al, 2021). However, relations between rangers and local communities are not always positive and are influence by historial, cultural, political and governance factor (Dutta, 2020;Woodside et al, 2021), and as a result, improving these relationships remains a common goal in conservation (Moretto, et.…”

“…Community engagement is a core aspect of ranger work (Moreto et al, 2017a;Woodside et al, 2021) and amicable ranger-community relations can be associated with various benefits, like greater inclination amongst community members to adhere to conservation area rules and regulations and to report offenders, as well as improved ranger and community member well-being (Lee et al, 2009;Moreto et al, 2017a;WWF, 2019;Jacobsen, 2020;Zhang et al, 2020;Anagnostou et al, 2020;Mbanze et al, 2021;Woodside et al, 2021). However, relations between rangers and local communities are not always positive and are influence by historial, cultural, political and governance factor (Dutta, 2020;Woodside et al, 2021), and as a result, improving these relationships remains a common goal in conservation (Moretto, et. al., 2017, Chitwan Declaration;Singh et al, 2021;URSA, 2021, Rizzolo, et.…”

Restoration, Land Tenure, Conflict, and Opportunities in Peacebuilding: 15 best practices for restoration

“…xxxvi Although classified as degraded, over 450 million people inhabit 30% of the lands proposed for restoration globally (Valencia, 2019 IPLCs are key conservation actors and are in a position to contribute to the restoration of ecosystems due to their intimate relationship with their land and natural resources (Reyes-Garcia et al, 2018). xlvii Indigenous lands hold 80% of remaining biodiversity, and data from across the globe shows lower rates of deforestation, more stored carbon, and more biodiversity on Indigenous and community rightsholders' lands than lands managed by either government or private entities (Woodside et al, 2021). xlviii IPLCs represent 6.2% of the global population, but their customary territories, which are formally recognized and customarily held, are estimated to contain most of the world's forests and at least 36% of the world's large, connected swaths of remaining intact forests (Worsdell et al, 2022).…”