Everyone′s Solution? Defining and Redefining Protected Areas at the Convention on Biological Diversity

Corson, Catherine; Gruby, Rebecca L.; Witter, Rebecca; Hagerman, Shannon; Suarez, Daniel; Greenberg, Shannon; Bourque, Maggie; Gray, Noella J.; Campbell, Lisa M.

doi:10.4103/0972-4923.138421

Cited by 40 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While diverse in method and subject area, proponents of political ecology are united in their general dissatisfaction with business as usual approaches to conservation and a desire to see more socially equitable forms of environmental governance (Robbins, 2011). Scholars in this field are particularly concerned about conservation policy that excludes people (Adams and Hutton, 2007;Neumann, 2004) and have made contributions to understanding the differential impacts of conservation projects (Holmes and Cavanagh, 2016;Stevens, 2014) examined the rationales underlying particular conservation strategies (Corson et al, 2014), analyzed instances of displacement and violence in the name of conservation Lunstrum, 2014) and critically interrogated new forms of conservation governance and their relationship to global capitalism (Brockington et al, 2008;Büscher and Arsel, 2012). Political ecology research makes frequent use of case studies to illustrate regional or global trends, and employs a variety of mostly qualitative (e.g.…”

Section: Political Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

Bennett¹,

Roth²,

Klain³

et al. 2018

Preprint

143

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has long been claimed that a better understanding of human or social dimensions of environmental issues will improve conservation. The social sciences are one important means through which researchers and practitioners can attain that better understanding. Yet, a lack of awareness of the scope and uncertainty about the purpose of the conservation social sciences impedes the conservation community's effective engagement with the human dimensions. This paper examines the scope and purpose of eighteen subfields of classic, interdisciplinary and applied conservation social sciences and articulates ten distinct contributions that the social sciences can make to understanding and improving conservation. In brief, the conservation social sciences can be valuable to conservation for descriptive, diagnostic, disruptive, reflexive, generative, innovative, or instrumental reasons. This review and supporting materials provides a succinct yet comprehensive reference for conservation scientists and practitioners. We contend that the social sciences can help facilitate conservation policies, actions and outcomes that are more legitimate, salient, robust and effective.

show abstract

Section: Political Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

Bennett¹,

Roth²,

Klain³

et al. 2018

Preprint

143

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pyhälä et al, 2016) and, relative to indigenous rights organizations, the much greater sway corporations appear to hold over international conservation organizations (e.g. The danger here is that protections for indigenous rights become contingent upon -and are thus eroded or taken away without -adherence to conservation outcomes (Corson et al, 2014;Kashwan, 2013). The concern, instead, is that essentialist representations promote, especially among conservation decision makers, instrumentalist interpretations of rights.…”

Section: An Indigenous Right To Conservation: Essentialist and Allmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They may be viewed as legal obligations, moral imperatives, or as instruments for achieving programmatic goals. Thus, not all framings and interpretations of rights are equivalent, and variations in discourse have important implications for achieving the goals of conservation and social justice (Cornwall and Brock, 2005;Corson et al, 2014). Or, they might subvert the meaning of rights to serve their own ends.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ebb and Flow of Indigenous Rights Recognitions in Conservation Policy

Witter¹,

Satterfield²

2018

Development and Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the 2003 World Parks Congress, diverse conservation actors called for the end of exclusionary approaches to conservation; recognition of customary forms of environmental protection; and restoration of losses to indigenous peoples whose lands were incorporated into protected areas without meaningful consent. A primary means to achieving such reforms has been the development of rights-based approaches to conservation, expressed at the time as the better integration of human rights into the planning and management of protected areas. This article reviews the suite of publications that followed the 2003 Congress, each identifying the need for rights-based approaches in conservation. All reviewed materials seek to operationalize human rights into conservation planning, but the review indicates a pattern of support for, then retreat from, and even a possible 'backlash' against, indigenous rights. The review also finds important differences in organizations' ideas about who is responsible for protecting the environment versus who is responsible for protecting human rights. The authors draw from these findings a caution against the subversion of the original intention of rights-based conservation to definitions that more fully serve conservation organizations' own ends, based on the presumption that benefits (including rights) from environmental protection will eventually trickle down to people.The authors are grateful to the three anonymous readers whose thoughtful and compelling reviews greatly improved this manuscript. We also wish to thank

show abstract

“…Debate ensued about the breadth of management regimes that ''protected area'' should encompass (see Corson et al 2014 for example). Consequently, IUCN clarified its position on the distinction between PAs and other management regimes: ''For IUCN, only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can be considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals as well, at the same level, but in the case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority'' (Dudley 2008, p.10).…”

Section: Outcome 1: Conceptualizing Protected Areas Oeacbms and Whamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such reporting in Canada is a challenge given the complex nature of Canada's biodiversity conservation legacy, including how PAs are defined (e.g., Corson et al 2014), the diversity in PA types (e.g. Gray et al 2009), and governance arrangements implemented in the last several decades.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target

MacKinnon¹,

Lemieux

Beazley

et al. 2015

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Everyone′s Solution? Defining and Redefining Protected Areas at the Convention on Biological Diversity

Cited by 40 publications

References 52 publications

Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation

The Ebb and Flow of Indigenous Rights Recognitions in Conservation Policy

Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About