Human livelihoods and protected areas in Gabon: a cross-sectional comparison of welfare and consumption patterns

Foerster, Steffen; Wilkie, David; Morelli, Gilda A.; Demmer, Josefien; Starkey, Malcolm; Telfer, Paul; Steil, Matthew

doi:10.1017/s0030605310001791

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Foerster et al [70] report that purchasing power is lower in villages closer to PAs in Gabon. Cardozo [71] conducted a questionnaire-based site comparison of communities inside and outside AllpahuayoMishara National Reserve, Peru and reported changes in income and livelihood diversity.…”

Section: Livelihood Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: Livelihood Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Household wealth is also typically associated with bushmeat consumption, with richer households consuming more in urban households in Rio Muni [19] although poorer households consume more in rural Equatorial Guinea [13]. Education is negatively associated with consumption of certain wild mammals in rural Gabon [18]. Bushmeat hunters enter protected areas from outside but to a decreasing extent with distance from their settlements [20][21][22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, household size has positive effects on bushmeat consumption on Bioko Island, West Africa [17, see also 6] but negative effects in Gabon [18]. Household wealth is also typically associated with bushmeat consumption, with richer households consuming more in urban households in Rio Muni [19] although poorer households consume more in rural Equatorial Guinea [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Affecting Bushmeat Consumption in the Katavi-Rukwa Ecosystem of Tanzania

Mgawe

Mulder

Caro

et al. 2012

Tropical Conservation Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bushmeat consumption and trade are major problems for wildlife conservation in East Africa. To evaluate recognized drivers of bushmeat consumption, we used structured interviews of 435 households in 11 villages within an ethnically diverse division in rural western Tanzania; the study included both indigenous people and an immigrant population that has moved into the area over the last 40 years. We found that the number of wild animal carcasses reported to be entering villages was greater in villages situated nearer to nationally protected areas. In the indigenous sample, bushmeat consumption was more common in richer than in poorer households, challenging ideas that increasing the availability of alternative protein would necessarily reduce consumption of bushmeat. In the immigrant sample, we found the opposite pattern. We recommend that outreach programs be targeted at both hunters and consumers living near protected area boundaries; that careful evaluations be made of whether wealthy or poor are eating bushmeat; and that protein supplementation be considered more cautiously in solving the problem of bushmeat demand. Our findings highlight complexities of implementing practical solutions to bushmeat consumption in Africa.

show abstract

“…A narrow view of wellbeing is unlikely to reflect reality as improvements in measured aspects could be offset by undetected declines in others. For example, one study found that, compared to controls, households in a national park showed improved health indicators but lower income and less trust in their neighbors (Foerster et al 2011). Measuring only income could have led to the conclusion that proximity to the park decreased wellbeing, although the reality was much more complex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches Used to Evaluate the Social Impacts of Protected Areas

Lange

Woodhouse

Milner‐Gulland

2016

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas are a key strategy in conserving biodiversity, and there is a pressing need to evaluate their social impacts. Though the social impacts of development interventions are widely assessed, the conservation literature is limited and methodological guidance is lacking. Using a systematic literature search, which found 95 relevant studies, we assessed the methods used to evaluate the social impacts of protected areas. Mixed methods were used by more than half of the studies. Almost all studies reported material aspects of wellbeing, particularly income; other aspects were included in around half of studies. The majority of studies provided a snapshot, with only one employing a before-after-control-intervention design. Half of studies reported respondent perceptions of impacts, while impact was attributed from researcher inference in 1/3 of cases. Although the number of such studies is increasing rapidly, there has been little change in the approaches used over the last 15 years, or in the authorship of studies, which is predominantly academics. Recent improvements in understanding of best practice in social impact evaluation need to be translated into practice if a true picture of the effects of conservation on local people is to be obtained.

show abstract

Human livelihoods and protected areas in Gabon: a cross-sectional comparison of welfare and consumption patterns

Cited by 27 publications

References 35 publications

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

Factors Affecting Bushmeat Consumption in the Katavi-Rukwa Ecosystem of Tanzania

Approaches Used to Evaluate the Social Impacts of Protected Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About