Positioning human heritage at the center of conservation practice

Abstract

Conservation projects subscribing to a community-based paradigm have predominated in the 21st century. We examined the context in which the phrase was coined and traced its growth over time. Communitybased conservation first appeared in the literature in the early 1990s; but grew little until after the 5th World Parks Congress in 2003. Thereafter, publications describing community-based conservation approaches increased exponentially. The conference theme was Benefits Beyond Boundaries, and its goal was to provide an economic model based on revenue accrued from conservation fundraising and ecotourism to support ecosystems, wildlife, and people, particularly in the Global South. Such models tended not to incorporate, as a core principle, the heritage of local human communities. Human heritage varies substantially over time and space making generalization of conservation principles across scales challenging. Pitfalls that have grown out of the community-based conservation approaches in the Global South include fortress conservation, conservation militarism, consumptive and nonconsumptive ecotourism, and whiz-bang solutions. We propose 10 tenets in a human heritage-centered conservation framework (e.g., engage in conservation practices using local languages, thoughtfully propose and apply solutions consistent with human heritage, provide clear professional development pathways for individuals from local communities, and promote alternative revenue-generating programs centered in local communities, among others). Progressive philosophies can derive from authentic and ethical integration of local communities in conservation practice.

Variation in song structure of house wrens living in urban and rural areas in a Caribbean small island developing state

“…Discrepancy in how much research has been conducted between the Global North and Global South regions raises concerns about the applicability of current scientific knowledge and implementation of conservation projects in low-income countries (Montgomery et al 2020). The Global South faces unique socio-political issues that can make research and implementation of conservation projects challenging (Montgomery et al 2020, Moussy et al 2021.…”

“…Discrepancy in how much research has been conducted between the Global North and Global South regions raises concerns about the applicability of current scientific knowledge and implementation of conservation projects in low-income countries (Montgomery et al 2020). The Global South faces unique socio-political issues that can make research and implementation of conservation projects challenging (Montgomery et al 2020, Moussy et al 2021. For instance, armed conflicts (Gaynor et al 2016), ineffective governance (Baynham-Herd et al 2018), and human-wildlife conflicts (Michalski et al 2020) in the Global South have been shown to negatively affect wildlife.…”

“…North American protective approach of ecosystems can be harmful in mid-and low-income countries and areas used by Indigenous communities (Montgomery et al 2020). The creation of protected areas barring humans can cause relocation of populations, loss of traditional indigenous knowledge, loss of livelihood, lack of adherence to regulations and laws, and violence (Montgomery et al 2020). Community-based conservation can result in long-term, inclusive, and successful programs.…”

The efficacy of interventions to protect crops from raiding elephants

“…Such efforts have involved assessments of human perceptions, attitudes, and normative behaviors in relation to wildlife, compensation schemes for property loss caused by wildlife, fortification of enclosures promoting food security, and various measures designed to alter animal movement and behavior in relation to human-dominated landscapes (Madden 2004 ; Hoffmann et al 2017 ; Kissui et al 2019 ; Meena 2020 ). However, the efficacy of these interventions are seldom assessed, contributing to evident divides among the research and policy spheres (Kapos et al 2009 ; Artelle et al 2018 ; Montgomery et al 2020b ). Such ‘knowing-doing’ or ‘research-implementation’ gaps hamper efforts to protect human interests and can simultaneously stymie conservation practice (Knight et al 2008 ; Montgomery et al Montgomery et al 2018b ; Gray et al 2020 ).…”

Using Participatory System Dynamics Modeling to Address Complex Conservation Problems: Tiger Farming as a Case Study

“…Madden and McQuinn (2014) argue that "conservation efforts would benefit from improved capacity and resources for understanding and transforming the complex drivers of deep-rooted social conflicts impacting wildlife conservation and management actions" (p. 104). Numerous scholars have made a strong case that biodiversity conservation is ultimately a social and political process (Brechin et al, 2002;Lele et al, 2010;Montgomery et al, 2020). Yet, despite a growing body of research focused on the social component of social-ecological systems (Ban et al, 2013), including systems with carnivore species such as tigers (Torri, 2011;Struebig et al, 2018), efforts to apply this research by re-conceptualizing and adapting conventional conservation approaches have been slow (Bennett et al, 2017).…”