Date:
2018/06/15
Time:
11:00
Room:
A3 Wolmar
Rethinking common assumptions on linkages between protected areas and human well-being
(Oral)
Emily Woodhouse
, Claire Bedelian
, Paul Barnes
, Neil Dawson
, Nicole Gross-Camp
, Katherine Homewood
, Julia P G Jones
, Adrian Martin
, Elisa Morgera
, Kate Schreckenberg
SEE PEER REVIEW
International policies on conservation and protected areas now emphasise a pro-poor approach and equitable management with participation by local communities. Many protected areas are now established and managed based on the premise that there are synergistic relationships between human well-being and environmental outcomes. Through a review of the academic literature and expert interviews, we investigate five common assumptions in protected area conservation pertaining to these synergies: (1) Conservation is pro-poor; (2) Poverty reduction benefits conservation; (3) Compensation neutralizes conservation costs; (4) Participation is good for conservation; (5) Resource tenure underpins long-term conservation. We identify the circumstances under which synergies and trade-offs emerge within and between social and ecological outcomes of protected areas, and highlight the role of power, governance processes and scale in shaping outcomes.
INTRO: The study combines literature review and expert interviews to investigate the relationship between protected areas and human well-being.
MERITS: This topic is if high importance, as protected areas have been a main tool in conservation and human well-being is a priority issue.
CRITIQUE: The study should be expanded and better explained, more details should be provided, i.e. how many papers reviewed, how many experts interviewed, from how many protected areas, all over the world? It would be good for readers if, after the first sentence, the "pro-poor aproach and equitable management" are explained. How the five assumptions were investigated and which was the output for each are not clear.
DISCUSSION: Potentially relevant study, but the abstract has to include more information on the study and the conclusions of the research, which now are rather vague.