Abstract
Barber, M., and S. Jackson. 2017. Identifying and categorizing cobenefits in state-supported Australian indigenous environmental management programs: international research implications. Ecology and Society 22(2):11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09114-220211
Highlights
The debate about the social effects of conservation has shifted significantly since the late 1980s
Investigating the potential consequences of using different terms in analyzing indigenous cultural and natural resource management (ICNRM) effects is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is important to note these variations in terminology and that they can be extrapolated into a series of positively, neutrally, or negatively framed terms (Table 1)
Australian indigenous cultural and natural resource management cobenefit and beneficiary conceptualization The existing empirical and review literature on Australian ICNRM shows that such programs can generate a diverse range of significant cobenefits: health and well-being, social, cultural, political, and economic
Summary
The debate about the social effects of conservation has shifted significantly since the late 1980s. Sustained criticism of the “fortress” model of conservation, which locked local communities out of environmental management decisions, has compelled the development of more socially responsible approaches (Salafsky and Wollenberg 2000, Adams and Mulligan 2003). Protected areas are more frequently managed for multiple objectives that include indigenous and local livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, sustainable resource use, and poverty alleviation (Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2004, Stevens 2014). Conservation interest has widened geographically, expanding from formal nature reserves to include territories under the wider control and management of indigenous peoples. Such peoples may have rights in emerging tradable ecological commodities and environmental services such as carbon sequestration and watershed protection. The debate encompasses the entire relationship between biodiversity and human welfare (Adams and Hutton 2007), especially the compatibility of conservation and poverty alleviation (Holmes and Cavanagh 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
