The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority

Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority
Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority
Cost data are crucial in conservation planning to identify more efficient and equitable land use options. However, many studies focus on just one cost type and neglect others, particularly those borne locally. We develop, for a high priority conservation area, spatial models of two local costs that arise from protected areas: foregone agricultural opportunities and increased wildlife damage. We then map these across the study area and compare them to the direct costs of reserve management, finding that local costs exceed management costs. Whilst benefits of conservation accrue to the global community, significant costs are borne by those living closest. Where livelihoods depend upon opportunities forgone or diminished by conservation intervention, outcomes are limited. Activities can be displaced (leakage); rules can be broken (intervention does not work); or the intervention forces a shift in livelihood profiles (potentially to the detriment of local peoples’ welfare). These raise concerns for both conservation and development outcomes and timely consideration of local costs is vital in conservation planning tools and processes.
Conservation planning, Protected areas, Wildlife damage
Green, Jonathan
032081ae-ad44-419a-8154-76c66bd675dd
Fisher, Brendan
844108a1-0003-4894-8725-172f1eff1938
Green, Rhys
860e2976-0c7d-41c4-bd95-c44c16c5fb3a
Makero, Joseph
b08653cc-69dd-41d1-a03f-de84f61adada
Platts, Philip J.
a389d869-ad8d-4904-a983-234d324bafc4
Robert, Neema
e0a7ae37-07c5-4aff-87f6-d1debb69b6bd
Schaafsma, Marije
937ac629-0fa2-4a11-bdf7-c3688405467d
Turner, R. Kerry
c2f20b3c-b9f6-40ed-9c8d-c1c242994efe
Balmford, Andrew
b66d76a7-4e7d-435b-a1b8-2d61883c8166
Green, Jonathan
032081ae-ad44-419a-8154-76c66bd675dd
Fisher, Brendan
844108a1-0003-4894-8725-172f1eff1938
Green, Rhys
860e2976-0c7d-41c4-bd95-c44c16c5fb3a
Makero, Joseph
b08653cc-69dd-41d1-a03f-de84f61adada
Platts, Philip J.
a389d869-ad8d-4904-a983-234d324bafc4
Robert, Neema
e0a7ae37-07c5-4aff-87f6-d1debb69b6bd
Schaafsma, Marije
937ac629-0fa2-4a11-bdf7-c3688405467d
Turner, R. Kerry
c2f20b3c-b9f6-40ed-9c8d-c1c242994efe
Balmford, Andrew
b66d76a7-4e7d-435b-a1b8-2d61883c8166

Green, Jonathan, Fisher, Brendan, Green, Rhys, Makero, Joseph, Platts, Philip J., Robert, Neema, Schaafsma, Marije, Turner, R. Kerry and Balmford, Andrew (2018) Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority. Global Ecology and Conservation, 14 (e00385). (doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00385).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Cost data are crucial in conservation planning to identify more efficient and equitable land use options. However, many studies focus on just one cost type and neglect others, particularly those borne locally. We develop, for a high priority conservation area, spatial models of two local costs that arise from protected areas: foregone agricultural opportunities and increased wildlife damage. We then map these across the study area and compare them to the direct costs of reserve management, finding that local costs exceed management costs. Whilst benefits of conservation accrue to the global community, significant costs are borne by those living closest. Where livelihoods depend upon opportunities forgone or diminished by conservation intervention, outcomes are limited. Activities can be displaced (leakage); rules can be broken (intervention does not work); or the intervention forces a shift in livelihood profiles (potentially to the detriment of local peoples’ welfare). These raise concerns for both conservation and development outcomes and timely consideration of local costs is vital in conservation planning tools and processes.

Text
Green et al. 2018 - Version of Record
Download (874kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 5 April 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 17 April 2018
Keywords: Conservation planning, Protected areas, Wildlife damage

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 420005
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/420005
PURE UUID: 9158e923-4f6e-4039-ab07-a1e0cb00217a
ORCID for Marije Schaafsma: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-0878-069X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 25 Apr 2018 16:30
Last modified: 26 Nov 2021 03:03

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Jonathan Green
Author: Brendan Fisher
Author: Rhys Green
Author: Joseph Makero
Author: Philip J. Platts
Author: Neema Robert
Author: R. Kerry Turner
Author: Andrew Balmford

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×