Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 1331–1337 | Cite as

Classifying conservation targets based on the origin of motivation: implications over the success of community-based conservation projects

  • Tamia Souto
  • Jessica L. Deichmann
  • Cecilia Núñez
  • Alfonso Alonso
Commentary

Abstract

Community-based conservation (CBC) projects represent one approach to biodiversity conservation when working with indigenous and local people. This method aims to achieve conservation and development goals simultaneously, however whether both types of goals can be met or whether competition between the two precludes success is an issue of much discussion. Conservation targets are one of the most important elements upon which a conservation project is built. We propose that one way to link biodiversity conservation with human development goals is to consider people’s needs and interests in the selection of the conservation target. Here, we present three categories of conservation targets that vary according to the origin of motivation that drives indigenous and local people to conserve the target. According to the type of target selected, the level of participation, integration of traditional ecological knowledge, level of external intervention and long-term sustainability will vary. We encourage conservation practitioners to understand the motivations that lead indigenous and local people to participate in conservation projects, and to develop and design CBC projects from these incentives.

Keywords

Motivators for conservation Participation Indigenous and local people Conservation target Biodiversity conservation Project design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the Miaría and Nuevo Mundo communities in Peru, and the CCES team in Lima and Washington DC for rich discussions and logistical support. This work was supported by the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and Repsol Exploracion Peru. This is contribution # 24 of the CCES Peru Biodiversity Program.

References

  1. Andelman SJ, Groves C, Regan HM (2004) A review of protocols for selecting species at risk in the context of US Forest Service viability assessments. Acta Oecologica 26(2):75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2004.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowen-Jones E, Entwistle A (2002) Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36(2):189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brehm J, Maxted N, Martins-Loucao M, Ford-Lloyd B (2010) New approaches for establishing conservation priorities for socio-economically important plant species. Biodivers Conserv 19(9):2715–2740. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9871-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks JS, Franzen MA, Holmes CM, Grote MN, Mulder MB (2006) Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conserv Biol 20(5):1528–1538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks J, Waylen K, Mulder M (2013) Assessing community-based conservation projects: a systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes. Environ Evid 2(1):1–34. doi: 10.1186/2047-2382-2-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell LM, Vainio-Mattila A (2003) Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunities missed for lessons learned? Hum Ecol 31(3):417–437. doi: 10.2307/4603483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter MF, Hunter WC, Pashley DN, Rosenberg KV (2000) Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: the partners in flight approach. Auk 117(2):541–548Google Scholar
  8. Chen S, Yi Z-F, Campos-Arceiz A, Chen M-Y, Webb EL (2013) Developing a spatially-explicit, sustainable and risk-based insurance scheme to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Biol Conserv 168:31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CMP (2013) Open standards for the practice of conservation. Accessed November 2013Google Scholar
  10. DeCaro D, Stokes M (2008) Social-psychological principles of community-based conservation and conservancy motivation: attaining goals within an autonomy-supportive environment. Conserv Biol 22(6):1443–1451. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00996.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim Conserv 13(5):458–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz LA, Nagagata EY (1995) Golden lion tamarin conservation program: a community education effort for forest conservation in Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. In: Jacobson SK (ed) Conserving wildlife: international education and communication approaches. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 64–86Google Scholar
  13. Dietz LA, Brown M, Swaminathan V (2010) Increasing the impact of conservation projects. Am J Primatol 72(5):425–440. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20801 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoare RE (1999) Determinants of human–elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. J Appl Ecol 36(5):689–700. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00437.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutton JM, Leader-Williams N (2003) Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx 37(02):215–226. doi: 10.1017/S0030605303000395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaimowitz D, Sheil D (2007) Conserving what and for whom? Why conservation should help meet basic human needs in the tropics. Biotropica 39(5):567–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00332.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li J, Yin H, Wang D, Jiagong Z, Lu Z (2013) Human–snow leopard conflicts in the Sanjiangyuan Region of the Tibetan Plateau. Biol Conserv 166:118–123. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lunney D, Curtin A, Ayers D, Cogger HG, Dickman CR (1996) An ecological approach to identifying the endangered fauna of New South Wales. Pac Conserv Biol 2:212–231Google Scholar
  19. Millsap BA, Gore JA, Runde DE, Cerulean SI (1990) Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida. Wildl Monogr 111:3–57. doi: 10.2307/3830656 Google Scholar
  20. Moreau M-A, Coomes OT (2006) Potential threat of the international aquarium fish trade to silver arawana Osteoglossum bicirrhosum in the Peruvian Amazon. Oryx 40(2):152–160. doi: 10.1017/S0030605306000603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson JG (2011) Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice. Biol Conserv 144(3):958–965. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salafsky N, Wollemberg E (2000) Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Dev 28(8):1421–1438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford K, Robinson J (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conserv Biol 16(6):1469–1479. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01232.x
  24. Schwartz MW, Deiner K, Forrester T, Grof-Tisza P, Muir MJ, Santos MJ, Souza LE, Wilkerson ML, Zylberberg M (2012) Perspectives on the open standards for the practice of conservation. Biol Conserv 155:169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Souto T, Nuñez C, Linares-Palomino R, Deichmann J, Alonso A (2013) Uso de recursos naturales por 10 comunidades mestizas del rio Tapiche, Peru. In: Linares-Palomino R, Deichmann J, Alonso A (eds) Biodiversidad y uso de recursos naturales en la cuenca baja del rio Tapiche, Loreto, Peru, vol 31. Documento tecnico, IIAP, Iquitos, pp 78–115Google Scholar
  26. Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgers P, Nasi R, Santoso L, Wunder S (2005) Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World Dev 33(9):1383–1402. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Topp-Jorgensen E, Poulsen MK, Lund JF, Massao JF (2005) Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands of Tanzania. Biodivers Conserv 14:2653–2677. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-8399-5
  28. Van Rijsoort J, Jinfeng Z (2005) Participatory resource monitoring as a means for promoting social change in Yunnan, China. Biodivers Conserv 14 2543–2573. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-8377-y

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamia Souto
    • 1
  • Jessica L. Deichmann
    • 1
  • Cecilia Núñez
    • 1
  • Alfonso Alonso
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Conservation Education and Sustainability, Smithsonian Conservation Biology InstituteNational Zoological ParkWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations