The Future of Cabeza Prieta and Significance for Global Conservation



This chapter explores what lessons can be learned from the story of Cabeza Prieta and applied globally to better understand the social and political process of environmental conservation in borderlands. We can understand conservation as a web of relations among a variety of different actors and stakeholders. In border conservation, actors at times may share symbiotic aspirations for border control. However, sometimes there are conflicts or competing agendas. This can be seen at Cabeza Prieta in the increasing impact of off-road vehicle travel on fragile desert wilderness lands. The chapter ends with a discussion on alternative approaches to border conservation, especially transboundary conservation and international peace parks.


  1. Brechin, S., Fortwangler, C., Wilshusen, P., & West, P. (2003). Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (2003). Science, Society and Power: Environmental Knowledge and Policy in West Africa and the Caribbean. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Guyot, S. (2011). The Eco-Frontier Paradigm: Rethinking the Links Between Space, Nature and Politics. Geopolitics, 16(3), 675–706. Retrieved August 5, 2011, from Scholar
  4. Hawley, C. (2007, December 27). Scientists Fleeing Border, Smugglers. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from
  5. Kelly, A., & Gupta, A. (2016). Protected Areas: Offering Security to Whom, When and Where? Environmental Conservation, 43(2), 172–180. Scholar
  6. King, B. H., & Wilcox, S. (2008). Peace Parks and Jaguar Trails: Transboundary Conservation in a Globalizing World. GeoJournal, 71(4), 221–231. Scholar
  7. Lejano, R. P. (2006). Theorizing Peace Parks: Two Models of Collective Action. Journal of Peace Research, 43(5), 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lunstrum, E. (2014). Green Militarization: Anti-poaching Efforts and the Spatial Contours of Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 816–832. Scholar
  9. Martínez, O. J. (2006). Troublesome Border. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mittermeier, R., Kormos, C., Mittermeier, C. G., Robles Gil, P., Sandwith, T., & Besancon, C. (2005). Transboundary Conservation: A New Vision for Protected Areas. CEMEX Books on Nature.Google Scholar
  11. Neumann, R. (2005). Making Political Ecology. London: Hodder Headline Group.Google Scholar
  12. Oglethorpe, J., Ericson, J., Bilsborrow, R., & Edmond, J. (2007). People on the Move: Reducing the Impact of Human Migration on Biodiversity. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund & Conservation International Foundation.
  13. Ponds, P. D., Burkardt, N., & Koontz, L. (2004). Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: A Survey of Visitor Experiences: Report to Respondents. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Scholar
  14. Pool, C. (2006). Transboundary Protected Areas as a Solution to Border Issues. Nebraska Anthropologist, 23, 41–57.Google Scholar
  15. Thomas, J. A. (2009). The Exquisite Corpses of Nature and History: The Case of the Korean DMZ. Asia-Pacific Journal, 7(43), 1–17.Google Scholar
  16. UNESCO. (n.d.). El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve. Retrieved April 25, 2019, from
  17. U.S. Department of Interior. (1974, June 17). Draft Environmental Statement Proposed Cabeza Prieta Wilderness Area, Arizona. Prepared by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Zimmerer, K. (2006). Globalization and New Geographies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public Service, Global Studies and Environmental StudiesBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations