Community benefits for conservation: how beneficial?

One aspect of community involvement in a conservation project is that members of the community may be involved in activities that contradict, or seem to contradict, the project’s aims – this may include things like fishing, hunting, and culling activities. The idea is to get people to either abandon these activities or adopt a more sustainable method of carrying them out, and the way this is done is through community incentives or benefits.

In Lucy Emerton’s paper on community benefits in Africa, she summarises the general approach to providing community benefits:

In order to achieve the joint ends of conservation and human welfare improvement such projects and programmes have followed a common approach to generating economic benefits for the people who live in wildlife areas. In combination with other forms of local participation in wildlife management, benefits have tended to be provided by returning a proportion of the revenues earned by the state from wildlife back to them through indirect benefit-sharing arrangements and grass-roots development activities mainly the provision of social infrastructure such as schools, water supplies and health facilities.

It’s important to consider that wildlife may have a serious cost to communities which in turn leads to culls. The International Gorilla Conservation Programme refers to this as “human-wildlife conflict”, which includes crop raiding by gorilla, elephant, buffalo, etc. Where this kind of conflict is a problem, building a school is not going to much of a deterrent for culling, because the original conflict remains a problem. Other types of benefit can be implemented instead with some success, provided there is significant community participation to determine the best course of action. The IGCP’s page on community initiatives says this:

In DRC and Rwanda, for example, with support from IGCP, park staff and local communities have been building a dry stone wall (one meter high and one meter thick) around the park perimeter. Building the wall has been a positive step toward reducing conflict between the park and the community as buffalo no longer raid crops and people are able to cultivate field closer to park boundary; thus increased crop production and increasing income. The record harvest in areas already protected by the new wall has encouraged local communities to extend the project.

There was a recent story that was a prime example of blatantly inadequate community involvement (not to mention wildlife assessments) in decision making, where a 4-year $575,000 USAID project to improve the lives of coastal communities in Kenya resulted in the provision of plastic fishing nets, rather than the traditional hook and hand lines (against the requests of the local fishermen’s associations). The plastic nets have been damaging the ecosystem, killing wildlife and coral. That’s quite a lesson right there.

In this month’s Landscape Research there’s an article by Monica Lorenzo Pugholm about potential community benefits for Jamaican fishermen, which largely fall under the category of “alternative livelihoods” (which actually means a career in tourism – see my post on the dangers of ecotourism here). The result was that the benefit may have made sense in terms of financial income, but occupation comes down to a lot more than money, and ultimately the switch from fishing to tourism did not constitute a sufficient benefit.

The actual fiscal value of an area in terms of natural resource products may be huge, so don’t be fooled into thinking there isn’t a substantial financial benefit in fishing to begin with. The Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem, for example, has been evaluated in the last month (by authors from UNIDO, BDCP, IGCC, and the University of Nigeria) at US$49,941.4 million, or over US$20,081 million not including offshore oil. In theory, the value of an area’s natural resources should be an incentive in itself, in that unsustainable harvesting of resources will result in a catastrophic boom-bust dynamic. Unfortunately, that’s a detached and simplified way of looking at it, because in reality fishing less (for example) may not be an option depending on other community or personal pressures, particularly when people are living in poverty. A person has certain requirements for feeding themselves and their families, and it is not enough to say “your requirements are too great.” You need to find not just other avenues of meeting those requirements, but better avenues.

Along a similar vein, I’ve been reading this article in Environmental Conservation by authors from the Wildlife Conservation Society and the University of Kent about the India Eco-Development Project at Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala, India (summarised on Nature Data):

The Periyar Tiger Reserve, India, is supported by the India Eco-Development Project (PTR-IEDP), an integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) funded by donors. The project has been internally evaluated as successful, although out of the US$6million received, only 43.2% went to community-based conservation activities. When an independent survey of 180 people (half of whom had benefited from the PTR-IEDP, half of whom had not) was carried out, 71.1% of those who had benefited said their attitude to conservation was not changed by the project, and of the 55 community benefits only 36.4% were still being used.

Unfortunately I can’t see beyond the abstract because I don’t have an athens login or whatnot, but I would love to know what exactly those community benefits were, and why 63.6% of those benefits are no longer deemed beneficial.

The reason I started thinking about community benefits was that I saw the very engaging film The Age of Stupid, which is about climate change and why the switch to green energy pronto is so important. Among other things, it features a group of middle-class English people protesting a wind farm because it will ruin their view and damage house prices and be noisy (despite being right next to a go-kart track), although when pressed they claimed to be very concerned about climate change. The general consensus from those I knew was that the protesters were stupid and selfish, and actually I was inclined to agree, but I think this attitude is not helpful and only succeeds in isolating the green energy movement from local community members. What would be more helpful would be to consider the specific grievances and by collaborating come up with solutions, such as adapting the turbines’ design or offering tax breaks for existing homes near turbines, or some previously unthought-of marvel. Could a community benefits project be applied to middle-class rural English communities? Can’t hurt to try.

Misplaced ‘vulture restaurants’ may harm Canarian ground-nesting birds

The Canary Islands sound very interesting. You can access some GIS data via Google Earth, thanks to the Canary Islands Spatial Data Infrastructure.

As well as 50% of their vertebrate species (Juan et al., 2000), 21 non-migratory vertebrate species, and 7 birds (Blanco and Gonzalez, 2002), endemic fauna of the Canary Islands include 5 bird of prey subspecies: the Canarian Egyptian Vulture (or Guirre), a Common Buzzard, a Eurasian Sparrowhawk, two Eurasian Kestrel subspecies, and a Barn Owl. The Islands are also home to Barbary Falcons and Ospreys (Palacios, 2004).

The Canarian Egyptian Vulture is an endangered bird now restricted largely to Fuerteventura and to two territories on Lanzarote. The subspecies declined rapidly due to collisions with power lines, poisoning, and increased tourism, and in 2000 there was estimated to be only 25-30 breeding pairs (Donázar et al., 2002).

The European Commission’s LIFE (Financial Instrument for the Environment) project for Spain planned to introduce measures to protect the Canarian Egyptian vulture by October 2009:

A 50% reduction in the adult mortality through collision with power lines will be attained by introducing corrective measures in the island’s power lines. An increase of 20% in the breeding success will be achieved through reinforced surveillance of nesting areas. Surveillance and awareness raising measures will be implemented with the aim to reduce the use of poison. Finally, to avoid the potential threat of famines, three controlled middens will be created with the collaboration of local livestock breeders.

Middens are also known as ‘vulture restaurants’, and are basically areas with a constant supply of carcasses (provided by humans) so food availability for the birds is never erratic. This would hopefully encourage breeding and improve survival, thereby increasing the number of birds and helping to establish a sustainable population. Sounds like a great example of a simple and easily implemented conservation method, right?

Sort of.

In an article in this January’s Animal Conservation by a team from CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) including a member of the team that originally described the species in the first place (Donázar et al., 2002), it was found that, when artificial ground-nesting birds‘ nests were placed along lines 200m to 34km from vulture restaurants (as summarised on Nature Data) “of the 67% lines predated by carrion-eaters, 90% of nests were attacked.”

It’s never simple, is it?

At least it’s predictably never simple. The complexities of population dynamics are mind-blowing, but by anticipating that there are complexities and learning more about the ecosystems, reserve management continually gets more effective.

References:

Blanco JC, Gonzalez JL, 1992. “Libro rojo de los vertebrados de Espana.” (Red List of the vertebrates of Spain) Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, Madrid, Spain. (via Donázar, 2002)

Cortés-Avizanda A, Carrete M, Serrano D, Donázar JA, 2009. “Carcasses increase the probability of predation of ground-nesting birds: a caveat regarding the conservation value of vulture restaurants.” Animal Conservation, 12(1): 85-88, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00231.x (CSIC, full pdf here)

Donázar JA, Negro JJ, Palacios CJ, Gangoso L, Godoy JA, Ceballos O, Hiraldo F, Capote N, 2002. “Description of a new subspecies of the Egyptian Vulture (Accipitridae: Neophron percnopterus) from the Canary Islands.” Journal of Raptor Research 36(1): 17–23 (CSIC, full pdf here)

Juan C, Emerson BC, Oromí P, Hewitt GM, 2000. “Colonization and diversification: towards a phylogeographic synthesis for the Canary Islands.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 104-109, doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01776-0 (Universitat de les Illes Balears)

Palacios JC, 2004. “Current status and distribution of birds of prey in the Canary Islands.” Bird Conservation International, 14:3:203-213, doi: 10.1017/S0959270904000255 (CSIC)

The brouhaha over “National Park Service Gets the Lead Out!”

There has been a bit of a brouhaha, to say the least, over the National Park Service’s press release distributed on 10th March saying they were going to phase out all ammo and tackle containing lead by 2010.

First off, let’s have a look at what a ban on lead ammo and tackle would actually mean. What it applies to is the use of bullets and shots (the little lead spheres that go inside cartridges), and sinkers (attached to the end of a fishing line to get a better cast distance and to weigh down the lure) in National Parks. This ban certainly doesn’t equate to a ban on hunting (the NRA is not a force to be taken lightly) and, as mentioned in the press release, non-toxic alternatives (tungsten, copper, and steel) are pretty freely available throughout the USA. The California Department of Fish and Game has produced this list of approved non-lead ammo manufacturers, and there’s a similar list of approved non-lead shots for wildfowl hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

So why ban lead, anyway? Well, you probably already know that lead is bad for people, which is why you won’t see any new lead plumbing (including solder), lead paint, or leaded petrol in the UK and elsewhere. Here is a really good list of things that lead has been shown to do to people (by mimicking calcium in the body’s chemical reactions), from lowering our IQ, turning us into criminals, and causing schizophrenia to killing us. Lead was used for so long in plumbing because it is so non-corrosive (i.e. non-biodegradable), so over time it can build up to toxic levels (bioaccumulate). Although absorption of lead via skin contact is very low, absorption of ingested lead is much higher and can build up, especially if you’re a carnivore and therefore eating lots of things with low levels of lead them. It all adds up.

For instance, lead poisoning is of particular concern for birds of prey, which eat the carcasses of animals that may have been shot with lead ammo. Lead poisoning is a primary cause of death in the critically endangered California Condor, and it’s already illegal to shoot deer, bear, wild pig, elk, pronghorn antelope as well as coyotes, ground squirrels, and other non-game wildlife in areas designated as California condor range. Just a few days ago a California Condor was taken in by the Los Angeles Zoo suffering not only from lead poisoning but also from having been shot. The Peregrine Fund (a birds of prey charity) hosted a conference last May called “Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans”, in which several papers were presented with evidence that eating game shot with lead ammo substantially increases lead concentrations in the blood (pdf here). As in humans, lead is stored in bone and soft tissues, especially kidneys and brain, impairing reproduction and causing cognitive and behavioural defects as well as tissue damage and death.

The use of lead shot when hunting waterfowl is already banned by the Fish and Wildlife Service since 1991, but is still permitted for shooting game birds in neighbouring fields (e.g. pheasants) and even to hunt snakes in the same water body. Waterfowl may be particularly susceptible to inadvertent ingestion of lead shot due to their feeding habits. For example, swans swallow grit to help with digestion, but shots are the same sort of size and shape that they can be easily confused and inadvertently ingested. According to the Swan Society, it only takes three or four shots to kill a swan, but in the major swan die-off of winter 2000/2001 up to 30 shots were found in each bird. The use of lead sinkers was made illegal in the UK over 20 years ago, and in some US states it’s illegal to sell certain lead sinkers or jigs, but nationwide the Environmental Protection Agency estimates:

approximately 2,500 metric tons of lead, zinc, and brass sinkers (over 98 percent of the volume represented by lead), an estimated 480 million sinkers, are manufactured each year in the United States.

This phenomenal number is so high because lines break not too infrequently, leaving the sinkers in the water, so they have to be replaced. You can imagine for yourself what this means for the number of lead sinkers that get lost in the US’s water bodies every year, and how much lead this constitutes. Straight Dope estimates up to 3000 tons of lead entering Canadian and US waterways annually.

So why are people still up in arms (so to speak) about switching to lead-free? I have seen a lot of people claiming that there is no evidence that lead ammo/tackle damages wildlife in any way, but there is so much evidence out there to suggest lead has dangerous implications for the health of both wildlife and humans (see the AEWA’s list of papers regarding waterbirds, the proceedings of the Peregrine Fund’s conference on spent lead ammo, and Needleman’s book “Human Lead Exposure”) that I find it hard to believe that people still believe hunting with lead can continue without repercussions. I think it’s partly about tradition and self-reliance: for a lot of people hunting can be a way to distance oneself from bureaucracy and regulation, and return to tradition. It’s also not necessarily immediately obvious that lead ammo and tackle have a detrimental effect on wildlife, because the fact that hunting is still such a popular and historic activity and there’s still wildlife to be had seems to suggest that its practice is sustainable. Consider, though, that lead sticks around in the environment and that for example in California the number of Lifetime Hunting licenses issued has tripled since 2000 to 4,159 – there is more lead in the environment now than there ever has been. Furthermore, birds of prey are already pretty rare (some more than others, after suffering hugely from other persistent toxins, e.g. DDT), so it’s not like you’re going to see them falling out of the sky en masse, but the fact that California Condors are showing up pretty regularly with lead poisoning has got to mean something, right?

Also, I’ve seen people on forums saying if they were going to get lead poisoning (and by implication if lead poisoning were an issue for serious consideration) they would have done so by now, because they used to carry lead pellets around in their mouth, and regulating lead comes under the same category as constantly using anti-bacterial hand wash. One problem with that is that and that although absorption of lead through the skin may be minimal, absorption of ingested lead is considerably higher, especially in children (40%). The effects of low levels of lead may also not be immediately obvious or expected – behavioural changes, problems with hand-eye co-ordination, hyperactivity, lowered IQ and cognitive function, higher incidence of miscarriage, impotence, abdominal pain, etc. But the thing you have to bear in mind is that lead may build up in the body’s soft tissues and over time more serious effects can be seen, in some cases leading to death. See Herbert Needleman’s book “Human Lead Exposure” and LEAD Action News’ list of referenced effects of human lead exposure for papers on lead toxicity in humans. When it comes to equivalent effects in wildlife, it’s also important to consider that feeding habits (whether it’s birds of prey feeding on big game killed with lead ammo or swans inadvertently swallowing shot along with grit) and animal size are factors.

To cut a long story short, this is a very complex issue, and although there is an awful lot of support for the ban, there is also an awful lot of opposition. As a result of this, on the 18th of March NPS issued a new press release, effectively backtracking:

1. Nothing has changed for the public. We are simply announcing the NPS goal of eliminating lead from NPS activities to protect human and wildlife health.
2. We will work to clean our own house by altering NPS resource management activities. In 2009, we will transition to non-lead ammunition in culling operations and dispatching sick or wounded animals.
3. In the future, we will look at the potential for transitioning to non-lead ammunition and non-lead fishing tackle for recreational use by working with our policy office and appropriate stakeholders/groups. This will require public involvement, comment, and review.

I was quite saddened and frustrated by this, but I am ever-hopeful that by effective provision of information and public involvement by the NPS and other environmentally-minded people, those that opposed this ban this round will consider the effect that lead-containing hunting tools are having on wildlife and come to understand that the benefits of a lead ban are worth the minimal hassle of using non-toxic alternatives.

The behemoth that is Galapagos ecotourism

I’m just reading this article in BioScience by Steve Nash, “Ecotourism and Other Invasions”, about how the Galapagos archipelago has been suffering under the ecotourism boom.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has designated the Galápagos and its surrounding marine reserve a World Heritage site, but in 2007 added them to another list: World Heritage in Danger. An assessment team warned that without fundamental changes in how the islands’ human population is managed, the chances for conservation of its natural systems are “slim.” Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa issued an emergency decree stating that Galápagos National Park is “at risk” and called its conservation a national priority.

It’s not hard to see that the pull for tourism is huge, both for the tourists and the industry. According to Nash, the number of visitors in 2008 was 180,000, each paying a $100 entrance fee, with tourism adding $250 million every year to Ecuador’s gross domestic product. For that, they can get right up close to a number of species that they will only ever see on that particular island, and imagine that their experience is somewhat linked that of Darwin himself when he used his observations of native wildlife to develop his theory of natural selection. Potentially life-changing, no doubt. There are of course potential downsides to this, and some regulations are in place.

Most tours are run from comparatively small cruise ships staffed by government-certified naturalist guides. Tour groups visit only a few of the islands in the archipelago, and they must troop around … on well-marked paths with knowledgeable, vigilant guides. Compare all that with, say, Yellowstone and its environs.

However, tourists don’t arrive in sterile bubbles like Glinda the Good Witch, unfortunately – they arrive in boats and planes. And chances are they’re not the only arrivals. Any manager of an island reserve with fragile indigenous wildlife should know that boats and planes bring all sorts of non-native animals and plants with them that could potentially totally mash up the ecosystem. Take the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) for instance, a species native to Eurasia which has been spread by ship hulls to all over the shop. It now costs the US millions of dollars every year to make sure zebra mussels aren’t clogging up pipes (sewer pipes may back up and that’s pretty unpleasant, but if a power plant water intake pipe is blocked it can cause the power plant to overheat, with more serious consequences) and consuming algae in such quantities that native species are booted out and the make-up of the local algal population is totally changed (which in turn will have an impact on the make-up of the benthic or bottom-dwelling population) with the result of more of a certain kind of blue-green alga and the toxins it produces.

Furthermore, with increased tourism there is also increased demand for labour, which is especially attractive in a country where, according to the World Bank, “between 2001 and 2004, youth unemployment increased from 14.8 percent to 21.6 percent of the total labor force”, leading to a steadily increasing residential population. The number of both tourists and inhabitants means there’s actually a considerable amount of sea and air traffic around the Galapagos, and it has apparently been severely lacking in cleaning protocols, and import inspection processes and fines. Without fines, what incentive is there to prevent the spread of invasives?

According to one of the more colorful passages in the UNESCO report, the old cargo boats that come over from the mainland, which have no refrigeration, systematic decontamination, rodent control, or cleaning protocols, “could hardly be better breeding grounds for all types of potential invasive species and diseases, as organic residues rot among pools of stagnant water in their rat and cockroach infested holds.” … Incoming aircraft routinely release ants, roaches, moths, mosquitoes, and other insects from cockpits, cabins, and cargo holds.

… The impacts are showcased along a trail within the national park that rises steeply to Cerro Crocker, the highest point on Santa Cruz island. Exotic smooth-billed anis, introduced by local farmers, account for most of the visible bird life. Hikers have to step around mounds made by one of several species of introduced fire ants. This trail ran through a highland thick with native Miconia bushes until the 1990s. Then alien quinine trees invaded thousands of hectares, shading out and killing native vegetation and altering the rest of the ecosystem. Years of arduous tree-by-tree application of herbicide by teams of laborers has created a forest of dead snags. But their work has reclaimed only a tiny fraction of the parkland that the quinine trees now dominate.

But of course there are many interests playing a part in this, and ecosystem services is apparently not the most powerful one. Raquel Molina was only park director for a bit less than two years, but in that short time fought the good fight, and ended up in hospital with serious injuries after being severely beaten at the local Baltra air base (along with other park wardens) while the comandante watched, for confronting military officials about illegal tourist operations they were running right smack in the middle of the sea turtle nesting ground. Molina was eventually fired last year for refusing entry to a cruise ship with iffy papers. The illegal fishing industry has been partly booming (.4 million sharks fished for their fin every year, despite the practice being illegal since 2004) and partly bust due to previous over-harvesting. Mmmm, healthy(!)

The implication of all this would seem to be that the Galapagos is screwed. The tourism industry is so powerful that the reason for its existence is no longer important. But what will they do when the marine iguanas are all gone, the rats kill off the mangrove finch, and the land is dominated by fire ant mounds? I wonder if they have considered that damage to the ecosystem causes damage to ecotourism.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Or at least a potential light. Which is that there’s a new constitution, as of September. As well as granting higher pensions for the poor and preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, it also gives the ecosystem the inalienable right “to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights.” Sounds good, doesn’t it? I would be very interested to see the practical results of the charter, and if the people enforcing it receive similar treatment to Raquel Molina.

There is of course a wider message in this, which is that tourism or other money-based interests can become an inconquerable behemoth if you don’t enforce checks right from the start. If there’s not enough public support to actually enforce the checks, then the eco-community needs to be doing a hell of a lot more to show that it’s important. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that ecotourism that damages the ecosystem is entirely self-destructive.

There’s an article by Marcelino Fuentes also in February’s BioScience called “The Tragedy of Political Services” in which the author argues that voters are largely biased and ignorant and therefore unable to make decisions about ecosystem services (i.e. nature reserve policy and regulations) and that private ownership would solve this. I totally disagree (and thankfully so too do the authors of the original article Fuentes was replying to). After all, 64% of voters approved Ecuador’s new constitution.

A great way to prevent ignorance is to actually provide information, and be proactive in explaining to people why a certain policy affects their lives. Because it invariably does. That’s why we do this, isn’t it?

Public involvement: A Good Thing

In the latest issue of Ocean & Coastal Management, there is an article by Gerhardinger et al. (1) about management of marine reserves and the influence of local fishermen’s knowledge in management practice, in which several reserve managers and local government authorities were interviewed. The conclusion was that although most management is still science-based, using local knowledge provided “an essential means of achieving a broader and more diverse knowledge basis”.

The authors also talk about an interesting flipside to this, which is public involvement and responsibility. As a park manager or warden, it can sometimes seem like the best thing to do to preserve your park/whatever would be to deny all access to visitors or charge through the nose to get in, because people bring all sorts of undesirable things: pollution, theft, damage to property. Particularly in a parks/whatevers that are well-established locally, it can also be hard to convince local groups to stray from aesthetics or commercial production in favour of scientific conservation. You may see a wildflower meadow, but to someone else it just looks like someone’s neglected to cut the grass, and they can’t even pick the flowers. The temptation is to believe that if you cut the people out, the environment will flourish.

Of course, that’s a totally blinkered view-point, for various reasons. As Gerhardinger et al. show, local knowledge can enhance one’s own knowledge base, and thereby guide better management practices. So why not just restrict access to laypeople and kids who couldn’t identify a cinnabar moth in a line-up?

Oh, have a heart.

For starters, the benefits of green spaces to people, especially kids, are huge. See these .docs from Natural England: “Benefits of Green Space for Mental Health” and “Benefits of Green Space for Children” for a whole list. Highlights include improved concentration (including in ADD) and academic performance, less domestic violence and other aggressive behaviours, lower anxiety, lower incidencde of obesity and high blood pressure, alleviation of pain, greater self esteem and sense of identity and belonging, and longer life. By ensuring access for people of all ages to a natural space, you are also ensuring that people can live better lives. Feel good about that!

And even if you’re going to be Machiavellian about the whole thing, don’t forget that continued funding of any park hinges on public support. Kids who have access to green spaces grow up to appreciate their value (2, abstract here), and a report funded by the Forestry Commission (3, full pdf here) suggests that kids who do shocking things like climb trees and build dens are more likely to visit parks when they’re older. So by ensuring access to parks, you are also securing public support and funding in future years.

In the specific case of Marine Protected Areas in Brazil, an example of a successful community-driven marine reserve is Corumbau Marine Extractive Reserve in Abrolhos Bank (off the coast near Caravelas), supported by Conservation International. The area had been suffering overexploitation of its natural resources, which was cause for concern not only to conservationists but also to the local people who rely on those natural resources for survival. Involvement of the community instills a sense of responsibility as well as entitlement to use the area, so with some efforts to spread the gospel of science, the methods of using natural resources for survival turn to sustainable ones. Commercial fishing is now banned, but local fishermen are still able to fish using sustainable practices that have resulted in a successful return of fish stocks.

Just this January a community marine reserve, the Karkum Conservation Area, was set up in Papua New Guinea, supported by the Sea Turtle Restoration Project. I shall be watching with interest to see what happens. There are many things that could possibly go wrong if insufficient effort is given to education and involvement, or private interests start to rear their head, but it’s a promising project.

Gerhardinger et al. make a worthwhile suggestion for an approach to co-management:

co-management schemes might benefit from the adoption of a ‘knowledge-building’ instead of ‘knowledge-using’ approach during a ‘problem-solving’ instead of ‘decision-making’ management process.

And that’s the kind of quote I want to keep on my fridge.

References:

1. Gerhardinger LC, Godoy EAS, Jones PJS, 2009 “Local ecological knowledge and the management of marine protected areas in Brazil” Ocean & Coastal Management, 52(3-4): 154-165, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.12.007: co-funded by ECOMAR NGO, ICMBio, Diretoria de Unidade de Conservação de Proteção Integral, Coordenação do Bioma Marinho e Costeiro, SCEN (IBAMA HQ), Brazil, and UCL, UK.

2. Bell S, Thompson CW, Travlou P, 2003 “Contested views of freedom and control: Children, Teenagers and urban fringe woodlands in central Scotland” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2(2): 87-100, DOI: 10.1078/1618-8667-00026. Openspace Research Centre, Edinburgh, UK.

3. Bingley A, Milligan C, 2004 “Climbing Trees and Building Dens” Report for the Forestry Commission July 2004.