Challenging common myths in protected area management.

Abstract

This paper indicates that some of the widespread assumptions relating to the relationship between protected areas (PAs) and human wellbeing are not based on evidence. It argues that: (1) PAs are only likely to help poor people in the local area if they can still access natural resources within the PAs; (2) increases in material wellbeing do not necessarily reduce pressure on PAs; (3) compensation is rarely sufficient to offset the negative social costs of PAs for poor people; (4) participation in protected area governance can be linked to positive outcomes, but constraints to full and effective participation need to be overcome; and (5) resource tenure underpins improved conservation outcomes, but have possible negative outcomes for the most marginalized.

Key words

• compensation
• conservation areas
• participation
• resource management
• social costs
• social welfare
• tenure systems
• poverty alleviation