Lin Cassidy, Narcisa Pricope, Forrest Stevens, Jonathan Salerno, David Parry, Michael Murray-Hudson, Joel Hartter, Andrea Gaughan
{"title":"Assessing long-term conservation impacts on adaptive capacity in a flagship community-based natural resources management area in Botswana","authors":"Lin Cassidy, Narcisa Pricope, Forrest Stevens, Jonathan Salerno, David Parry, Michael Murray-Hudson, Joel Hartter, Andrea Gaughan","doi":"10.5751/es-14487-280412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the past three decades community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) has sought to address the concurrent needs of economic development and ecological protection at the local level, but there is often strong divergence between development and conservation interests and successes. In particular, CBNRM has not always led to expected socioeconomic outcomes, while information of its impact on human well-being at household level is sparse. In Botswana, most communities do not disburse benefits from CBNRM ventures to households. This leads to an inherent scale mismatch that arises because the costs of living with wildlife are felt at the household level, while the benefits are paid out at the community or village level. We use longitudinal data from two household surveys conducted 22 years apart to assess if benefits from the Botswana model of CBNRM have increased household-level adaptive capacity for those living with wildlife. We take a livelihoods capital approach to develop indicators of adaptive capacity and measure how livelihood diversity, inequality, and adaptive capacity have changed in five communities in northern Botswana between 1995 and 2017. Our analyses confirm the findings of qualitative reviews and suggest that CBNRM is under-performing in its contribution to improved household-level adaptive capacity. CBNRM cannot be said to benefit communities if the majority of community members do not experience increased well-being. We therefore recommend restructuring the governance models of CBNRM and other community conservation approaches to ensure that benefits are more directly targeted to actively participating households.","PeriodicalId":51028,"journal":{"name":"Ecology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5751/es-14487-280412","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Over the past three decades community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) has sought to address the concurrent needs of economic development and ecological protection at the local level, but there is often strong divergence between development and conservation interests and successes. In particular, CBNRM has not always led to expected socioeconomic outcomes, while information of its impact on human well-being at household level is sparse. In Botswana, most communities do not disburse benefits from CBNRM ventures to households. This leads to an inherent scale mismatch that arises because the costs of living with wildlife are felt at the household level, while the benefits are paid out at the community or village level. We use longitudinal data from two household surveys conducted 22 years apart to assess if benefits from the Botswana model of CBNRM have increased household-level adaptive capacity for those living with wildlife. We take a livelihoods capital approach to develop indicators of adaptive capacity and measure how livelihood diversity, inequality, and adaptive capacity have changed in five communities in northern Botswana between 1995 and 2017. Our analyses confirm the findings of qualitative reviews and suggest that CBNRM is under-performing in its contribution to improved household-level adaptive capacity. CBNRM cannot be said to benefit communities if the majority of community members do not experience increased well-being. We therefore recommend restructuring the governance models of CBNRM and other community conservation approaches to ensure that benefits are more directly targeted to actively participating households.
期刊介绍:
Ecology and Society is an electronic, peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary journal devoted to the rapid dissemination of current research. Manuscript submission, peer review, and publication are all handled on the Internet. Software developed for the journal automates all clerical steps during peer review, facilitates a double-blind peer review process, and allows authors and editors to follow the progress of peer review on the Internet. As articles are accepted, they are published in an "Issue in Progress." At four month intervals the Issue-in-Progress is declared a New Issue, and subscribers receive the Table of Contents of the issue via email. Our turn-around time (submission to publication) averages around 350 days.
We encourage publication of special features. Special features are comprised of a set of manuscripts that address a single theme, and include an introductory and summary manuscript. The individual contributions are published in regular issues, and the special feature manuscripts are linked through a table of contents and announced on the journal''s main page.
The journal seeks papers that are novel, integrative and written in a way that is accessible to a wide audience that includes an array of disciplines from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities concerned with the relationship between society and the life-supporting ecosystems on which human wellbeing ultimately depends.