Compensation Payments for Downsides Generated by Protected Areas
Protected areas are powerful instruments to tackle the biodiversity crises. However, local communities believe that protected areas generate downsides for which they should be compensated. We reviewed (1) problem evolution, (2) the idea of compensation schemes, and (3) practical considerations. We found that compensations for conservation-related losses are insufficiently considered when protected areas are established. Schemes include controversial resettlements of human populations, traditional reimbursements, and recently favored incentive payments to encourage local communities to conserve biodiversity on their lands. The compensation process is typically composed of the verification of losses/facts, estimation of costs, and delivery of payments. Compensation schemes promote tolerance and awareness, and responsibility of the broader society while minimizing confrontations. They have the power to mainstream concern about human welfare in protected area management, and are therefore a key to successful conservation. Verifying the impact of compensations on achievement of conservation goals remains, however, difficult to prove.
KeywordsBiodiversity conservation Valuation Nature reserves Effectiveness Stakeholders
We thank the Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH—Centrum fuer internationale Migration und Entwicklung (GIZ-CIM) for supporting the position of PP. Funding for this project (No. 2010KYYW13) was kindly provided by the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences (CRAES). Five anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on the previous version of this manuscript. We thank Paul Radley for thorough English editing.
- Adams, C., R. Seroa da Motta, R. Arigoni Ortiz, J. Reid, C. Ebersbach Aznar, and P. Antonio de Almeida Sinisgalli. 2008. The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil). Ecological Economics 66: 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ancrenaz, M., L. Dabek, and S. O’Neil. 2007. The costs of exclusion: Recognizing a role for local communities in biodiversity conservation. Public Library of Science Biology 5: e289.Google Scholar
- Breck, S.W., B.M. Kluever, M. Panasci, J. Oakleaf, T. Johnson, W. Ballard, L. Howery, and D.L. Bergman. 2011. Domestic calf mortality and producer detection rates in the Mexican wolf recovery area: Implications for livestock management and carnivore compensation schemes. Biological Conservation 144: 930–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fischer, F. 2008. The importance of law enforcement for protected areas. GAIA-Ecological perspective for science and society 17: 101–103.Google Scholar
- Hemson, G., S. Maclennan, G. Mills, P. Johnson, and D. Macdonald. 2009. Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human-carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biological Conservation 142: 2718–2725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marchai, V., and C. Hill. 2009. Primate crop-raiding: A study of local perceptions in four villages in north Sumatra, Indonesia. Primate Conservation 24: 2009.Google Scholar
- McElwee, P.D. 2011. Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? Geoforum. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718511000583. Accessed 16 Feb 2012.
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Monney, K.A., K.B. Dakwa, and E.D. Wiafe. 2010. Assessment of crop raiding situation by elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) in farms around Kakum conservation area, Ghana. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 243–249.Google Scholar
- Nyhus, P.J., R. Tilson, and Sumianto. 2000. Crop-raiding elephants and conservation implications at Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 34: 262–274.Google Scholar
- Pathak, N., and A. Kothaki. 1998. Sharing benefits of wildlife conservation with local communities: Legal implications. Economic and Political Weekly 33: 2603–2610.Google Scholar
- Rao, K.S., R.K. Maikhuri, S. Nautiyal, and K.G. Saxena. 2002. Crop damage and livestock depredation by wildlife: A case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 66: 317–327.Google Scholar
- Sindiga, I. 1995. Wildlife-based tourism in Kenya: Land use conflicts and government compensation policies over protected areas. Journal of Tourism Studies 6: 45–55.Google Scholar
- Torri, M.C. 2011. Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: Debates, challenges and future perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Sciences 5: 871–883.Google Scholar
- UN (United Nations). 2007. United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html. Accessed 12 May 2011.
- UNEP–WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Center). 2008. State of the world’s protected areas: An annual review of global conservation progress. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
- Wang, S.W., J.P. Lassoie, and P.D. Curtis. 2006. Farmer attitudes towards conservation in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Environmental Conservation 33: 148–156.Google Scholar
- Wells, M.P., and T.O. McShane. 2004. Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. AMBIO 33: 513–519.Google Scholar