Parks represent spatially and socially heterogeneous conservation units, yet are often assessed and managed using spatially homogeneous approaches. This paper represents an effort to focus on the larger social-ecological landscapes within which protected areas are embedded, to understand why conservation succeeds and fails in different parts of the landscape. In a wildlife sanctuary in the central plains of India (Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve), we address: (i) how people living within and immediately outside a park differentially impact its resources and (ii) how the park differentially impacts communities living within. Using forest plots, satellite imagery and interviews, we evaluate park conservation by assessing plant diversity, land cover change, forest fragmentation, and attitudes of local communities towards conservation. We find that interior villages have a negative impact on regeneration, but there is a decline in tree species diversity, and increased forest cover change and fragmentation at the park periphery. Interior villages suffer greatly from crop and livestock depredations by wildlife and consider park rules to be unfairly devised. Yet, they affirm the importance of the park for conservation, and are willing to work with park authorities for stricter protection. Park authorities largely focus on resettlement of interior villages, when they should also pay attention to protecting the peripheral areas of the park from severe degradation by surrounding villages. In summary, we find that different parts of the park landscape face different conservation challenges. Taking into account spatial variations in the factors influencing conservation can greatly benefit the management of protected areas. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. RI Nagendra, Harini/A-9103-2009

Beyond parks as monoliths: Spatially differentiating park-people relationships in the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve in India

Rocchini D.;
2010

Abstract

Parks represent spatially and socially heterogeneous conservation units, yet are often assessed and managed using spatially homogeneous approaches. This paper represents an effort to focus on the larger social-ecological landscapes within which protected areas are embedded, to understand why conservation succeeds and fails in different parts of the landscape. In a wildlife sanctuary in the central plains of India (Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve), we address: (i) how people living within and immediately outside a park differentially impact its resources and (ii) how the park differentially impacts communities living within. Using forest plots, satellite imagery and interviews, we evaluate park conservation by assessing plant diversity, land cover change, forest fragmentation, and attitudes of local communities towards conservation. We find that interior villages have a negative impact on regeneration, but there is a decline in tree species diversity, and increased forest cover change and fragmentation at the park periphery. Interior villages suffer greatly from crop and livestock depredations by wildlife and consider park rules to be unfairly devised. Yet, they affirm the importance of the park for conservation, and are willing to work with park authorities for stricter protection. Park authorities largely focus on resettlement of interior villages, when they should also pay attention to protecting the peripheral areas of the park from severe degradation by surrounding villages. In summary, we find that different parts of the park landscape face different conservation challenges. Taking into account spatial variations in the factors influencing conservation can greatly benefit the management of protected areas. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. RI Nagendra, Harini/A-9103-2009
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/741489
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 43
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 32
social impact