Scholarly article on topic 'Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI'

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI Academic research paper on "Social and economic geography"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Global Ecology and Conservation
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Protected area management categories" / "Buffer zones" / Planning / Poverty}

Abstract of research paper on Social and economic geography, author of scientific article — Craig L. Shafer

Abstract The debate about the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) protected area management categories V–VI has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. Even though these two categories were officially adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, and approved at the Fourth IUCN World Parks Conference in Barcelona, in 2008, this has not completely alleviated the fears of some debate participants. The question persists, can the perceived dual role of these two categories in promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people actually work in synergy? One aspect of categories V–VI needs careful scrutiny: buffer zone land use restrictions and adequate governance. Although local participation in buffer zone management marks a wise cooperative policy, some coercion and enforcement by protected area (PA) authorities seems essential to assure that land use practices in the buffer zone are optimal for core area biota. Buffer zone policy and governance is key to PA biological diversity conservation success.

Academic research paper on topic "Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI"

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Ecology and Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco

Review paper

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V-VI

CrossMark

Craig L. Shafer

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, USA

highlights

• Although IUCN protected area management categories V-VI were adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in 2003, the fears of some skeptics have not been resolved.

• Although promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people may be linked, tradeoffs are inevitable.

• The expected win-win success stories for categories V-VI have not been abundant although evaluation methods are still unrefined.

• Categories V-VI will be more effective for biological diversity conservation if the buffer zones have land use restrictions and adequate governance.

• Local participation in buffer zone management is a wise strategy but enforcement by protected area authorities, and some coercion, may be essential to insure that land use practices are biologically optimal for the core area and its buffer zone.

article info

Article history:

Received 1 November 2014

Received in revised form 18 December 2014

Accepted 19 December 2014

Available online 1 January 2015

Keywords:

Protected area management categories

Buffer zones

Planning

Poverty

abstract

The debate about the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) protected area management categories V-VI has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. Even though these two categories were officially adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, and approved at the Fourth IUCN World Parks Conference in Barcelona, in 2008, this has not completely alleviated the fears of some debate participants. The question persists, can the perceived dual role of these two categories in promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people actually work in synergy? One aspect of categories V-VI needs careful scrutiny: buffer zone land use restrictions and adequate governance. Although local participation in buffer zone management marks a wise cooperative policy, some coercion and enforcement by protected area (PA) authorities seems essential to assure that land use practices in the buffer zone are optimal for core area biota. Buffer zone policy and governance is key to PA biological diversity conservation success.

© 2014 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................................332

2. Methods...................................................................................................................................................................................................332

3. The beginning: Yellowstone National Park...........................................................................................................................................332

4. Western view of wilderness...................................................................................................................................................................333

5. IUCN protected area management categories.......................................................................................................................................333

E-mail address: cshafer@gmu.edu. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.12.007

2351-9894/© 2014 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

6. Yellowstone Model vs. Community-Based Conservation Model.........................................................................................................334

7. Perceptions of human integration problems.........................................................................................................................................334

8. Sanctioning the new paradigm..............................................................................................................................................................335

9. Post-Durban discord...............................................................................................................................................................................335

10. Post-Durban IUCN actions......................................................................................................................................................................336

11. Buffer zones: northern latitudes vs. the tropics....................................................................................................................................336

12. Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB)................................................................................................................................................337

13. Preservation vs. poverty.........................................................................................................................................................................338

14. Discussion................................................................................................................................................................................................ 338

15. Rethinking buffer zones..........................................................................................................................................................................340

16. Human migration....................................................................................................................................................................................341

17. Summation..............................................................................................................................................................................................341

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................................. 342

Appendix. Chronology of key conventions, congresses and documents........................................................................................342

References................................................................................................................................................................................................ 343

1. Introduction

Since 1872, other countries have copied the ''Yellowstone Model'', a United States creation (IUCN protected area management category II) to create national parks and other protected areas (PAs) world-wide. Yet, it was not until the 1970s, that people began to articulate why this model was not adequate to deal with the social situations found in many other places. Some experts considered a better approach for PA management, especially for developing countries, as either the ''Community-based Conservation Model'' or the ''Integrated Conservation Development Project Model (ICDP)''. Both represent aspects of the ''new paradigm'', an umbrella concept that was articulated in 2003 (Phillips, 2003a) and refined ten years later (Stevens, 2014b, pp. 62-63). IUCN PA management categories I-IV are better at protecting biological diversity than are categories V-VI, simply because the former have more restrictions placed on the types of land uses that can occur within them.

IUCN PA management categories V-VI are expressions of the new paradigm philosophy and have been dubbed the ''lived-in landscapes" (Phillips, 2003a) or the ''multiple use'' categories (McDonald and Boucher, 2011). In this paper, I will begin by reviewing the historical controversy since the 1990s over PA categories V-VI and the new paradigm. Many people may be unfamiliar with the chronology of these emerging ideas, some of which now enjoy international adoption. Although the Durban World Parks Congress (WPC) in 2003 adopted the new paradigm and it was further endorsed by IUCN at Barcelona in 2008, all concerns about it have not evaporated. After the historical review, I will offer my own views on how to make the buffer zone aspect of categories V-VI more effective for biological diversity conservation.

2. Methods

This paper will present an historical review of decisions along with the activities prefacing the Fifth WPC adoption of the ''new paradigm'' for protected areas and subsequent actions. In order to retrieve essential documents, I used Google Scholar and the References section of pertinent papers. Since I also have concerns about the new paradigm, I gave special consideration to papers critical of IUCN management categories V-VI.

3. The beginning: Yellowstone National Park

In 1872, the US Congress established Yellowstone National Park (16 USC 21 et seq. 17 Stat. 32). The legislation reaffirmed a notion first articulated in the Yosemite Land Grant Act (Act of June 30,1864, 13 Stat. 325), as follows: some land in the public domain shall be retained in public ownership, for reasons other than economic gain. The roster of supportive evidence, including reports of physiography and biota new to science, the paintings of Thomas Moran, the photographs of William Henry Jackson, the lobbying of Ferdinand Hayden and Nathaniel P. Langford, and the desire by Northern Pacific Railroad officials to profit from tourists, all combined to try to convince Congress to endorse the park idea (Pritchard, 1999).

The 1872 legislation, or Yellowstone Act, went further than the Yosemite legislation, by specifying that the Yellowstone country remain ''reserved and withdrawn... dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people''. Native Americans were driven out of the park, an action that afterwards would provide a model strategy for other nations seeking to create PAs (Kalamandeen and Gillson, 2007).

For example, the British created Sabie Game Reserve in South Africa in 1898, a PA that would later become Kruger National Park, in 1926 (Lockwood et al., 2006). The local African people were not consulted about their fate (Chatty and Colchester, 2002), a removal which would later happen at Yellowstone (Spence, 1999). In both cases, the local people were left alone to absorb their loss. Traditional uses of African land for firewood collection, livestock grazing, hunting, plant gathering, and logging all became instantly illegal in the park as a result of national legislation (Carruthers, 1995).

4. Western view of wilderness

Understanding the perspective of''white'' western civilization helps explain why ''wilderness'' remains a foreign concept in many parts of the world. The relationship between man and nature is viewed differently in Latin America (Gómez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992) and Africa (Adams and McShane, 1992), two mostly non-white and non-Western territories. To protect nature in the United States, the government forcibly expelled Native Americans from national parks (Burnham, 2000). The experience in tropical countries is different. Indigenous citizens (or residents) were considered an integral part of nature and, therefore, rightful inhabitants rather than trespassers (Guha, 1989,1997).

''Wilderness'' is a western puritanical concept, specifically, the invention of the United States (Callicott and Nelson, 1998; Sarkar, 1999). As late as 1964, the US Wilderness Act (16 USC 1131 et seq. 78 Stat. 890) defined ''wilderness'' as ''an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain...''. Victor Shelford, an early 20th century zoologist, often referred to as the ''father of community ecology in the United States'', had not yet recognized how Native Americans shaped American ecosystems. He claimed that ''...most of the areas, which are now available for reservation, were probably not much affected by these primitive men''. He used this argument for conveniently ''leaving them out of the picture'' (1933c, p. 241). Today, however, we realize that Native Americans were responsible for fashioning the natural landscape for centuries, using tools like fire (Williams, 2000). There is no such thing as a pristine America, unaltered by human hands (Denevan, 1992). Not until the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (16 USC 3101 et seq. Stat. 2371), did the US National Park Service try to accommodate indigenous people. While in other parts of the world, (e.g., Amazon forests, African savanna, Northern European tundra and polar areas, and Australian outback), humans have influenced the landscape for millennia (Posey, 1999). Although this may serve as an argument for keeping indigenous people inside reserves, provided they harvest resources wisely, there is a much larger picture to consider. To begin the story, we will now introduce the IUCN PA management categories. A discussion of the IUCN definition of ''wilderness'' is found in Dudley et al. (2012).

5. IUCN protected area management categories

In 1969, the Tenth IUCN General Assembly in New Delhi envisioned national parks as areas where ''visitors are allowed to enter, under special circumstances and for recreational purposes'' (Weeks and Mehta, 2004, p. 255). That official policy changed six years later, in 1975, when IUCN passed a resolution at its 12th General Assembly in Kinshana, Zaire, acknowledging that ''indigenous people can bring lands into conservation areas, without relinquishing their ownership, use or tenure rights''. In 1978, there was a PA management Category VII, called a natural biotic area/anthropological reserve, which was later dropped (McNeely et al., 1994). For more history of the PA categories, see the Appendix and Phillips (2004).

What is the situation today? The IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas established six PA management categories (IUCN, 1994). Categorical designations indicate the objectives of the PA, which in turn dictates what land use can occur in them. Management objectives were separated from land ownership in 1994. The categories are as follows: Category Ia-strict nature reserve (managed mainly for science); Category Ib-wilderness area (managed mainly for wilderness protection); Category II-national park (managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation); Category III-natural monument (managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features); Category IV-habitat/species management area (managed mainly for conservation through management intervention); Category V-protected landscape/seascape (managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation); and Category VI-managed resource protected area (managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems). Categories V and VI were not created until 1994, but they had precursors in a now defunct 1978 10 category scheme (Phillips, 2004). (Note: The 1994 Categories I-V were similar to the 1978 Categories I-V. However, the 1994 Category VI has some attributes of the 1978 Categories VI, VII and VIII Phillips, 2004.)

The six PA management categories were recommended at the Fourth World Congress on Protected Areas in Caracas, Venezuela, in 1992 (see Appendix). Categories I-VI were adopted in 1994 (IUCN, 1994). That same year, IUCN defined PAs in terms of biodiversity as follows: ''An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of the natural and associated cultural resources, managed through legal or other effective means'' (IUCN, 1994). Certain tensions are built into the IUCN PA classification scheme including domesticated vs. wild landscape, national vs. local control, and conservation vs. traditional rights (Weeks and Mehta, 2004).

The objectives of the new paradigm, and thus Categories V-VI, were as follows: managed for social and economic objectives in addition to conservation and recreation; managed to help meet the needs of local people, the PA beneficiaries; established for scientific, economic and cultural reasons; wilderness being valued for its natural and cultural importance; and landscape restoration and rehabilitation being significant components (Phillips, 2003a).

According to the IUCN PA scheme, Category V emphasizes ''values from long-term interactions with people and nature in modified conditions''. Category VI emphasizes the ''need to link nature conservation in natural areas while supporting sustainable livelihoods'' (Dudley, 2009b, pp. 20-23). Examples of Category V areas can be found in Phillips (2003a) and is most prevalent in Europe (Dudley, 2009a). For more information about distinguishing Categories V and VI, see Phillips (1999). A key problem with categories V-VI is the absence of statutory limits for resource exploitation.

As of 2012, PAs covered 12.7% of the world's land and 1.6% of its oceans (Bertzky et al., 2012). Developing countries have organized a greater percentage of their land into PA Category VI, compared to developed countries (Prato and Fagre, 2005). Almost half (49%) of the PAs were in Categories V-VI as of 2010 (per categorization availability) (Stevens, 2014a). In terms

of total area, Category VI consisted of 32% while Category II composed only 27% (Bertzky et al., 2012) (per categorization availability). The following ownership information, (e.g., government, shared, private, and indigenous people/local communities) was supposed to be entered into the IUCN PA data base, but as of 2010, only 49% of PAs had such information (Dudley, 2009b, p. 26).

6. Yellowstone Model vs. Community-Based Conservation Model

Adrian Phillips (2003a), IUCN senior advisor, offers specifics in contrasting the Yellowstone Model with the Community-Based Conservation Model, a reflection of the new paradigm. In a nutshell, the 19th century Yellowstone Model is most often thought of as involving the expulsion of native people; preserving "wilderness" free from human influence; fortress conservation; top-down control, and tourism and recreation. In contrast, the contemporary Community-Based Conservation Model is usually characterized by honoring indigenous people's rights, promoting sustainable development, and encouraging ecotourism and bottoms-up conservation. The shift to the latter model was to focus on people as a central, essential part of the ecosystem. Some people believe that the Community-Based Conservation Model, with its emphasis on sustainable development, has already failed (Kellert et al., 2000; Oates, 1999; Terborgh, 1999). Duke University tropical biologist Terborgh (1999, p. 18), a prominent Community-Based Conservation Model critic, expressed it this way, "(the notion) that sustainable development will lead inexorably to the harmonious coexistence of humankind and nature-is patent nonsense''. The terminology "sustainable development", incidentally, though endorsed in the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980), is more often attributed to the report Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), also known as the Brundtland Report.

Terborgh believes that ousting people from reserves represents the best policy to fulfill biological diversity conservation goals. "Much research confirms that humans and wild nature are incompatible, except where humans practice a low-impact pre-modern lifestyle, at densities of no more than a few individuals per square kilometer. People damage the ecological system by clearing land, hunting, fishing, persecuting predators, and commercializing natural resources'' (Terborgh and Peres, 2002, p. 307). However, sustainable use of Amazonian tropical forests will not allow millions of forest dwelling peasants to escape from poverty (Peres, 2011). The ''new paradigm'' has been widely promoted, despite the controversies and vocal detractors. Some, like Locke and Dearden, fiercely disagreed with this new direction as will be discussed here (2005).

7. Perceptions of human integration problems

By the second half of the 20th century, from the 1970s-1980s, the Yellowstone model (Category II) of ''exclusionary protection'' was considered by some to be a poor fit for some social circumstances, like those in Africa (Dasmann, 1984; Myers, 1972; Nelson, 1978). Some early references on how to integrate humans into PAs include Stevens (1997), West and Brechlin (1991) and Kemp (1993). Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have extolled the virtues of programs integrating humans into conservation projects and their perceived successes (Brown and Wyckoff-Baird, 1992; Weber et al., 2000). However, Professor Kent Redford, former Biodiversity Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society, showed how the indigenous people of the Amazon made a very negative impact on plant and animal species growth and survival (Redford, 1991). His critique of the ''ecologically noble savage'' notion caused quite a stir in the environmental community, because his position was interpreted by some as attacking a philosophical, nearly sacred ideal: indigenous people living in harmony with nature (Christensen, 2004).

A year later, in 1992, the Earth Summit Conference in Rio de Janeiro endorsed the idea of a union between conservation and development (see Appendix). That same year, Wells and Brandon coined the term ''integrated conservation and development projects'' (ICDPs) (1993). ICDPs were conceived of based on the concept of''sustainable development", but that whole notion is flawed (Dawe and Ryan, 2003). Six years later, Brandon, Redford and Sanderson documented their disappointing experiences with ICDPs in 18 countries (Brandon et al., 1998). The following year, Terborgh (1999) took the position that biodiversity conservation and economic development were fundamentally incompatible (Christensen, 2004; van Schaik and Rijksen, 2002).

A sentinel example of failure comes from India where ICDP programs resulted in inadequate compensation, processing delays, corruption, and non-participation (Ogra and Badola, 2008). Failures in Nepalese programs were also widespread. One example from Nepal's buffer zone program listed the capture of benefits by the elite, non-participation by marginalized groups, an over-emphasis on infrastructure improvement and little income improvement or more jobs for the poor (Paudel et al., 2007). Other loses suffered in Nepal's Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve include a compensation of less than 60% of what their land was worth and having average crop yields drop after resettlement to less than 50% of previous amounts (Lam and Paul, 2014). ICDPs often report economic loses spread across communities as in the Derema Forest Corridor in Tanzania's East Usambara Mountains (Hall et al., 2014). Ferraro and Pattanayak asked whether ICDPs could be spending ''money for nothing'' (2006).

There are some positive ICDP program results, however, in some cases the answer to the above question is yes. Moving southeast to the situation in Sumatra, where in order to improve the infrastructure of 66 villages bordering Kerinci Seblat National Park, the ICDP offered $1.5 million as an incentive to thwart illegal forest harvest. However, no subsequent drop in

deforestation occurred (Linkie et al., 2008). A key consideration is how one measures the "success" of ICDPs (Znajda, 2014). Salafsky and Margolis offered one possible method (1999). In contrast, some other ICDP assessments are glowing. Damayanti and Masuda (2008) viewed a project outside of Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala State, India, as a success, resulting in enthusiastic village involvement, standard of living increases, and a reduction in resource offenses. More rigorous evaluation of poverty reduction projects is nevertheless needed (Fisher et al., 2013).

Conservationists once believed generally that indigenous people could live in harmony with their environment (Hess,

2001). But when indigenous individuals obtain modern technologies like firearms and outboard motors, they behave like other citizens in contemporary urban settings and that balance maybe upset (Robinson and Redford, 1991).

According to Terborgh and Peres, "The most direct and effective way to reduce human impacts within parks is through active relocation programs'' (2002, p. 312). From a strictly biological preservation standpoint, excluding indigenous people who cause biodiversity harm has merit. From a political standpoint, that kind of exclusionist policy is a recipe for conflict and possible failure. Kothari and colleagues offer lessons learned from community conservation projects (2013). West and Brockington list community conservation failures (2006). However, the management choice may not have to be community conservation or strict preservation. Mulder and Caro illustrate that a variety of approaches were used for one reserve in Tanzania (2007).

8. Sanctioning the new paradigm

It was not until the Fifth WPC in Durban, in 2003 (see Appendix), that proponents expounded on the benefits of the 1994 PA Categories V-VI to a world audience. The Durban Accord (IUCN, 2005) declared that the Congress had accepted the new paradigm, as described by Phillips (Phillips, 2003a). The Durban Action Plan (IUCN, 2005) laid down an important statement of principles, including governments taking full account of the interests of indigenous people and PAs contributing to sustainable development (Colchester, 2004a). The real question was how this viewpoint became official policy so quickly? Proponents of the new paradigm made IUCN sponsored documents available prior to the Fifth WPC (Bishop et al., 2004). Those documents were persuasive in their support for categories V-VI. However, at that time, the documents were not endorsed by IUCN. Locke and Dearden describe an energetic lobbying process (2005). For a review of Congress events, see Goriup (2004).

Speaking a Common Language by Bishop and colleagues is a useful reference, but it is definitely pro-new paradigm (2004). To these authors, the utility of all six of the 1994 IUCN PA management categories was a foregone conclusion. "Overall, the project has reaffirmed the conservation values and importance of the 1994 system. It has confirmed the general recommendation emerging from the WCPA (2003 WPC) that no changes should be made in the 1994 category system itself" (p. 4). However, the Bishop et al. document was not speaking for IUCN at that time and offered a disclaimer to that effect. These general conclusions (retaining the 1994 IUCN management categories) have been supported by a recommendation, "prepared by the project team and then endorsed by the workshop (emphasis added) at the Fifth World Parks Congress in September 2003''. The document thus paved the way for official adoption of the new paradigm.

Speaking a Common Language is revealing in its advocacy. It offers a number of suggestions for IUCN to adopt at Durban about the PA management categories. First, it asserts that IUCN should "lobby for the uptake of the 1994 categories". But it also states that there has been "little dialog about the categories system between IUCN and leading NGOs ..., nor has agreement been reached within and between NGOs on their use'' (p. 170). Finally, the Fifth WPC, in 2003, formally validates the viewpoint of these determined PA environmental planners by accepting all recommendations (Phillips, 2003b). The new paradigm and the PA classification scheme were also adopted a year later in the Program of Work on Protected Areas, a product of the Convention on Biological Diversity, that took place in Kuala Lumpur during 2004 (Phillips, 2004).

By 2008, IUCN had shifted its definition of a PA to this new version: ''A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values'' (Dudley, 2009b, p. 60); Dudley and Stolton, 2008). For more discussion of PA category differences, see Dudley (2009a).

9. Post-Durban discord

Following the Durban conference, Terborgh reported growing tensions between two schools of thought, the pro-Category V-VI people and those against it. He described the Durban WPC as a ''political minefield'', and spoke about the ''current fashion for people-friendly protected areas and a utilitarian concept of biodiversity that is prevalent in international circles today''. He bemoaned what he called this ''trend toward the creation of soft protected areas (IUCN categories V and VI)'' (2004, p. 618). Andrade, who championed the Congress' focus on PA social issues, challenged this viewpoint (2005). Terborgh retorted that ''sustainable development and sustainable use are buzzwords of the socioambientalista movement (in Latin America) but conservationists are wise to be skeptical...Nature needs space to survive...Thus it would be folly to shortchange the future for short-term goals based on unproven paradigms for achieving social equality'' (2005, pp. 5-6). He projected that the only activity that would be sustainable in protected areas was ecotourism (Terborgh and van Schaik,

2002). Ecotourism as an income generation tool has its share of problems (Coria and Calfucura, 2011).

Terborgh claimed he believed the views of many scientists were being shunted aside by those with more political power in the international parks community. He observed that ''the Congress offered an irresistible global stage for propounding a

political agenda...'' (2004, p. 618). The politically powerful members at the Durban WPC did know how the system worked for securing an IUCN declaration. They used the presence of more than 120 representatives from indigenous, mobile local communities at the Congress, who gathered to support the rights of indigenous people, to move the people-centric viewpoint forward (Brosius, 2004). For a detailed account of actions at Durban in behalf of indigenous people, consult Stevens (2014a).

Locke and Dearden argue that only IUCN categories I-IV should be recognized as PAs, but categories V-VI should be reclassified as ''sustainable development areas'' (2005). They objected to the new paradigm, promoted at the 2003 WPC, because they understood it focused on how local people will benefit by raising their standard of living. They complained about the ''de facto redefinition of PAs being advanced through the guidelines and other IUCN publications" (p. 4). They believed that categories V-VI could serve to supplement PA categories I-IV, but were not real PAs. But most importantly, they perceived that categories V-VI will' ' undermine the creation of real (emphasis added) protected areas.'' (p. 6). They said that from 1992 to 2003, the number of PAs added to the IUCN list doubled, but' ' almost half (47.9%) of these new PAs may not be real PAs at all. This kind of progress is illusionary'' (p. 7).

Zoologist Tim McClanahan of the Wildlife Conservation Society reiterated that Category VI, and areas without official IUCN classification, constitute 42% of all listed PAs (2004). He posed the question,' ' Have the issues of conservation and poverty come to a crisis, where the only solution is an Orwellian inclusion of members and a continual reclassification of what constitutes conservation?" (p. 31). Debate on that issue has continued (Martino, 2005; Robinson and Ginsberg, 2004). Neumann offers a very good argument against the Yellowstone Model for Africa (1997). Roe reviews the debate in more detail (2008).

Continuing on the ' ' pro'' side, Western and Wright provide many positive examples of community-based conservation, Western distinguishes' ' community-based conservation" from' ' integrated conservation and development" projects (1994). Community-based conservation involves turning control of natural resources over to local organizations, while integrated conservation and development entails local people deriving benefits from conservation-funded projects (Barber et al., 2004). Tolisano offers cautious guidance for both forms of projects (2000). But they are both part of the new paradigm.

Governance of PAs is a key issue (Berrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013). IUCN explains that PA definitions and management categories are' ' neutral'' in regard to type of ownership and management authority (Dudley, 2009b). Dearden and colleagues perceived that participation in PA governance increased from 1992 to 2002, which could correspond to more local control (2005).

10. Post-Durban IUCN actions

Such negative feedback after the Durban WPC must have had an impact, because a strategy for taking another look at the IUCN PA categories began developing in July 2005. Two years later, an email discussion on managing PAs occurred among IUCN participants before the summit on the PA management categories in Almeria, Spain, held May 7-11, 2007 (Dudley, 2009b). Before that event, more than 50 discussion papers were written (Dudley et al., 2012) by dozens of experts and others reviewed the almost final document (Dudley, 2009b, p. 5). Workshops were held on four continents (Dudley, 2009a; Dudley et al., 2012). For example, a Durban + 5 Meeting was held in Cape Town, South Africa, during April 2008 (Parks vol. 17 (2)). After these workshops and discussions were over, there was further debate at the IUCN Fourth World Parks Conference in Barcelona, Spain, during October 2008 (Boitani et al., 2008), and members voted on whether to advance the key recommendations of the Durban Accord and Durban Action Plan".

In 2008, IUCN officially revised the Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories (Dudley, 2009b), keeping categories V-VI firmly in place. The revised 2008 version of the IUCN protected area categories are listed in Table 1. Staff of IUCN reported out that the 2008 document represents the opinion of the large majority of IUCN members'' (Dudley, 2009b, p. vii). In response to the question of whether the final statement of guidelines truly represent the cumulative thinking of the world parks community, some disagreement still remains, with both sides seeking a' ' way forward'' to ensure these PA categories truly serve the best interests of PA biota (Dudley et al., 2010).

Regardless of which PA management model one champions (i.e., the 19th century era Yellowstone Model vs. the contemporary Community Based Conservation Model), which in turn dictates the overarching philosophy one embraces (i.e., Old Paradigm or New Paradigm), buffer zones represent a useful tool to help preserve park biota. In the next section, we shall examine the application of buffer zones in two world regions.

11. Buffer zones: northern latitudes vs. the tropics

Many experts have promoted buffer zones in the ecological'' sense as a positive and often efficient means of reducing biotic stress to a core area, especially in industrialized nations, e.g., thwarting outside boundary groundwater withdrawal that could lower the water level in a reserve (Schonewald-Cox, 1988). And in the' ' social'' sense, they can benefit local people, especially in developing countries, by providing them with subsidies. A significant example would be paying villagers not to harm large mammals that wander out of a PA (Talbot and Olindo, 1990).

In the US, the idea that buffer zones provide a worthwhile addition to a PA was noted in the 1930s by National Park Service (NPS) staff members. Three NPS biologists recommended the creation of buffer zones around national parks (Shafer, 2001). These buffer zones were intended to thwart the invasion of' ' external influences'' like timbering, road development,

Table 1

IUCN protected area categories.

Category la: strict nature reserve, set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use, and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values.

Category Ib: wilderness areas, usually large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.

Category II: national park, large natural/near natural areas protecting major ecological processes, along with characteristic species and ecosystems, which also provide environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational, and visitor opportunities.

Category III: natural monument or feature, set up to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, seamount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave, or even a living feature such as an ancient grove.

Category IV: habitat/species management area, to protect particular species or habitats with management reflecting this priority. Many but not all such areas will need regular, active interventions to meet the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats.

Category V: protected landscape/seascape, where the interaction of people and nature overtime has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural, and scenic value, and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the associated values.

Category VI: protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources, generally large areas, mostly in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level nonindustrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims.

Dudley (2009b)

and exotic species. The zones were to be off-limits to trapping furbearing animals, controlling predators (with exceptions), hunting rare species, sheep grazing and cultivation (Wright et al., 1933; Wright and Thompson, 1935). On behalf of the Ecological Society of America, Shelford recommended placing buffer zones around first class reserves (e.g., most national parks) to allow more room for wide-ranging mammals to move about (1933a). He also thought protected area buffer zones could accommodate development (e.g., timber production, livestock grazing), recreation, experimental research, protection against fire and disease, and thwart the invasion of exotic species (Shelford, 1933b,c). But as Groom and colleagues explained, ''Buffer zones have not been a traditional, conservation element in North America'' (1999, p. 192). The situation in many industrialized countries is illustrated by the US national parks in the lower 48 states, which focuses more on the impacts of adjacent industry and development than on accommodating indigenous people (Shafer, 1999a).

Some scientists argue that a buffer zone is not land adjacent to a reserve, as portrayed by many authors (e.g., DeFries et al., 2005; Zaccarelli et al., 2008). Buffer zones rather are a set of land use restrictions (Schonewald pers. comm., 2010; Schonewald, 2001). Designating a US wilderness area, for example, creates a land use restriction. An IUCN consultant recommended protecting buffer zones by using widely recognized and easily implementable legal sanctions (Lausche, 1980). Simply calling something a buffer zone does not dictate that it buffers anything. Martino pointed out that there is no current accepted definition of''buffer zone'' in simple terms in relation to its presumed ecological stress reduction function (2001).

Almost 30 years ago, a promising experiment at integrating people within a biosphere reserve began at the Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve in Mexico's state of Quintana Roo. The reserve was created in 1986 by Presidential decree. The biosphere reserve's management plan prohibited any disturbance to the core zone, but allows hunting, gathering, farming and tourism development elsewhere. About 1000-2000 people, mostly lobster fishermen, lived in the reserve. A group of federal, state and municipal officials managed it, with NGOs serving as advisors. The situation in this biosphere reserve was touted as an early success (McCaffrey and Landazuri, 1987; Tangley, 1988) and was held up as model for considering economic factors in the mix (Shafer 1990).

Leal provided a more recent update on management at Sian Ka'an (2003). In terms of attracting ecotourists and providing local employment, it has been a great success. However, the reserve's coral reef tells a less inspiring story. When a scientific team from the Smithsonian Institution assessed the ecological integrity of parts of the 1000 km Mesoamerican Reef in 2008, they found the ecological condition of Sian Ka'an's reef was only ''satisfactory'', and no different from reefs outside the reserve (http://www.healthyreefs.org). Brenner et al. (2008) argued that terrestrial development at Sian Ka'an was at odds with the conservation of habitat. Martinez-Reyes described the failure of two Sian Ka'an forest wildlife management projects and the expulsion of the sponsoring NGO (2014).

Essentially, this amounted to a failure to reconcile two possibly irreconcilable outcomes. The Sian Ka'an example illustrates that focusing on a PA's economic benefits and ignoring its biological integrity provides a skewed view of management ''success''. Perhaps more enforcement would have helped. This example leads directly into more discussion about the UNESCO ''Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB)''.

12. Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB)

MAB, initiated in 1971, was an outgrowth of the 1968 Biosphere Conference in Paris. One of the 12 major research themes was Project 8: Biosphere Reserves. Before MAB became operational in 1976, some expert panels drafted guidelines on how to select biosphere reserves. Buffer zones and transition areas for biosphere reserves were intended to shield the core from man's activities, to allow more space for wide-ranging mammals and growing populations of rare species, to

advance biosphere reserve education, to promote tourism, and to encourage manipulative research (UNESCO, 1974). Though not originally emphasized or appreciated, the biosphere reserve model allowed for indigenous people to continue their residence in the buffer zone or transition area. However, these early guidelines asserted that' ' no new settlement should be allowed in the buffer zone'' (UNESCO, 1974, p. 26). According Gillespie (2008), biosphere reserves represent the best example of PA category V, but there are other non-biosphere reserve landscapes that also fit (Phillips, 2003a). In the next decade, experts and land managers realized that preservation, especially in developing countries, may fail unless the needs of local people were taken into account (Dasmann, 1988). Whether directly motivated by MAB or not, the end result was that experts began stressing the need to accommodate indigenous people in PA buffer zones, especially in tropical developing countries (MacKinnon et al., 1986; Oldfield, 1988; Sayer, 1991). Though once one of the IUCN PA management categories, the biosphere reserve classification was dropped in 1994. Nevertheless, the biosphere reserve program continues worldwide.

After 1996, sustainable development was elevated to being a core concept of biosphere reserves (Reed and Massie, 2013) though the terminology occurred in MAB literature in 1984 (Ishwaran and Persic, 2008). The idea of people living inside biosphere reserves was increasingly accepted by park officers and officials in charge (Price, 1996). The initial ideal was to blend the biosphere reserve into the surrounding countryside incrementally (Batisse, 1997). However, in most instances, biosphere reserves were simply labels on top of existing reserves (Ishwaren and Persic, 2012). There have been efforts to achieve more on-ground conformity with the model (Coetzer et al., 2014). But surrounding land use often precludes managers from turning a PA into a model biosphere reserve in terms of spatial configuration (Hough, 1988).

Price reports that about half of the world's biosphere reserves have neither a buffer zone nor a transition area around the core (2002). Fully 98% of post-Seville (1985) biosphere reserves described all three zones on nomination forms but 80% of the total land remained unprotected (Ishwaran and Persic, 2008). A buffer zone generally remains outside a reserve manager's authority (Newmark and Hough, 2000). In countries like Mexico, the government has put the biosphere reserve model to good use to create many new PAs with effective buffer zones (Figueroa and Sánchez-Cordero, 2008). Sustainable development has been a goal of biosphere reserves but realization of that ideal is an ongoing challenge (Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2010). Surveys of biosphere reserves around the world have found few that meet all of the MAB management goals (Coetzer et al., 2014). More biosphere reserves need to be evaluated for their management success. Community management of Ankarafantsika National Park, Madagascar, a biosphere reserve, has been successful in many respects. However, illegal harvesting still exists so park supporters want strengthened patrols and regulations (Aymoz et al., 2013).

13. Preservation vs. poverty

According to Brechin and colleagues, ecological integrity should not be the only factor in measuring success, especially in developing countries (2010). In the social scenario, the focus is more about accommodating local people inside a reserve or its buffer zone (Machlis, 1992). By allowing local people to continue their traditional way of life, and using tourism to enhance their standard of living, park authorities hope to receive their support.

Nevertheless, trade-offs seem inevitable (McShane et al., 2011). Especially since 1982, the world community of park managers and planners has been encouraged to blend both ecological and social factors. One can legitimately ask whether we can do both optimally? The factors in such a decision form part of the basis for a new field called political ecology'' (Adams and Hutton, 2007; Holmes, 2007). From another perspective, Salafsky et al. argued that instead of trying to blend conservation with development, a better path would involve using available resources to achieve strict conservation goals'', which fosters economic improvement along the way (2011).

The expectation of a win-win'' result for the new paradigm is simply not materializing (Christensen, 2004; Roe and Elliott, 2006). Indeed, conservationists like Caroline Upton et al. asserted that clear choices will need to be made between the relative importance of conservation and livelihood goals'' (2008, p. 23). But in the meantime, some policy documents like the Millennium Development Goals, adopted by the United Nations during September 2005 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, advocate that governments should attempt to integrate their biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation agendas (Sachs et al., 2009).

Current dire economic situations in some developing countries specifically offer a good argument for PA managers not to ignore poverty. According to Miller and Barber (2008, p. 93),' ' Morally, it is difficult to justify conservation for its own sake in places where local people are living in misery. Practically speaking, PAs cannot long survive the pressures of impoverished adjacent populations...''. Naughton-Treves and Holland (2005) provide an extensive review of indigenous people and PAs. It is now a challenge to disentangle various threads of the poverty debate (Elliott and Roe, 2010).

14. Discussion

There are valid points to consider on both sides of the argument over IUCN PA categories V-VI (Miller et al., 2011). All the authors of a specific volume advocated strict protection, with less focus on the material needs of local people (Kramer et al., 1997). Other authors are more critical of this viewpoint (Wilshusen et al., 2002). The debate may have recently become more polarized than necessary (Roe et al., 2013a). There are just too many reports of community-based conservation failures (e.g., McShane and Wells, 2003). As Christensen argued, however, such projects should not be portrayed as inherently' ' win-win'' situations (2004). Labeling a project as ' ' sustainable development'' will not erase the fact that important social and nature

preservation tradeoffs may be involved. Indigenous populations today are transitioning from traditional economies to highly developed market driven ones, replacing bows and arrows with shotguns, chainsaws and more advanced technological instruments. A decade ago, there were 4.5 million landless peasants in Brazil (Browder et al., 2004). Since the 1970s, a million landless peasants moved into the Amazon from other areas (Robles, 2001). Such a situation is not sustainable.

Sociology Professor Steve Brechin and his colleagues argued that because ''nature protection with social justice'' has never been tried, it would not be wise to dismiss collaboration (2002, p. 51). Few would disagree. However, politicians, some PA administrators and some environmentalists, have be much too eager to make biodiversity conservation compatible with development (sensu construction). But this is not a symbiotic situation, unless some magic formula can be devised (Hilborn et al., 1995; Ludwig et al., 1993). Newmark and Hough agreed: ''Although linking conservation with development may be desirable, the simultaneous achievement of these two objectives may be impossible, because of inherent contradictions'' in the two systems (2000, p. 589).

This union of unequal partners may have stemmed from a desire to make PAs a vehicle to alleviate poverty. A desire to do so represents the politicization of a biological diversity conservation tool.

Some scientists therefore are against pinning the responsibility of alleviating poverty on PAs (Sanderson and Redford, 2003). The fact that the two are ''linked'' seems undisputed (Roe et al., 2013a). However, just because the new paradigm appears to be politically expedient, even acknowledging that there seem to be no alternatives, does not mean that the new paradigm can or will be biologically successful. This recognition is not insignificant since we are already seeing a wave of PA designations in categories V-VI (McDonald and Boucher, 2011).

There are reports that PA categories V-VI do not fit the on-the-ground realities in developing countries, like Madagascar (Gardner, 2011). Other observations have surfaced about the lack of fit between a country's selected PA categories like biosphere reserves and field realities (Leroux et al., 2010). There are also examples where indigenous people entered into cooperative collaboration, protected their local reserve's resources, and even agreed to assign part of their land as ''no people'' zones (Chicchón, 2000). However, success or failure hinges on the selected rating factors. For example, an evaluation of management success for Khoijir National Park, Iran, revealed a high score for legal status, resource inventory, land and water planning, and regulations and objectives, but low scores for education, community co-management, a work plan, boundary demarcation, visitor facilities, budget sources, staff training, protection systems, and a management plan (Kolahi et al., 2013).

While today's IUCN endorsed guidebooks on park management assert the inherent and inevitable inseparability of biological diversity conservation and poverty alleviation (Lockwood et al., 2006), as already indicated, their compatibility is questionable (Roe and Elliott, 2004). It may be impossible to ignore human poverty, when creating and managing PAs. In South America, fully 85% of national parks had people living inside them as of 1991, while in India, 56% of the national parks had resident people as of 1987 (Amend and Amend, 1995; Kothari et al., 1989).

It is hard to turn a blind eye to the agendas of conservation organizations and multinational corporations, after they have helped evict millions of people from their homelands (Chapin, 2004; Dowie, 2005). Governments share the ultimate responsibility for internal displacements (Agrawal and Redford, 2009). The hardship associated with local human removal should never be taken lightly (Rangarajan and Shahabuddin, 2006). One must have social support to create PAs even in the United States (Schelhas, 2001). And there are examples of PAs that did reduce poverty (Andam et al., 2010; Roe et al., 2013b).

There are others, however, where only the non-poor have benefited (Bandyopadhyay and Tempo, 2010). Much work has concluded that studies about the joint achievement of poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation are not yet amenable to generalizations (Agrawal and Redford, 2006). That said, more than a century after Yellowstone National Park was created, a new policy question looms: is it wise to embrace a new paradigm, where the welfare of local human residents competes with the preservation of scenery and biological diversity, based on largely unproven assumptions about conservation success? ''Herein lies a moral dilemma. Should tropical countries forgo parks because there is no convenient place to locate them (indigenous people)? Or should parks be redefined as places where nature is intended to coexist with people? In practice, many tropical countries have adopted the latter definition'' (emphasis added) (Terborgh, 1999, p. 51). Some clarify that policy needs to be ''re-operationalized in order to remain acceptable'' (Buscher and Whande, 2007, p. 22). The PA poverty consideration appears to be such a shift.

Locke and Dearden ask whether their claim that a relatively few people have ''re-engineer[ed] the entire concept of PAs'' should be a concern to the world's PA community? (2005, p. 5) Phillips started shepherding the new paradigm concept through the UN/IUCN governance system back in the early 1990s. As mentioned, 1994 IUCN guidelines (Phillips, 2002) and draft briefing documents (Bishop et al., 2004) supported categories V-VI prior to Durban in 2003. Members formally adopted the new paradigm at that 2003 WPC, with IUCN press releases touting the final success. After Durban, reports (Barber et al., 2004; Dudley et al., 2006) and workshops (Bajiracharya and Dahul, 2008) all espoused the new paradigm's virtues. And the debate continues now under different guises (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012; Soulé,2014). Soulé has characterized conservation endeavors that prioritize economic development and poverty alleviation as the ''new conservation'' (2014).

But if IUCN has never successfully withdrawn its human-exclusion bias from its PA definitions, as Weeks and Mehta (2004) claimed a decade ago, it certainly seems to be moving in a people-centric direction now. The Sixth WPC, scheduled for Sydney, Australia, from November 12-19,2014, includes a program stream entitled ''Reconciling Development Strategies''. It reportedly will focus on how PAs can contribute to national social welfare goals like food and water security, providing jobs, maintaining productive fisheries, forestry and agriculture, and making key trade-offs with mining, energy and infrastructure development.

One may ask what priority biodiversity protection really has when it gets blended with these other national goals? Child, in an introductory essay before the Sixth WPC began, said ' ' we should promote parks as engines for sustainable economic growth at the forefront of the battle for poverty reduction and social justice'' (2014, p. 470). Hackel warned that only a quantum leap in the economic welfare of Africa's people will yield long-term security for its wildlife (1999).

15. Rethinking buffer zones

In today's political ecology realm, the effectiveness of PA buffer zones tends to be assessed more in economic terms than in strict ecological ones (Heinen and Mehta, 2000). At the same time, reports have emerged that buffer zones designed for socio-economic reasons were not working as envisioned by their creators (Heinen and Mehta, 2000). Wells and Brandon concluded that, Overall, one of the most serious problems with buffer zones is the implication that the limited benefits that can flow to local people will change their behavior, reduce pressure on the plants and animals in the protected area, and thereby enhance the conservation of biological diversity, [although] there is little evidence to support this expectation'' (1993, p. 159). Perhaps stricter protection of the PA and its buffer zone is the answer, but strict enforcement, others say, may not be able to coexist with protecting the rights of indigenous people (Campese et al., 2009). In such instances of restricted access, local people may even express their dissatisfaction through violent acts (West et al., 2006). Providing no recognition of earlier land tenure regimes is a recipe for conflict (Petursson and Vedeld, 2015). This shifts the view of local people from take holders to rights holders (Colchester, 2004b). Such calls for strict protection have been called naive (Berghofer, 2010). More data are needed about how exclusionary policies affect PAs (Southworth et al., 2006).

Buffer zones often constitute an expansion of state authority beyond the PA boundary (Neumann, 1997). Neumann lists numerous African examples where park authority has been extended 2-10 km beyond the PA boundary. Compatibility should become more implementable with an enforceable buffer zone for any reserve. Unfortunately, local people often do not receive enforcement well.' ' It is easier to sell development projects than to sell the idea of law enforcement, since the first approach has the flavor of doing something for people, while the second at first sight inescapably means acting against local people'' (Fischer, 2008, p. 103).

Local involvement in PA management seems essential. The Convention on Biological Diversity's Programme of Work on Protected Areas advocates active participation of local communities in the creation and management of PAs (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004). The denial of local people's rights upon PA creation, coupled with an unwillingness to involve them in PA management, were the reasons offered for the failure of a community conservation initiative outside of Knunjerab National Park, Pakistan (Knudsen, 1999). On the other hand, local support is not always essential for PA success (Brockington, 2003, 2004; Holmes, 2013). Shared management offers a possibility, but having indigenous people solely govern the buffer zone invites problems. For those reasons, co-management may involve a government agency and its local people (Parr et al., 2013). In some forestry co-management schemes, there is only a partial transfer of rights (Cronkleton et al., 2012). Collaborative management can be positive (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1999) but complete devolution of state or national government authority is problematic. Co-management in principal only is also problematic (Cundill et al., 2013).

Buffer zones are not a panacea (Groom et al., 1999). However, enforceable buffer zones can be very useful to protect biodiversity in the core area. There are other arguments against development in buffer zones.' ' Instead of trying to promote economic growth around parks, it would be better to discourage people from settling in or near buffer zones, perhaps by persuading governments not to build roads into these areas. If there have to be ICDPs, they should be located at a distance from parks so that people might be drawn away from park perimeters rather than attracted to them'' (Terborgh, 1999, p. 169). Terborgh, was prophetic about this concern,' ' By stimulating the local economy (outside the park), an ICDP attracts newcomers to a park's perimeter, thereby increasing the external pressure on the park's resources'' (1999, p. 165). There is also a very good chance that the process of encouraging economic development will end up thwarting the ability of animals to move out of the reserve (Robinson, 1993).

There are notable direct benefits for not excluding indigenous people from buffer zones like precluding more potentially ecologically destructive activities such as logging, oil and gas extraction, and mining (Schwartzman et al., 2000). With adequate well-thought-through enforcement, local people could be prevented from using a PA buffer zone, unless the land use is ecologically acceptable. But especially in developing countries, if the staff to protect PAs is stretched too thin, buffer zone enforcement necessarily becomes a lesser priority or none at all.

Based on analysis of satellite imagery, DeFries and colleagues concluded that more than 68% of a sample of 198 IUCN PA category I-II tropical reserves had lost adjacent forests out to 50 km, during a 20-year period (2005). These tropical PAs could use enforceable buffer zones. Today, some buffer zones are offered as voluntary agreements and/or compensatory packages (Dudley, 2009b) but this option is much too weak for todays stressed reserves.

Another question is whether these tropical PAs preserved their forests? Thus far, the answer is yes. DeFries detected that 25% of these reserves lost some forest inside their boundaries, but never more than 5% of total forest cover. Looking beyond just the tropics, and using information gathered on 49 reserves in 22 countries, Nagendra (2008) found that 50% had lost some habitat within their boundaries.

Local people do not like being unable to harvest resources on lands they used for centuries. After an ICDP approach was adopted at the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda, the most local unrest resulted from enforcing a ban on the commercial harvest of forest resources (Baker et al., 2011) which the new reserve was designed to prevent.

16. Human migration

Has human migration to reserves already happened? Wittenmyer et al. reported that average annual human population growth rates were higher in PA buffer zones'' compared to rural areas in the same country (2008). Their conclusion was based on data from 245 of the 306 PAs in 38 of 45 African and South American countries.

Wittenmyer and colleagues suggested that the reason for migration might be due to the social amenities near the reserves. In such cases, then, some ICPDs might indeed attract people (van Schaik et al., 2002). There are instances, for example, where development projects near PAs did cause human influx into an area (Scholte, 2003). However, most migrants to the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda, from 1998 to 2008, came because of land availability or the presence of family members (Zommers and MacDonald, 2011). Sometimes it is unknown whether living next to a protected area provided any economic benefit (Estes et al., 2012; Foerster et al., 2011; Hartter and Goldman, 2011) even during times of high immigration (Bamford et al.,2014).

Even if economic benefit ensued due to migration, these buffer zones may be fulfilling their development mission, while failing their biodiversity conservation goals. It is too soon to know, because the data analysis of Wittenmyer and his colleagues has been impugned. Lucas et al. reanalyzed the data and concluded that the mixing of incompatible data sets produced an erroneous conclusion (2009). For additional critiques of the Wittenmyer et al. report, see Hoffman et al. (2011). Whatever the long-term conclusion, however, nobody disputes that Witttenmyer and colleagues shed more light on a critical issue.

17. Summation

To advance this debate over the utility/disadvantage of the new paradigm, experts have proposed' ' different'' approaches: (1) adopting a social-ecological landscape perspective (Palamo et al., 2014); (2) fully integrating social considerations with the biological ones (Ban et al. 2013); (3) taking biological services into account (Haslett et al., 2010), or (4) paying for biological services (Ferraro and Kiss, 2002; Muradian et al., 2013). My personal contribution focuses on the belief that ecological buffer zones are essential for almost all reserves. This is not new insight but warrants more emphasis. However, my aim is to support the view that the selective allowance of land use in the buffer zone, and who governs that usage, marks the key to success in protecting the core reserve. Poverty reduction via ICDPs does not have to be an essential part of buffer zone management. However, limited resource harvest in a PA buffer zone, when regulated by the state, can still be an appropriate conservation use.

The original Yellowstone Model, at least as applied in the United States, has not been problem free (Shafer, 1999a,b). Whether the so-called ' ' fences and fines approach'' (Bruner et al., 2004), also called ' ' fortress conservation'' (Brockington, 2002), has worked depends on your experience and vantage point. It worked in the US for keeping people and many harmful uses out of a PA, but did not exclude all outside negative influences (Shafer, 2009a, 2012). Effective buffer zones, however, could have enhanced this result. US national parks need habitat connectivity outside of a park, which a buffer zone can deliver for at least a short distance (Shafer, 2010).

Seeking cooperation from local people should be the method of choice (Gilbert, 1988), but based on experience, protected area authorities usually include an element of coercion in designing buffer zones. Coercion can be either positive or negative (Peluso, 1993). Some consider coercion just a step towards eviction (Naughton-Treves and Holland, 2005) which happened in India (Lasgorceix and Kothari, 2009). Regardless of the PA category, the consequences of providing lax enforcement could be devastating for biological diversity. In some areas, local income is derived from illegal harvest of park resources (Tumusiime and Vedeld, 2012).' 'We need new forms of state, private, community, and collaborative landscape governance'' (Child, 2014, p. 470) but enforcement is the key factor. Local people may enter into cooperative agreements with park authorities to protect its biota, later to abandon that commitment (Ikpa et al., 2009).

' 'The activities envisioned for buffer zones usually include hunting and fishing using traditional methods, collecting fallen timber, harvesting fruit, seasonal grazing of domestic stock, and cutting bamboo, rattan, or grasses. Activities forbidden in buffer zones generally include burning vegetation, cutting live trees, constructing buildings and establishing plantations'' (Wells and Brandon, 1993, p. 159). But in developing countries, buffer zone goals are now different.

Under the new paradigm, whole villages can grow up in buffer zones. Some now exist in PA core areas. For example, India's Great Himalayan National Park recognizes existing villages in the ICDP's core area (Pandey and Wells, 1997). To its credit, IUCN decided that industrial activity has no place in PAs. IUCN banned mining from all PAs (Dudley, 2009b).

Although buffer zone land use restrictions may invite conflict (Amend and Amend, 1995), individual PA buffer zones cannot go unregulated and be successful at biodiversity conservation. Buffer zone governance represents the key issue (Stoll-Kleemann et al., 2006).' 'The core of governance is authority and control'' (Brechin et al., 2002, p. 47). Governance is also about power, relationships, rights, responsibility and accountability'' (Hutton, 2005, p. 2).

However, local people, including members of indigenous populations, must be involved in some way (Bamford et al., 2014). In South Africa, national park buffer zones have ' ' complementary legal and management restrictions placed on their use and development'' (Molewa, 2012, p. 5). In some Sumatran ICPDs, key identified issues also include governance structure and law enforcement (Kelman, 2013). Another crucial component is monitoring to determine if the buffer zone's biological integrity is being preserved (Kremen et al., 1994).

The Yellowstone model represents top-down management and seems to work until one encounters other peripheral land ownerships (Shafer, 2010). From my investigation of PA studies, I submit that the key point is that without enforcement, in buffer zones or anywhere else, biodiversity conservation in PAs will likely fail. The factor that provided the strongest correlation with retention of forest cover in 93 PAs among 22 tropical countries was enforcement (Bruner et al., 2001). The importance of regulation enforcement within clearly defined PA boundaries is enormous (see Peres and Terborgh, 1995). Land clearing inside PA boundaries (see Joppa et al., 2008) might be worse, if there were no penalties. East African evergreen forest loss in PA buffer zones exceeded background forest loss (Pfeifer et al., 2012). As Robinson and colleagues reminded us ''enforcement remains the central tool for controlling resource extraction from forest parks and reserves in developing countries'' (2010, p. 35). Yes, there is a trade-off between level of enforcement, buffer zone size and the degree of illegal extraction (Albers, 2010; Robinson et al., 2013). However, a cooperative buffer zone managed primarily based on the good intentions of its resident people, who may also be desperately poor, could easily be an invitation for PA biological conservation failure. In Zaire, based on national legislation, the state regulates land use in buffer zones extending 50 km beyond a PA boundary (Oldfield, 1988, cited in Neumann, 1997). My perspective would reasonably fall in the ''back-to-barriers'' philosophy (Hutton et al. 2005).

Many documents espouse the concept of using PAs as a tool for reducing poverty (Scherl et al., 2004). But as we have seen repeatedly, poverty alleviation and biological diversity conservation mark widely different tasks, even though their goals have become intertwined over the years (Adams et al., 2004). If policy makers use buffer zones primarily as a political accommodation, especially in the tropics, then we should recognize them as such. If the foundations for such notions as sustainable development and community conservation are weak, buffer zone designers may fail in achieving their biological diversity preservation goals. The goal of alleviating poverty via ICDPs often does fail (Canavire-Bacarreza and Hanauer, 2013). However, this does not mean social buffer zones cannot work, but shouldering the burden of alleviating poverty places unrealistic expectations on a reserve. However, development, logging, hydrological alteration, mining, oil and gas extraction, predator elimination and other ecologically harmful activities do not have to occur in buffer zones in order to demonstrate ''sustainability''.

IUCN adopted the viewpoint expressed by others (e.g., Wells and Brandon, 1992) that the social benefits of a PA should be secondary to its biological diversity protection role. IUCN claims the adoption of PA categories V-VI still means ''nature conservation will be the priority'' (Dudley, 2009b, p. 10). However, being the first priority does not guarantee adequate biological diversity conservation if the secondary priority derails it. The need for good ecological buffer zones, without adding in the social welfare aspect, still remains.

Dudley et al. (2004) hoped that by the next WPC in 2014, categories V-VI would be accepted and used widely. Whether this has already occurred may be hard to assess objectively. There are reports that nations have made progress in implementing the new paradigm (Crofts, 2008). What remains unproven is whether the new paradigm works for PAs. Dudley et al. perceives that the old paradigm was ''replaced'', recalling that it was ''rejected as global level policy at the Vth World Parks Congress in 2003'' (2014, pp. 496-497). He thinks the Sixth WPC ''provides an opportunity to refine further the emerging global protected model'' (Dudley et al., 2014, p. 499).

There is little doubt that indigenous or local people generally must not be ignored for parks to succeed (Blaustein, 2007; Stankey, 1989). However, only the future can tell whether IUCN PA categories V-VI will assist or slow progress in protecting the world's biological diversity. In the interim, I perceive that PAs in categories V-VI need restrictive ecological buffer zones. If some resource extraction is essential to gain local support, statutory limits need to be placed on such harvest. These zones need to be governed preferably by state authorities that include local people in management decisions but do not concede to all of their wishes. The success of a buffer zone must be assessed first and foremost by its ability to protect the core reserve and secondarily by whether biota in that buffer zone remains undiminished in viability.

As Lee Talbot (1984, p. 753) remarked three decades ago, ''A system of protected areas should be an integral part of the fabric of a people's or nation's well-being''. However, how these PAs are managed will in large part determine how much biological diversity they shall retain.

Acknowledgments

I thank Judy Shafer and Lee Talbot for comments on this document. Three anonymous reviewers helped improve the manuscript greatly. I am grateful to the US National Park Service for the work experience that spawned the idea for this paper.

Appendix. Chronology of key conventions, congresses and documents

The International Conference for the Protection of Fauna and Flora took place in London, in 1933. At that time, members recognized only four categories of PAs: national park, strict nature reserve, fauna and flora reserve and a reserve which prohibited hunting and fishing (Dudley, 2009b).

The United States, together with representatives from other ''American Republics'', signed a convention entitled Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (Western Hemisphere Convention) in October 1940. The Preamble sets forth its policy as, ''wishing to protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species

and genera of their native flora and fauna...'' Article II specified that' 'The Contracting Governments will explore at once the possibility of establishing in their territories national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, and strict wilderness reserves...'' (National Park Service, 1970). The PA model at that time was a national park like those created in the United States. The Convention entered into force during May, 1942.

Copying in part from the above Western Hemisphere Convention, the 1968 Africa Convention on Nature and Natural Resources encouraged the creation of PAs, where local people would be excluded (Phillips, 2003a). The opinions or rights of indigenous people were of little concern to any government before 1970 (Phillips, 2003a).

In 1972, a draft treaty was prepared and eventually endorsed by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm, and later that year at the 17th Session of the General Conference of UNESCO. This treaty became the World Heritage Convention which went into affect in 1975 (Caldwell, 1996). It encourages the active conservation of' ' natural features...which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view'', to be inscribed on the World Heritage List.

By 1982, the Third National Parks Congress met in Denspasar, Bali. The two earlier events, called conferences, took place in Seattle in 1972 and Yellowstone in 1982. The Bali Congress theme differed from anything discussed before, namely, the integration of national parks with development. The Congress sought' ' to promote the linkage between PA management and sustainable development". The Congress also prepared an action plan and declaration stressing that PAs must acknowledge human concerns (McNeely and Miller, 1984).

The World Conservation Strategy (1UCN, 1980) and the UN World Charter for Nature (United Nations General Assembly, 1982) also portrayed conservation in terms of human utility. Both strongly endorsed sustainable use (Caldwell, 1996).

By 1992, yet another treaty promoted the goal of establishing PAs. States from around the world, 181 in fact, adopted Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity at the 1992 Earth Summit Conference in Rio de Janeiro. Article 8 called for establishing a global system of PAs (Glowka et al., 1994), to be managed to support natural and cultural resource preservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing (Task Force on Economic Benefits of Protected Areas of the World Commission on Protected Areas of 1UCN, 1998). Article 8 instructed countries to support' ' environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to PAs, with a view to furthering protection of these areas''.

Also in 1992, the Fourth National Parks Congress convened in Caracus, Venezuela. Under the theme of' ' Parks for Life'', the Congress produced the Caracas Action Plan, underscoring that buffer zones, along with corridors were a useful design component of PAs (McNeely, 1993). The Congress then passed a resolution calling for policies to uphold the interests of indigenous people, while considering their traditional land use practices.

In 2000, the United Nations Development Program (UNEP) published their United Nations Millennium Declaration. This Declaration asserted that PAs were to assist in both national development and the reduction of poverty (Naughton-Treves and Holland, 2005).

The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, dubbed Rio + 10, was held in Johannesburg, South Africa, from August 26-September 4. It discussed issues like fisheries depletion.

By September 2003, the Fifth World Parks Congress opened in Durban, South Africa. Under the theme ' 'benefits beyond boundaries'', it set forth a policy for PAs, blending preservation with sustainable development (1UCN, 2005). The Durban Action Plan produced 32 recommendations, focusing mostly on PAs. Recommendation 5.29 said protected area establishment and management should contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at the very minimum must not contribute to or exacerbate poverty''.

By 2004, the Convention on Biological Diversity's Seventh Conference of Parties adopted a Program of Work on Protected Areas in Kuala Lumpur. It endorsed using PAs to alleviate poverty (Recommendation 2.1.4) as well as new governance models (Recommendation 2.1.2). The conference sought a commitment from nations for bolstering PA creation and management by incorporating regulations into international law (Dudley et al., 2005; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004) (from Kothari, 2009).

By 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment recommended that sovereign governments highlight the ' 'biodiversity service'' benefits that PAs provide (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

In 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, dubbed Rio + 20, convened in Rio de Janeiro from June 20-22. It was a follow-up to the 1992 Earth Summit Conference held at the same location 20 years earlier. Some believe this gathering itself was organized because too little progress was made in implementing Agenda 21 (Speth and Haas, 2006). The Summit promoted the notion of sustainable development and advocated the preservation of biological diversity, largely from a utilitarian point of view.

References

Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B., Wolmer, W., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication

of poverty. Science 306, 1146-1149. Adams, W.M., Hutton, J., 2007. People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Soc. 5 (2), 147-183. Adams, W.M., McShane, T.O., 1992. The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation without Illusion. University of California Press, Berkeley. Agrawal, A., Redford, K., 2006. Poverty, development and biodiversity conservation: shooting in the dark? Working Paper, No. 26. Wildlife Conservation

Society, New York.

Agrawal, A., Redford, K., 2009. Place, conservation and displacement. Conserv. Soc. 7 (1), 56-58.

Albers, H.J., 2010. Spatial modeling of extraction and enforcement in developing country protected areas. Resour. Energy Econ. 32,165-179.

Amend, S., Amend, T., 1995. Balance sheet: inhabitants in national parks—an unsolvable contradiction? In: Amend, S., Amend, T. (Eds.), National Parks without People?: The South American Experience. IUCN, Gland, pp. 446-466.

Andam, K.S., Ferraro, P.J., Sims, K.R.E., Healy, A., Holland, M.B., 2010. Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107(22), 9996-10001.

Andrade, G.I., 2005. Science and society at the World Parks Congress. Conserv. Biol. 19, 4-5.

Aymoz, B.G.P., Randrianjafy, V.R., Randrianjafy, Z.J.N., Khasa, D.P., 2013. Community management of natural resources: a case-study from Ankarafantsika National Park, Madagascar. Ambio 42 (6), 767-775.

Bajiracharya, S.B., Dahul, N., 2008. Shifting Paradigms in Protected Area Management. National Trust for Nature Conservation, Lalitpur.

Baker, J., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Leader-Williams, N., 2011. Parkgazettement and integrated conservation and development as factors in community conflict at Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Conserv. Biol. 26 (1), 160-170.

Bamford, A.J., Ferrol-Schulte, D., Wathan, J., 2014. Human and wildlife usage of a protected area buffer zone in an area of high immigration. Oryx 1-10.

Bandyopadhyay, S., Tempo, G., 2010. Household consumption and natural resource management around national parks in Zambia. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2(1), 39-55.

Barber, C.V., Miller, K.R., Boness, M. (Eds.), 2004. Securing Protected Areas in the Face of Global Change: Issues and Strategies. IUCN, Gland, Cambridge, UK.

Batisse, M., 1997. Biosphere reserves: a challenge for biodiversity conservation and regional development. Environment 39 (5), 8-33.

Berghófer, A., 2010. Protected areas: the weakness of calls for strict protection. GAIA 19 (1), 9-12.

Berrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, S.T., Lassen, B., Patak-Broome, N., Phillips, A., Sandwich, T., 2013. Governance of protected areas: from understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, vol. 20. IUCN, Gland.

Bertzky, B., Corrigan, C., Kemsky, J., Kenney, S., Ravilous, C., Besançon, C., Burgess, N., 2012. Protected Planet Report 2012: Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, and UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Center, Cambridge, UK.

Bishop, K., Dudley, N., Phillips, A., Stolton, S., 2004. Speaking a Common Language: The Uses and Performance of the IUCN Categories for Protected Areas. Cardiff University, Wales, UK, and IUCN, Gland.

Blaustein, R., 2007. Protected areas and equity concerns. BioScience 57, 216-221.

Boitani, L., Cowling, R.M., Dublin, H.T., Mace, G.M., Parrish, J.J., Possingham, H.P., Pressey, R.L., Rondinini, C., Wilson, KA., 2008. Change the IUCN protected area management categories to reflect biodiversity outcomes. PLoS Biol. 6 (3), e66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060066.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., 1999. Collaborative management of protected areas. In: Stolton, S., Dudley, N. (Eds.), Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management for Protected Areas. Earthscan, London, pp. 224-234.

Brandon, K, Redford, F.H., Sanderson, S.E., 1998. Parks in Peril: People, Politics and Protected Areas. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Brechin, S., Murray, G., Mogelgaard, K., 2010. Conceptual and practical issues in defining protected area success: the political, social, and ecological in an organized world. J. Sustain. For. 29 (2-4), 362-389.

Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L., West, P.C., 2002. Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 41-64.

Brenner, L., Arnegger, J., Job, H., 2008. Management of nature-based tourism in protected areas (The case of Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, Mexico). In: Ramos, A.D., Jiménez, P.S. (Eds.), Tourism Development: Economics, Management and Strategy. Nova Science, New York, pp. 47-70.

Brockington, D., 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. International African Institute, Oxford and Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Brockington, D., 2003. Injustice and conservation: is local support necessary for sustainable protected areas?. Policy Matters 12, 22-30.

Browder, J.O., Pedlowski, M.A., Summers, P.M., 2004. Land use patterns in the Brazilian Amazon: comparative farm-level evidence from Rondônia. Hum. Ecol. 33(2), 197-198.

Buscher, B., Whande, W., 2007. Whims of the winds of time? Emerging trends in biodiversity conservation and protected area management. Conserv. Soc. 5(1), 22-43.

Brockington, D., 2004. Community conservation, inequality and injustice: myths of power in protected area management. Conserv. Soc. 2 (2), 411-432.

Brosius, J.P., 2004. Indigenous peoples and protected areas at the World Parks Congress. Conserv. Biol. 18,609-612.

Brown, M., Wyckoff-Baird, B., 1992. Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, revised ed. World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., da Fonseca, G.B.A., 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291,125-128.

Bruner, A., Gullison, R., Balmford, A., 2004. Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. BioScience 54,1119-1126.

Burnham, P., 2000. Indian Country, God's Country: Native Americans and the National Parks. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Caldwell, L.K., 1996. International Environmental Policy: From the Twentieth Century to the Twenty-first Century. Duke University Press, Durham.

Callicott, J.B., Nelson, M.P. (Eds.), 1998. The Great New Wilderness Debate. University of Georgia, Athens.

Campese, J., Sunderland, T., Grieber, T., Oviedo, G., 2009. Rights-based Approaches: Exploring Issues and Opportunities for Conservation. CIFOR, Bogor and IUCN, Gland.

Canavire-Bacarreza, G., Hanauer, M., 2013. Estimating the impacts of Bolivia's protected areas on poverty. World Dev. 41, 265-285.

Carruthers, J., 1995. The Kruger National Park: A Social and Political History. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.

Chapin, M., 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Nov./Dec., 17-31.

Chatty, D., Colchester, M., 2002. Introduction: conservation of mobile indigenous peoples. In: Chatty, D., Colchester, M. (Eds.), Conservation of Mobile and Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development. Berghahn Books, New York, pp. 1-20.

Chicchón, A., 2000. Conservation theory meets practice. Conserv. Biol. 14 (5), 1368-1369.

Christensen, J., 2004. Win-win allusions: facing the rift between people and protected areas. Conserv. Pract. 5(1), 12-19.

Coetzer, K.L., Witkowski, E.T.F., Erasmus, B.N.F., 2014. Reviewing biosphere reserves globally: effective conservation or bureaucratic label. Biol. Rev. 89 (1), 82-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/brv12043.

Colchester, M., 2004a. Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Environ. Sci. Policy 7 (3), 145-153.

Colchester, M., 2004b. Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Cult. Surv. Quart. 28, 17-22.

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004. Programme of Work on Protected Areas. Decision Vll/28 of the Seventh Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Coria, J., Calfucura, E., 2011. Ecotourism and development of indigenous communities: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ecol. Econ. 73, 47-55.

Crofts, R., 2008. Protected areas: from Durban onward. Parks 17 (2), 5-12.

Cronkleton, P., Pulhin,J.M., Saigal, S., 2012. Co-management in community forestry: How the partial devolution of management rights creates management challenges forforest communities. Conserv. Soc. 10 (2), 91-102.

Cundill, G., Thondhlana, G., Sisitka, L., Blore, M., 2013. Land claims and the pursuit of co-management on four protected areas in South Africa. Land Use Policy 35, 171-178.

Damayanti, E.K., Masuda, M., 2008. Implementation process of India Ecodevelopment Project and the sustainability: lessons from Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala State India. Tropics 17 (2), 147-158.

Dasmann, R.F., 1984. The relationship between protected areas and indigenous peoples. In: McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R. (Eds.), National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 667-671.

Dasmann, R.F., 1988. Biosphere reserves, buffers, and boundaries. BioScience 38, 487-489.

Dawe, N.K., Ryan, K.L., 2003. The faulty three-legged-stool model of sustainable development. Conserv. Biol. 17 (5), 1458-1460.

Dearden, P., Bennett, M., Johnston, J., 2005. Trends in global protected area governance 1992-2002. Environ. Manag. 36 (1), 89-100.

DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A.C., Hansen, M.C., 2005. Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecol. Appl. 15(1), 19-26.

Denevan, W.M., 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in 1492. Ann. Am. Geogr. 82(3), 369-385.

Dowie, M., 2005. Conservation refugees. Orion Nov./Dec., 1-8.

Dudley, N., 2009a. Why is biodiversity conservation important in protected landscapes? George Wright Forum 26 (2), 31-38.

Dudley, N., 2009b. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. World Conservation Union (IUCN), Gland, with Stolton, S., Shadie, P., Dudley, N., 2013. IUCN WPCA Best Practice Guidance on Recognizing Protected Areas and Assigning Management Categories and Governance Types, IUCN, Gland.

Dudley, N., Groves, C., Redford, K.H., Stolton, S., 2014. Where now for protected areas? Setting the stage for the 2014 World Parks Congress. Oryx 48 (4), 496-503.

Dudley, N., Harrison, J., Rosabal, P., 2004. The future development of the categories system. Parks 14 (3), 72-81.

Dudley, N., Kormos, C., Locke, H., Martin, V., 2012. Defining wilderness in IUCN. Int. J. Wilderness 18 (1), 9-14.

Dudley, N., Mansourian, S., Stolton, S., Suksawan, S., 2006. Safety Net: Protected Areas and Poverty Reduction. WWF International.

Dudley, N., Mulongoy, S., Cohen, S., Stolton, S., Barber, C.V., Gidda, S.B., 2005. Towards Effective Protected Area Systems: An Action Guide to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series. Vol. 15. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.

Dudley, N., Parrish, J.D., Redford, K.F., Stolton, S., 2010. The revised IUCN protected area management categories: the debate and ways forward. Oryx 44, 485-490.

Dudley, N., Stolton, S. (Eds.), 2008. Defining Protected Areas: An International Conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. IUCN, Gland, Available at: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/almeria_proceedings_final.pdf (Accessed June 2014).

Elliott, J., Roe, D. (Eds.), 2010. The Earthscan Reader in Poverty and Biodiversity Conservation. Earthscan, London.

Estes, A.B., Kuemmerle, T., Radeloff, V.C., Shugart, H.H., 2012. Land-cover change and human population trends in the greater Serengeti ecosystem from 1984-2003. Biol. Conserv. 147, 255-263.

Ferraro, P., Kiss, A., 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298,1718-1719.

Ferraro, P.J., Pattanayak, S., 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105.

Figueroa, F., Sánchez-Cordero, V., 2008. Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use cover change in Mexico. Biodivers. Conserv. 17 (13), 3223-3240.

Fischer, F., 2008. The importance of law enforcement for protected areas: don't step back! Be honest-protect! GAIA 17/S1: 101-103.

Fisher, B., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P.J., Glew, L., Mascia, M., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T.H., 2013. Moving Rio forward and avoiding 10 more years with little evidence for effective conservation policy. Conserv. Biol. 28 (3), 880-885.

Foerster, S., Wilkie, D.S., Blyth, S., de Klerk, H.M., 2011. Human livelihoods and protected areas in Gabon: a cross-sectional comparison of welfare and consumption patterns. Oikos 45, 347-356.

Gardner, C.J., 2011. IUCN management categories fail to represent new, multiple-use protected areas in Madagascar. Oryx 45 (3), 336-346.

Gilbert, V.C., 1988. Cooperation in ecosystem management. In: Agee, J.K., Johnson, D.R. (Eds.), Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. University of Washington Press, Seattle, pp. 180-192.

Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilmin, F., Synge, H., McNeely, J.A., Gundling, L., 1994. A guide of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Environ. Policy and Law Paper No. 30. IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Bonn.

Gómez-Pompa, A., Kaus, A., 1992. Taming the wilderness myth. BioScience 42, 271-279.

Goriup, P. (Ed.), 2004. Parks 14 (2).

Groom, M., Jensen, D.B., Knight, R.L., Gatewood, S., Mills, L.N., Boyd-Heger, L., Mills, L.S., Soulé, M.E., 1999. Buffer zones: benefits and dangers of compatible stewardship. In: Soulé, M.E., Terborgh, J. (Eds.), Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 171-197.

Guha, R., 1989. Radical American environmentalism and wilderness preservation: a third world critique. Environ. Ethics 2(1), 71-83.

Guha, R., 1997. The authoritarian biologist and the arrogance of anti-humanism: wildlife conservation in the third world. Ecologist 27,14-20.

Hackel, J.D., 1999. Community conservation and the future of Africa's wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 13 (4), 726-734.

Hall, J.M., et al., 2014. Ecological and social outcomes of a protected area in Tanzania. Conserv. Biol. 28 (6), 1512-1521.

Hartter, J., Goldman, A., 2011. Local responses to a forest park in western Uganda: alternative narratives on fortress conservation. Oryx 45,60-68.

Haslett, J.R., Berry, P.M., Bela, G., Jongman, R.H.G., Pataki, G., Samways, M.J., Zobel, M., 2010. Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and dynamics. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2963-1977.

Heinen, J., Mehta, J., 2000. Emerging issues in legal and procedural aspects of buffer zone management with case studies from Nepal. J. Environ. Dev. 9(1), 45-67.

Hess, K., 2001. Parks are for people-but which people? In: Anderson, T.L., James, A. (Eds.), The Politics and Economics of Park Management. Rowman and Litchfield, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 159-182.

Hilborn, R., Walters, C.J., Ludwig, D., 1995. Sustainable exploitation of renewable resources. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26,45-67.

Hoffman, D., Fay, D.,Joppa, L., 2011. Introduction: human migration to protected areas edges in Africa and Latin America: questioning large-scale statistical analysis. Conserv. Soc. 9, 1-7.

Holmes, G., 2007. Protection, politics and protest: understanding resistance to conservation. Conserv. Soc. 5 (2), 184-201.

Holmes, G., 2013. Exploringthe relationship between local support and the success of protected areas. Conserv. Soc. 11 (1), 72-82.

Hough, J., 1988. Biosphere reserves: myth and reality? Endangered Species Update 6 (1-2), 1-4.

Hutton, J., 2005. Back to the barriers? Changing narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum Dev. Stud. 32 (2), 341-370.

Ikpa, T.F., Dera, B.A., Jande, J.A., 2009. Biodiversity conservation: why local inhabitants destroy habitat in protected areas. Science World J. 4 (4), 22-27.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), 1980. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN, UNEP and WWF.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Categories. IUCN, World Conservation Monitoring Center, Gland, Cambridge, UK.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2005. Benefits Beyond Boundaries: Proceedings of the Vth World Park Congress. IUCN, Gland, Cambridge, UK.

Ishwaran, N., Persic, A., 2008. Concept and practice: the case of UNESCO biosphere reserves. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 7 (2), 118-131.

Joppa, L.N., Loarie, S.R., Pimm, S.L., 2008. On the protection of' protected areas'. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105,6673-6678.

Kalamandeen, M., Gillson, L., 2007. Demything ''wilderness'': implications for protected area designation and management. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 165-182.

Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2012. What is conservation science? Conserv. Biol. 62 (11), 962-969.

Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A., Lichtenfeld, L.L., 2000. Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric and reality. Soc. Nat. Resour. 13, 705-715.

Kelman, C.C., 2013. Governance lessons from two Sumatran integrated conservation and development projects. Conserv. Soc. 11 (3), 247-263.

Kemp, E. (Ed.), 1993. The Law of the Mother: Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.

Knudsen, A., 1999. Conservation and controversy in the Karakoram: Khunjerab National Park, Pakistan. J. Polit. Ecol. 56, 1-30.

Kolahi, M., Sakai, T., Moriya, K., Makhdoum, M.F., Koyama, L., 2013. Assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas management in Iran: case study in Khojir National Park. Environ. Manag. 52 (2), 514-530.

Kothari, A., 2009. Protected areas and people: the future of the past. Parks 17 (2), 23-34.

Kothari, A., Camill, P., Brown, J., 2013. Conservation as if people also mattered: policy and practice of community-based conservation. Conserv. Soc. 11(1), 1-15.

Kothari, A.P., Pande, P., Singh, S., Variava, D., 1989. Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India: A Status Report. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Kramer, R., van Schaik, R.C., Johnson, J. (Eds.), 1997. Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford University Press, New York.

Kremen, C., Merenlender, A.M., Murphy, D., 1994. Ecological monitoring: a vital need for integrated conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conserv. Biol. 8 (2), 388-397.

Lam, L.M., Paul, S., 2014. Disputed land rights and conservation-led displacement: a double whammy for the poor. Conserv. Soc. 12(1), 65-76.

Lasgorceix, A., Kothari, A., 2009. Displacement and relocation of protected areas: a synthesis and analysis of case studies. Econ. Polit. Weekly XLIV (49), 37-47.

Lausche, B.J., 1980. Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper, vol. 16. IUCN, Gland and UNEP, Nairobi.

Leal, I.S., 2003. Sian Ka'an biosphere reserve: evaluation of management effectiveness. Case study presented at World Parks Congress Preparatory Workshop. In: Managing Effectively in the Face of Change: What Lessons Have We Learned? Linley Estate, Victoria, Australia, 4-7, February, 2003.

Leroux, S.J., Krawchuk, M.A., Schmiegelow, F., Cumming, S.G., Lisgo, K., Anderson, L.G., Petkova, M., 2010. Global protected areas and IUCN designations: do the categories match the conditions? Biol. Conserv. 143,609-616.

Linkie, M., Smith, R.J., Zhu, Y., Martyr, D.J., Suedmeyer, B., Pramono, J., Leader-Williams, N., 2008. Evaluating biodiversity conservation around a large Sumatran protected area. Conserv. Biol. 22 (3), 683-690.

Locke, H., Dearden, P., 2005. Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environ. Conserv. 32 (1), 1-10.

Lockwood, M., Worboys, G.L., Kothari, A., 2006. Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. Earthscan, London.

Lucas, N.J., Loarie, S.R., Pimm, S.L., 2009. On populationgrowth near protected areas. PLoS One 4(1), e4279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004279.

Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., Walters, C., 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260,17-36.

Machlis, G.E., 1992. The contribution of sociology to biodiversity research and management. Biol. Conserv. 62,161-170.

MacKinnon, J., MacKinnon, K., Child, G., Thorsell, J., 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics. IUCN, Gland.

Martinez-Reyes, J.E., 2014. Beyond nature appropriation: towards post-development conservation in the Maya Forest. Conserv. Soc. 12 (2), 162-174.

Martino, D., 2001. Buffer zones around protected areas: a brief literature review. Electron. Green J. 1 (15), Article 2. http://repositories.cblib.org/uclalib/egj/vol1/iss15/art2.

Martino, D., 2005. Unleashing the wild: response to Locke and Dearden's 'rethinking protected area categories'. Environ. Conserv. 32 (3), 195-196.

McCaffrey, D., Landazuri, H., 1987. Wildlands and Human Needs: A Program Evaluation. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

McClanahan, T., 2004. The limits to beyond boundaries. Parks 14 (2), 30-33.

McDonald, R.I., Boucher, T.M., 2011. Global development and the future of the protected area strategy. Biol. Conserv. 144, 383-392.

McNeely, J. (Ed.), 1993. Parks for Life-Report of the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Cambridge, UK.

McNeely, J., Miller, R.K., 1984. National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

McNeely, J., Harrison, J., Dingwall, P.R., 1994. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland.

McShane, T.O., Wells, M.P., 2003. Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development. Columbia University Press, New York.

McShane, T.O., et al., 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144,966-972.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Miller, ICR., Barber, C.V., 2008. Protected areas: science, policy, and management to meet the challenges in the twenty-first century. In: Rockwood, L.E., Stewart, R.E., Dietz, T. (Eds.), Foundations of Environmental Sustainability: The Coevolution of Science and Policy. Oxford University Press, UK, pp. 81-97.

Miller, T.R., Minteer, B.A., Malan, L.C., 2011. The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biol. Conserv. 144, 948-957.

Molewa, B.E.E., 2012. Biodiversity Policy and Strategy for South Africa: Strategy for Buffer Zones for National Parks. Notice 106 of 2012. Staatskoerant, 8 February 2012, No. 35020.

Mulder, M.B., Caro, T., 2007. The role of research in evaluating conservation strategies in Tanzania: the case of the Katavi-Rukwa ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. 21 (3), 647-658.

Muradian, R., et al., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 6 (4), 274-279.

Myers, N., 1972. National parks in savanna Africa. Science 178 (4067), 1255-1263.

Nagendra, H., 2008. Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio 37,330-337.

National Park Service, 1970. Administrative Policies for the National Parks and Monuments of Scientific Significance (Natural Area Category). Appendix C. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B., 2005. The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 219-252.

Nelson, J.G., 1978. International experience with national parks and related reserves. In: Nelson, J.G., Needham, R.D., Mann, D.L. (Eds.), International Experience with National Parks and Related Reserves. Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, pp. 1-27.

Neumann, R.P., 1997. Primitive ideas: protected area buffer zones and the politics of land in Africa. Dev. Change 28, 559-582.

Newmark, W.D., Hough, J.L., 2000. Conserving wildlife in Africa: integrated conservation and development projects and beyond. BioScience 50,585-592.

Oates, J., 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa. University of California, Berkeley.

Ogra, M., Badola, R., 2008. Compensating human-wildlife conflict in protected area communities: ground-level perspectives from Uttarakhand, India. Hum. Ecol. 36 (5), 717-729.

Oldfield, S., 1988. Buffer Zone Management in Tropical Moist Forests: Case Studies and Guidelines. IUCN, Gland.

Palamo, I., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., Gonzáles, A., García-Llorente, M., Alcorlo, P., Mora, M.R.G., 2014. Incorporating the social-ecological approach in protected areas in the Anthropocene. BioScience 64 (3), 181-191.

Pandey, S., Wells, M.P., 1997. Ecodevelopment planning at India's Great Himalayan National Park for biodiversity conservation and participatory rural development. Biol. Conserv. 6 (9), 1277-1292.

Parr,J.W.K., et al., 2013. Multi-level co-management ingovernment-designated protected areas—opportunities to learn from models in mainland Southeast Asia. Parks 19(2), 59-74.

Paudel, N.S., Budhathoki, P., Sharma, U.R., 2007. Buffer zones: new frontiers for participatory conservation. J. For. Livlihood 6 (2), 44-53.

Peluso, N.L., 1993. Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global Environ. Change 199-217. June.

Peres, C.A., 2011. Conservation in sustainable-use tropical forest reserves. Conserv. Biol. 25 (6), 1124-1129.

Peres, C., Terborgh, J., 1995. Amazonian nature reserves: an analysis of the defensibility status of existing conservation units and design criteria for the future. Conserv. Biol. 9(1), 34-46.

Petursson, J.G., Vedeld, P., 2015. The ''nine-lives'' of protected areas. A historical-institutional analysis from the transboundary Mt. Elgon, Uganda and Kenya. Land Use Policy 42, 251-263.

Pfeifer, M., Burgess, N.D., Swetman, R.D., Plattes, P.J., Willocks, S., Marchant, R., 2012. Protected areas: mixed success in conserving East Africa's evergreen forests. PLoS One http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039337.

Phillips, A., 1999. Working landscapes as protected areas. In: Stolton, S., Dudley, N. (Eds.), Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management for Protected Areas. Earthscan, London, pp. 205-214.

Phillips, A., 2002. Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas: Protected Landscapes and Seascapes. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, vol. 9. IUCN, Gland.

Phillips, A., 2003a. Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm for protected areas. George Wright Forum 20 (2), 8-32.

Phillips, A., 2003b. The Durban Accord-Our Global Commitment for People and the Earth's Protected Areas.

Available at: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wpca/wpc2003/pdfs/Proceedings/durbanaccordpdf (Accessed November 2014).

Phillips, A., 2004. The history of the international system of protected area management categories. Parks 14 (3), 4-14.

Posey, D.A. (Ed.), 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. Intermediate Technology and UNEP, Nairobi.

Prato, T., Fagre, D., 2005. National Parks and Protected Areas: Approaches for Balancing Social, Economic and Ecological Values. Blackwell, Oxford.

Price, M., 1996. People in biosphere reserves: an evolving concept. Soc. Nat. Resour. 9,645-654.

Price, M., 2002. The periodic review of biosphere reserves: a mechanism to foster sites of excellence for conservation and sustainable development. Environ. Sci. Policy 5,13-18.

Pritchard, J.A., 1999. Preserving Yellowstone's Natural Conditions: Science and the Perception of Nature. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Rangarajan, M., Shahabuddin, G., 2006. Relocation from protected areas. Conserv. Soc. 4 (3), 359-378.

Redford, K.H., 1991. The ecologically noble savage. Cult. Surv. Quart. 15 (1), 46-48.

Reed, M.G., Massie, M.M., 2013. Embracing ecological learning and social learning: UNESCO biosphere reserves as exemplars of changing conservation practices. Conserv. Soc. 11 (4), 391-405.

Robinson, J.G., 1993. The limits of caring: sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 7(1), 20-28.

Robinson, E.J.Z., Albers, H.J., Busby, G.M., 2013. The impact of buffer zone size and management on illegal extraction, park protection, and enforcement. Ecol. Econ. 92, 96-103.

Robinson, J.G., Ginsberg, J.R., 2004. Parks, people and pipelines. Conserv. Biol. 18 (3), 607-608.

Robinson, E.J.Z., Kumar, A.M., Albers, H.J., 2010. Protecting developing countries' forests: enforcement in theory and practice. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2 (1), 25-38.

Robinson, J.G., Redford, K.H., 1991. Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Robles, W., 2001. The landless rural workers movement (MST) in Brazil. J. Peasant Stud. 28 (3), 146-166.

Roe, D., 2008. The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: a review of key literature, events and policy responses. Oryx 42, 491-503.

Roe, D., Elliott, J., 2004. Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: rebuilding the bridges. Oryx 38,137-139.

Roe, D., Elliott, J., 2006. Pro-poor conservation: the elusive win-win for conservation and poverty reduction. Policy Matters 14, 53-63.

Roe, D., Elliot, J., Sandbrook, C., Walpole, M. (Eds.), 2013a. Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation: Exploring the Evidence for a Link. John Wiley, West Sussex, New York.

Roe, D., Mohammed, E.Y., Porras, I., Giuliani, A., 2013b. Linking biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction: de-polarizing the conservation-poverty debate. Conserv. Lett. 6, 162-171.

Sachs, J.D., et al., 2009. Biodiversity conservation and the millennium development goals. Science 325 (3947), 1502-1503.

Salafsky, N., Margolis, R., 1999. Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conserv. Biol. 13, 830-841.

Salafsky, N., et al., 2011. Integrating development with conservation: a means to a conservation end, or a mean end to conservation? Biol. Conserv. 144 (3), 966-972.

Sanderson, S.E., Redford, K.H., 2003. Contested relationships between biodiversity and conservation and poverty alleviation. Oryx 37, 389-390.

Sarkar, S., 1999. Wilderness preservation and biodiversity conservation—keeping divergent goals distinct. BioScience 49 (5), 405-412.

Sayer, J., 1991. Rainforest Buffer Zones: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. IUCN, Morges.

Schelhas, J., 2001. The USA national parks in international perspective: have we learned the wrong lesson? Environ. Conserv. 28 (4), 300-304.

Scherl, L.M., Wilson, A., Wild, R., Blockhus, J., Franks, P., McNeely, J.A., McShane, T.O., 2004. Can Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction? Opportunities and Limitations. IUCN, Gland, Cambridge, UK.

Scholte, P., 2003. Immigration, a potential time-bomb under the integration of conservation and development. Ambio 32,58-64.

Schonewald, C.M., 2001. Introduction to boundary space. Complexity 6,41-57.

Schonewald-Cox, C., 1988. Boundaries in the protection of nature reserves. BioScience 38, 480-486.

Schwartzman, S., Moreira, A., Nepstad, D., 2000. Rethinking tropical forest conservation: perils in parks. Conserv. Biol. 14 (5), 1351-1357.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004. Program of Work on Protected Areas. Author, Montreal.

Shafer, C.L., 1999a. National park and reserve planning to protect biological diversity: some basic elements. Landsc. Urban Plann. 44,123-153.

Shafer, C.L., 1999b. US national park buffer zones: historical, scientific, social and legal aspects. Environ. Manage. 23,49-73.

Shafer, C.L., 2001. Conservation biology trailblazers: George Wright, Ben Thompson, and Joseph Dixon. Conserv. Biol. 15,332-344.

Shafer, C.L., 2010. The unspoken option to help safeguard America's national parks: an examination of expanding US national park boundaries by annexing adjacent federal lands. Columbia J. Environ. Law 35 (1), 57-125.

Shafer, C.L., 2012. Chronology of awareness about US national park external threats. Environ. Manage. 50,1098-1110.

Shelford, V.E., 1933a. Ecological Society of America: a nature sanctuary plan unanimously adopted by the society, December 28,1932. Ecology 14,240-245.

Shelford, V.E., 1933b. Nature sanctuaries—a means of saving natural biotic communities. Science 77 (1994), 281-282.

Shelford, V.E., 1933c. The preservation of natural biotic communities. Ecology 14 (2), 240-245.

Soule, M., 2014. The new conservation. Conserv. Biol. 27 (5), 895-897.

Southworth, J., Nagendra, H., Munroe, D.K., 2006. Introduction to a special issue: are parks working? Exploring human-environment tradeoffs in protected area conservation. Appl. Geogr. 26 (2), 87-95.

Spence, M.D., 1999. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks. Oxford University Press, New York.

Speth, J.G., Haas, P.M., 2006. Global Environmental Governance. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Stankey, G.H., 1989. Linking parks to people: the key to effective management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2, 245-250.

Stevens, S. (Ed.), 1997. Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Stevens, S., 2014a. Indigenous peoples, biocultural diversity, and protected areas. In: Stevens, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and Protected Areas: A New Paradigm Linking Conservation, Culture and Rights. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 15-46.

Stevens, S., 2014b. A new protected area paradigm. In: Stevens, S. (Ed.), Indigenous Peoples, National Parks, and Protected Areas: A New Paradigm Linking Conservation, Culture and Rights. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 47-83.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., Bender, S., Berghöfer, A., Bertzky, M., Fritz-Vietta, N., Schliep, R., Thierfelder, B., 2006. Linking Governance and Management Perspectives with Conservation Success in Protected Areas and Biosphere Reserves. GoBi Research Group, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Available at: gobi-project@agrar.hu-berlin.dewwww.biodiversitygoverance.de (Accessed April 2014).

Stoll-Kleemann, S., de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., Schultz, L., 2010. The role of community participation in the effectiveness of UNESCO biosphere reserve management: evidence and reflections from two parallel global surveys. Environ. Conserv. 37 (3), 227-238.

Talbot, L.M., 1984. Closing address. In: McNeely, J.A., Miller, ICR. (Eds.), National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 752-753.

Talbot, L.M., Olindo, P., 1990. Amboseli and Maasai Mara, Kenya. In: Kiss, A. (Ed.), Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa. World Bank Technical Paper, vol. 30. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 67-74.

Tangley, L., 1988. A new era for biosphere reserves. BioScience 38, 148-155.

Task Force on Economic Benefits of Protected Areas of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of IUCN, 1998. Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, vol. 2. IUCN, Gland, Cambridge, UK.

Terborgh, J., 1999. Requiem for Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Terborgh, J., 2004. Reflections of a scientist on the World Parks Congress. Conserv. Biol. 18,619-620.

Terborgh, J., 2005. Science and society at the World Parks Congress. Conserv. Biol. 19, 5-6.

Terborgh, J., Peres, C.A., 2002. The problem of people in parks. In: Terborgh, J., van Schaik, C., Rao, M., Davenport, L. (Eds.), Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 307-319.

Terborgh, J., van Schaik, C., 2002. Why the world needs parks. In: Terborgh, J., van Schaik, C., Rao, M., Davenport, L. (Eds.), Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 3-14.

Tolisano, J., 2000. Bridging culture and nature: an international perspective to national parks and rural development. In: Machlis, G.E., Field, D.R. (Eds.), National Parks and Rural Development: Practice and Policy in the United States. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 243-265.

Tumusiime, D.M., Vedeld, P., 2012. False promise or false premise? Using tourism revenue sharing to promote conservation and poverty reduction. Conserv. Soc. 10(1), 15-28.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 1974. Task Force On: Criteria and Guidelines for the Choice and Establishment of Biosphere Reserves. Final Report. Report Series 22. UNESCO, Paris.

United Nations General Assembly 1982. World Charter for Nature 1982. Available at: http://www.un.org/document/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm (Accessed April 2014).

Upton, C., Ladle, R., Hume, D., Jiang, T., Brockington, D., Adams, W.M., 2008. Are poverty and protected area establishment linked at a national scale? Oryx 42(1), 19-25.

van Schaik, C., Rijksen, H.D., 2002. Integrated conservation and development projects: problems and potential. In: Terborgh, J., van Schaik, C., Davenport, L., Rao, M. (Eds.), Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 15-29.

van Schaik, C., Terborgh, J., Davenport, L., Rao, M., 2002. Making parks work: past, present and future. In: Terborgh, J., van Schaik, C., Davenport, L., Rao, M. (Eds.), Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 468-481.

Weber, R., Butler, J., Larson, P., 2000. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation Organizations: Experiences in Collaboration. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.

Weeks, P., Mehta, S., 2004. Managing people and landscapes: IUCN's protected area categories. J. Hum. Ecol. 16 (4), 253-263.

Wells, M.P., Brandon, K.E., 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. World Bank, World Wildlife Fund and USAID, Washington, DC.

Wells, M.P., Brandon, K.E., 1993. The principles and practice of buffer zones and local participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22,157-162.

West, P.C., Brechlin, S.R. (Eds.), 1991. Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

West, P., Brockington, D., 2006. An anthropological perspective on some unexpected consequences of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 20 (3), 609-616.

West, P., Igoe, J., Brockington, D., 2006. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251-277.

Western, D., Wright, R.W., 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Williams, G.W., 2000. Introduction to aboriginal fire use in North America. Fire Manage. Today 60 (3), 8-12.

Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L., West, P.C., 2002. Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent 'protection paradigm' in international biodiversity conservation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 17-40.

Wittenmyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W.T., Coleman, A., Burton, O., Brashares, J.S., 2008. Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Science 321,123-125.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, UK.

Wright, G.M., Dixon, J.S., Thompson, B.H., 1933. Fauna of the National Parks of the United States: A Preliminary Survey of Faunal Relations in National Parks. Fauna Series 1. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Wright, G.M., Thompson, B.H., 1935. Fauna of the National Parks of the United States: Wildlife Management in the National Parks. Fauna Series 2. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Zaccarelli, N., Riitters, K.H., Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., 2008. Indicating disturbance content and context for preserved areas. Ecol. Indic. 8, 841-853.

Znajda, S.K., 2014. What is 'successful development' in conservation and development projects? Insights from two Nicaraguan case studies. Conserv. Soc. 12(3), 318-328.

Zommers, Z., MacDonald, D.W., 2011. Protected areas as frontiers for human migration. Conserv. Biol. 26 (3), 547-556.