Review
A framework for understanding the contributions of local residents to protected area lawenforcement
WILLIAM SHARK EY * 1 , 2 ,E.
J.MILNER-GULLAND2 PABL O S INO VAS 3 and AIDA N KEAN E 1
Abstract Terrestrial and marine protected areas have long been championed as an approach to biodiversity conserva- tion. For protected areas to be effective, equitable and inclu- sive, the involvement of local residents in their management and governance is considered important. Globally, there are many approaches to involving local residents in protected area law enforcement. However, opportunities for compar- ing different approaches have been limited by the lack of a clear common framework for analysis. To support a more holistic understanding, we present a framework for analys- ing the contributions of local residents to protected area law enforcement. Informed by a review of the literature and dis- cussions with conservation practitioners, the framework comprises five key dimensions: (1) the different points in the enforcement system at which local residents are in- volved, (2) the nature of local participation in decision-mak- ing, (3) the type of external support provided to local residents, (4) the different motivating forces for participa- tion, and (5) the extent to which local participation is for- malized. We apply the framework to three real-world case studies to demonstrate its use in analysing and compar- ing the characteristics of different approaches. We suggest this framework could be used to examine variation in local participation within the enforcement system, inform evalua- tion and frame constructive discussions between relevant stakeholders. With the global coverage of protected areas likely to increase, the framework provides a foundation for better understanding the contributions of local residents to protected area law enforcement.
Keywords Community engagement, framework, law enforcement, monitoring, participation, protected areas, rule-breaking
The supplementary material for this article is available at
doi.org/10.1017/S0030605323001758
Introduction
tected area coverage. As conservationists strive to meet these new goals, the importance of local participation in protected area management is likely to increase. Although the participation of local residents is increasingly recognized as important for informing decisions, improving effective- ness, enhancing equity (Schreckenberg et al., 2016) and miti- gating conflicts (Beaumont, 1997), knowledge of the current breadth and nature of local participation is limited. The IUCN defines a protected area as ‘a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long- term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem ser- vices and cultural values’ (Dudley, 2008,p. 8). Protected areas take a diversity of forms, including reserves, national parks, private lands, and Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (Brockington et al., 2008). They can be governed by both de jure regulations contained in law and de facto regulations, which are those actually experienced by local residents (Holmes&Brockington, 2012). These regula- tions seek to control and regulate access to natural resources (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013), but they are only effective if people comply with them. The approaches protected area managers use to improve compliance differ between and within protected areas and reflect institutional values, pro- tected area objectives and available resources. However, effective enforcement is often seen as vital for success- ful natural resource management (Keane et al., 2008). Enforcement intends to reduce the benefits people expect
T
*Corresponding author,
W.Sharkey@
sms.ed.ac.uk 1School of GeoSciences, Edinburgh, UK 2Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Department of Biology,
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 3Fauna & Flora, Cambridge, UK
Received 10 July 2023. Revision requested 14 September 2023. Accepted 13 November 2023. First published online 1 April 2024.
to receive from engaging in illegal activity (Albers & Grinspoon, 1997). It can be understood as ‘monitoring ad- herence to rules and agreements and punishing infractions when they are detected’ (Keane et al., 2008,p. 75). Punishments can take multiple forms and include fines, the confiscation of equipment, prison sentences and social opprobrium (Clarke et al., 1993; Roe, 2015). Enforcing pro- tected area rules effectively through traditional ranger-based approaches is often expensive and impeded by factors such as a lack of funding, and inadequate training and equipment (Ogunjinmi et al., 2008; Meduna et al., 2009; Critchlow et al., 2017). In addition, these approaches can be viewed as externally imposed and unjust, inflicting costs on people
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. Oryx, 2024, 58(6), 746–758 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001758
he Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework has set ambitious new targets to expand global pro-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
