748 W. Sharkey et al.


‘biodiversity conservation’ AND ‘enforcement’; ‘protected area*’ OR ‘reserve’ OR ‘world heritage site*’ OR ‘national park*’ AND ‘community participation’ OR ‘local participa- tion’. The search terms used were non-exhaustive, and we recognize that enforcement activities may fall within the purview of ‘management’ or ‘monitoring’ in certain settings. We did not restrict the search of the literature to a particu- lar geographical area or a specific time frame. This search strategy culminated in an initial set of results,


which we used as a basis for backwards reference searching to identify key literature on community participation in the context of conservation and conservation law enforcement. From these two sets of literaturewe conducted an additional reference search to compile a bibliography of the commu- nity participation literature, a bibliography of the literature on protected area law enforcement and a bibliography of the community policing literature (Supplementary Material 1). Paying particular attention to real-world case studies, we applied a short set of criteria to the community participa- tion and protected area law enforcement literature. Three criteria all had to be met for a study, article or report to be considered for inclusion: (1)Astudy, articleor reportthatde- scribes a terrestrial or marine protected area or an area that is associated with protected area management such as a buffer zone. (2)Astudy, article or report thatmentions enforcement. In recognition that a protected area can be governed through multiple legal systems (e.g. national law and customary law; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013), we did not apply a strict definition of law enforcement. Rather, we considered law enforcement as synonymous with enforcement of rules. (3) A study, article or report that describes the contributions or participation of local residents. Local residents could refer to Indigenous Peoples and/or members of local community groups.We included literature using terms such as ‘commu- nity scouts’, ‘wardens’, ‘guardians’, ‘guards’ and ‘local rangers’. We coded information on the characteristics of ap-


proaches to involving local residents in protected area en- forcement and grouped it into the following themes: the aim of the approach, the activities carried out by local resi- dents and the institutional structure of the approach (i.e. how the approach is governed). We also recorded financial and/or non-financial benefits (e.g. a sense of pride) that local residents reportedly receive through their participa- tion. During this data-coding process we discussed emer- ging themes and refined them. This iterative process resulted in a first draft of the framework. During February–May 2022, we applied the draft frame-


work to three specific case studies to ground it in real-world experience.Wechose the first case study (a community war- den patrol scheme in south-west Cambodia) for in-depth analysis and preliminary validation of the framework. We chose this as it represents a relatively widely implemented approach to community engagement and because of the willingness of the implementing partners to engage with


our study. We then chose two other case studies from our literature review, to provide contrasting contexts, geograph- ies and types of involvement of local people. These enabled further refinement and checking of our framework. For case study 1, a review of project documentation was


conducted from Fauna & Flora’s office in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, to assess how a community warden patrol scheme related to the components of the draft framework. We also used the draft framework to guide discussions with six Fauna & Flora staff members, two of whom were government counterparts. We considered these individuals to be key informants as much of their day-to-day work fo- cused on the management and coordination of the scheme. We engaged with all Fauna & Flora staff who were poten- tially key informants. Discussions were semi-structured and concerned the activities of the community wardens, their motivations for participating in the scheme and the support they receive from different stakeholder groups. We also discussed practical considerations regarding applying the framework. Discussions were typically 1 h long, face-to-face in a private setting. We did not record names of staff members, and we collected the information in a notebook. We obtained informed consent verbally. We coded the information obtained through discussions


with Fauna & Flora staff members and mapped it to the components of the draft framework, resulting in a number of modifications. We incorporated ‘threat removal’, for ex- ample, as an additional element of the enforcement system as we felt that the removal of some illegal equipment such as small fishing nets or hooks may not necessarily be done to sanction rule-breakers but instead to remove a threat. However, the confiscation of larger, more valuable equip- ment, such as a chainsaw, could also constitute a sanction.


Results


Dimensions of local community involvement in protected area law enforcement


The framework comprises five dimensions: (1) the involve- ment of local residents at different points in the enforce- ment system, (2) the nature of local participation in decision-making, (3) the type of external support provided to local residents, (4) the motivating forces for local partic- ipation, and (5) the extent to which local participation is formalized (Fig. 1). When examined collectively, these dimensions help articulate the characteristics of different approaches for involving local residents in protected area law enforcement.


Involvement of local residents at different points in the enforcement system


Building on the concept of an enforcement chain (Akella & Cannon, 2004), enforcement can be understood as a linked


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


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