754 W. Sharkey et al.


TABLE 1 The proposed framework for analysing the contributions of local residents to protected area law enforcement (Fig. 1) applied to real-world case study examples to illustrate its utility in comparing the characteristics of different approaches to involving local residents in protected area law enforcement. The information displayed is based on the literature reviewed.


Community wardens, Cardamom Mountains landscape, Cambodia


Involvement of local residents at different points in the enforcement system


Nature of local participation in decision-making


Type of external support provided to local residents


Motivating force for local participation


Extent to which local participation is formalized


Key references


(1) Detection (provide intelligence, patrol-based monitoring)


(2) Threat removal (3) Sanctioning (social)


Participate in implementing deci- sions, although wardens also have some decision-making capacity Financial, training, equipment


Likely to be a mix of extrinsic & intrinsic motivations


Participating formally & receiving remuneration


Simpson et al. (2006)


The Prey Lang Community Network, Cambodia


(1) Detection (provide intelligence, patrol-based monitoring)


(2) Threat removal (3) Sanctioning (social)


Participate in decision-making&in implementing decisions


Technical


Participating informally, with no formal enforcement power


Brofeldt et al. (2018), Turreira-García et al. (2018), Prey Lang Community Network (2022)


The Community of Arran Seabed Trust, Scotland


(1) Community engage- ment (raise awareness of rules)


(2) Detection (provide intelligence)


(3) Oversight


Participate in decision- making & in implementing decisions None


Primarily intrinsically motivated Primarily intrinsically motivated


Participating formally in a voluntary capacity COAST (2022a,b)


area law enforcement and could help frame discussions and facilitate clear communication between people living in and around protected areas and the institutions responsible for their management. Here we discuss some of the practical considerations involved in applying the framework in dif- ferent ways.


Variation in local participation within the protected area law enforcement system


Local contributions to protected area enforcement operate in politically, socially, economically and environmentally dynamic contexts (Ostrom, 2009). The ways in which local residents participate can change across time and space, and engagement can be influenced by changing pol- itical, cultural, economic and social variables. Motivations for participation could, for example, change in response to a perceived threat or in response to new employment opportunities. Community engagement in enforcement can be influ-


enced by where people live in relation to a protected area and the extent to which local residents depend on protected area resources for their livelihoods. Engagement can also vary between local community groups and Indigenous Peoples. Local participation is likely to depend on the extent to which people have rights over their land and natural re- sources, the extent to which these rights are recognized and whether people have their own rules upon which enforce- ment is based. The Ogiek, for example, are an Indigenous People of Kenya whose culture, traditions and identity


centre around their ancestral land, the Mau Forest (Kenrick et al., 2023). The Ogiek have established community scouts to deter illegal logging activity and have developed a pro- tocol that lays out a set of rules for protecting and con- serving the forest (Claridge & Kobei, 2023). In some cases, local participation in decision-making,


the type of external support provided to local residents and the motivation for and formalization of participation may each be adequately captured by a simple summary. In practice, however, these characteristics can vary con- siderably across different parts of the enforcement system. For instance, local residents may receive external support for contributing to detection efforts but receive little assistance when it comes to administrating sanctions. Furthermore, dimensions of local community involvement can vary within individual elements of the enforcement system. In Kerinci Seblat National Park, for example, community rangers contribute to detection by participating in routine foot patrols, but they also oversee a network of local informants who inform intelligence- based patrolling (Linkie et al., 2015). The framework can be used to illuminate this variation,


as each dimension of local community involvement can be examined independently across all elements of the enforce- ment system (Supplementary Table 1). By drawing on the framework, stakeholders such as protected area managers can assess whether, for example, local residents feel they are receiving appropriate support for participating in dif- ferent elements of enforcement. In Community Resource Management Areas in Ghana (initially introduced by the


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