Protected area law enforcement 755
forestry administration to incentivize local participation in protected area management), for instance, members con- sider patrolling and arresting rule-breakers to be key re- sponsibilities, but they feel that uniforms, official identify cards and allowances are needed for them to have capacity to make arrests (Mawutor & Hajjar, 2022). In situations such as this, stakeholders could use the framework in a workshop setting to assess the need for different types of ex- ternal support across relevant sections of the enforcement system. Institutions pursuing a participatory approach to pro-
tected area law enforcement could use the framework at regular intervals to assess whether, for example, motivations for local participation or perceptions of participation in decision-making are shifting, to support adaptive manage- ment (Weeks & Jupiter, 2013). In cases where community groups contribute to protected area enforcement on a col- lective level, individuals may view their participation in dif- ferent ways, and there could be a mix of different motivations for participation. As such, the framework could be used in amore granular way to identify differences in opinion and the range of motivations.
Aiding the evaluation of participatory approaches to protected area law enforcement
The framework provides a platform for conducting different types of evaluation of participatory approaches to protected area law enforcement. Firstly, it can be used to support the ex-ante design of law enforcement programmes (Samset & Christensen, 2017). Protected area managers and conserva- tion practitioners can draw on the framework to consider the different ways in which local residents could and poten- tially should contribute to enforcement. Secondly, it can be used to support an interim evaluation by, for example, supporting government agencies and conservation NGOs to review their approaches to law enforcement, specifically with regard to the role that local residents are play- ing. Correspondingly, local residents can assess the ex- tent of their participation and level of contribution. This could help to build an understanding of how local involve- ment in law enforcement is perceived by different stake- holder groups and highlight gaps in local participation (Bennett, 2016). The framework could also be used to assess the perceived relative importance of specific contributions to enforcement (Supplementary Fig. 1) along with the per- ceived effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of contributions. This could help to inform management decisions and guide protected area managers and conservation practitioners in delegating responsibility and directing resources. Thirdly, the framework could form the basis of ex-post evaluations. Stakeholder groups can use it to structure their examination of outcomes and to reflect and learn (Plummer & Armitage,
2007). This could help to inform the design of future partici- patory approaches to protected area law enforcement.
Communicating between stakeholders
The framework is intended to help facilitate communication between stakeholders. Conservation practitioners working with local community groups can draw on the framework to aid discussions on how local residents could contribute to elements of enforcement, why and when they may want to participate and how local residents could be supported (Supplementary Table 1). In doing so, the framework could help to clarify expectations, priorities and objectives and ensure that the wishes of local residents align with the aims and objectives of external institutions. Stakeholders should use the framework in an environment that allows the voices of all participants or potential contributors to be heard (Durand & Lazos, 2008; Staddon et al., 2021). Involving local residents in protected area law enforce-
ment aims to increase the costs of engaging in rule-breaking behaviour (Cooney et al., 2017). However, it does not re- present a silver bullet for mitigating illegal activities (Roe & Booker, 2019). Other actions such as incentivizing wildlife stewardship by promoting ecotourism could also help to minimize rule-breaking behaviour (Biggs et al., 2017). Moreover, certain situations, such as escalating mi- litarization of an area, could render local participation in protected area law enforcement inappropriate (Massé et al., 2017). Fundamentally, local residents should benefit from participation and be able to decide for themselves whether they wish to contribute to approaches that are equ- itable, inclusive and respectful of their rights (Newing & Perram, 2019). As the global network of protected areas expands, further research is required to understand which approaches to law enforcement work best for people and nature in different contexts. This paper aims to facilitate future comparative research by providing a basis for examining the prevalence, variation and effectiveness of different models of community engagement in the context of protected area law enforcement.
Author contributions Study design: all authors; writing: WS, EJM-G, AK.
Acknowledgements This research was supported through the Natural Environment Research Council’s E4 Doctoral Training Partnership (grant NE/S007407/1). We thank Chinchumratha Hul, Hor Leng, Mark Bowman, Ollie Roberts and Sam Han for providing technical support, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards and was approved by the Research and Integrity
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
