Measuring conservation success beyond the traditional biological criteria: the case of conservation projects in Costa Rica, Mekong Valley, and Cameroon
Rebecca Johns and
Natural Resources Forum, 2018, vol. 42, issue 1, 19-31
Traditionally, the criteria used to measure conservation success or failure are based on biological factors. Biological factors include changes in the amount of targeted conserved species, biodiversity, and total area conserved. However, conservation efforts are not simply a matter of biological concern; environmental, political, social, and conflict pressures on different scales (ranging from local to global) also have strong influences on the outcome of conservation. These other factors can either pose threats to or enhance conservation, but are not addressed by current criteria. Using a proposed holistic rubric that includes interdisciplinary fields, this paper examines a set of conservation factors on different scales â€“ ranging from local to global â€“ to determine their importance in conservation. The paper analyses positive factor influences with more successful conservation and negative factor influences with less successful, or failed, conservation attempts. Neutral and nonâ€ applicable factor influences are also identified, defined, and ranked as a standardization mechanism. The determination of success changed when the holistic rubric was applied to conservation projects in Costa Rica, Mekong Valley, and Cameroon. In the Costa Rica case study, conservation success for Guanacaste and Talamanca national parks is rated â€˜moderately lowâ€™. In the case of Mekong Valley, conservation success is rated â€˜lowâ€™ for Lower Mekong, â€˜moderately lowâ€™ for Greater Annamites, and â€˜lowâ€™ for Phong Nhaâ€ Ke Bang national parks. Cameroon's Congo Basin and Sangha Triâ€ National conservation efforts are both rated â€˜lowâ€™, while Dja Faunal is rated â€˜very lowâ€™. We conclude that if conservation efforts are to attain a high level of success, the strategy for global conservation must move away from the traditional biological approach, which focuses mainly on biological concerns, and embrace a holistic approach, which in addition to biological concerns, addresses environmental, political, social, and conflict pressures, which have strong influences on the outcomes of conservation.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:natres:v:42:y:2018:i:1:p:19-31
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Natural Resources Forum from Blackwell Publishing
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().