| Records |
| Author |
Baral N.; Stern, M.; Heinen, J.T. |
| Title |
Integrated conservation and development project life cycles in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal: Is development overpowering conservation? |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2007 |
Publication |
Biodiversity Conservation |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
16 |
Issue |
10 |
Pages |
2903-2917 |
| Keywords |
annapurna; Biodiversity conservation; community-based; conservation; Gender; management; Nepal; protected area; development; project; annapurna conservation area; Annapurna-Conservation-Area; area |
| Abstract |
The merits of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs), which aim to provide development incentives to citizens in return for conservation behaviors, have long been debated in the literature. Some of the most common critiques suggest that conservation activities tend to be strongly overpowered by development activities. We studied this assertion through participant observation and archival analysis of five Conservation Area Management Committees (CAMCs) in the Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA), Nepal. Committee activities were categorized as conservation activities (policy development and conservation implementation), development activities (infrastructure, health care, education, economic development, and sanitation), or activities related to institutional strengthening (administrative development and capacity building activities). Greater longevity of each ICDP was associated with greater conservation activity in relation to development activities. Project life cycles progressed from a focus on development activities in their early stages, through a transitional period of institutional strengthening, and toward a longer-term focus that roughly balanced conservation and development activities. Results suggest that the ICDP concept, as practiced in ACA, has been successful at building capacity for and interest in conservation amongst local communities. However, success has come over a period of nearly a decade, suggesting that prior conclusions about ICDP failures may have been based on unrealistic expectations of the time needed to influence behavioral changes in target populations. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication  |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
SLN @ rana @ 938 |
Serial |
117 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Ale, S.; Whelan, C. |
| Title |
Reappraisal of the role of big, fierce predators |
Type |
Miscellaneous |
| Year |
2008 |
Publication |
Biodiversity Conservation |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
685-690 |
| Keywords |
Biodiversity ú Conservation ú Costs of predation ú Indirect effects ú Non-lethal effects ú Predators ú Top-down control; big; predators; predator |
| Abstract |
The suggestion in the early 20th century that top predators were a necessary component of ecosystems because they hold herbivore populations in check and promote biodiversity was at Wrst accepted and then largely rejected. With the advent of Evolutionary Ecology and a more full appreciation of direct and indirect effects of top predators, this role of top predators is again gaining acceptance. The previous views were predicated upon lethal effects of predators but largely overlooked their non-lethal effects. We suggest that
conceptual advances coupled with an increased use of experiments have convincingly demonstrated that prey experience costs that transcend the obvious cost of death. Prey species use adaptive behaviours to avoid predators, and these behaviours are not cost-free. With predation risk, prey species greatly restrict their use of available habitats and consumption of available food resources. Effects of top predators consequently cascade down to the trophic levels below them. Top predators, the biggies, are thus both the targets of and the means for conservation at the landscape scale. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
SLN @ rana @ 885 |
Serial |
52 |
| Permanent link to this record |
