COMMUNITY IN CONSERVATION

THEORETICAL

GENERAL

Agarwal, B (1997). “Environmental action, gender equity and women's participation.” Development and Change 28(1): 1-44.

Agrawal, A (1994). Rules, rule-making and rule-breaking: examining the fit between rule systems and resource use. in Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. E Ostrom, R Gardner and J Walker, Ed. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press: 267-282.

Agrawal, A (1995). “Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge.” Development and Change 26: 413-439.

In the past few years scholarly discussions have characterized indigenous knowledge as a significant resource for development. This article interrogates the concept of indigenous knowledge and the strategies its advocates present to promote development. The article suggests that both the concept of indigenous knowledge, and its role in development, are problematic issues as currently conceptualized. To productively engage indigenous knowledge in development, we must go beyond the dichotomy of indigenous vs. scientific, and work towards greater autonomy for 'indigenous' peoples. (Journal)

Agrawal, A (1995). Institutions for disadvantaged groups. Paper prepared for the Department of Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, United Nations. Mimeo. Pp. 40.

Alcorn, J (1993). “Indigenous peoples and conservation.” Conservation Biology 7(2): 424-426.

Alpert, P (1995). “Integrated conservation and development.” Ecological Applications 5(4): 857-861.

Anonymous (1997). “Environmental disruption and social change.” Current Sociology 45: 1-193.

A special issue on environmental disruption and social change. Topics discussed include the relationship between sociology, extreme environments, and social change; an overview of contamination, corrosion, and the social order; communities, policy, and chronic technological disaster; the social shaping of radioactive waste management in Sweden and Finland; diffuse chemical use in broadacre farming systems in Australia; a review of the literature on environmental inequalities and proposals for new directions in research and theory; the multiple effects, in terms of movement outcomes and social change, of local mobilizations; a revised conception of popular epidemiology; and gender, hazardous facility workers, and community responses to technological hazards. (Journal)

Antonsen, P (1974). “Natural resources and problems of development: the challenge of new territories.” Cooperation and Conflict 9(2/3): 127.

Baland, J-M and J-P Platteau (1996). Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bandy, J (1996). “Managing the other of nature: sustainability, spectacle and global regimes of capital in ecotourism.” Public Culture 8: 539-566.

Batterbury, S, T Forsyth, et al. (1997). “Environmental transformations in developing countries: hybrid research and democratic policy.” The Geographical Journal 163: 126-132.

Part of a special section on environmental transformations in developing countries that contains papers presented at a conference convened by the Environment and Developing Areas Research Groups of the Institute of British Geographers at the Royal Geographical Society on October 16, 1996. The writers introduce the wider themes discussed in detail in the articles comprising the special section. They summarize the arguments made by the contributors to the special section as stating that environmental research that does not query physical and human factors simultaneously may reiterate environmental orthodoxies; the identification of environmental problems must be democratized at a number of scales; the formulation of environmental management demands a critical stance to knowledge claims; and the need to seek local governance on the reflexive identification of expert knowledge. (Journal)

Becker, CD and E Ostrom (1995). “Human ecology and resource sustainability: The importance of institutional diversity.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 113-133.

We define the concept of a common-pool resource based on two attributes: the difficulty of excluding beneficiaries and the subtractability of use. We present similarities and differences among common-pool resources in regard to their ecological and institutional significance. The design principles that characterize long-surviving, delicately balanced resource systems governed by local rules systems are presented, as is a synthesis of the research on factors affecting institutional change. More complex biological resources are a greater challenge to the design of sustainable institutions, but the same general principles appear to carry over to more complex systems. We present initial findings from pilot studies in Uganda related to the effects of institutions on forest conditions. (SSCI)

Berkes, F and C Folke (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Berlin, B (1973). “Relation of folk systematics to biological classification and nomenclature.” Annual Review of Systematics and Ecology 4: 259-271.

Berlin, B, DE Breedlove, et al. (1973). “General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology.” American Anthropologist 75(1): 214-242.

Bhaskar, V and A Glyn (1995). The North, the South, and the Environment: Ecological Constraints and the Global Economy. London, Earthscan.

Bird, EAR (1987). “The social construction of nature: theoretical approaches to the history of environmental problems.” Environmental Review 11: 255-264.

Blaikie, P (1995). “Changing environments or changing views? A political ecology for developing countries.” Geography 80.

Landscapes and environments are perceived and interpreted from many different and contested points of view which reflect the particular experience, culture and values of the viewer. A more 'interactionist' approach to the study of society and environment has recently gained acceptance and converges with other developments in the social sciences (actor-orientated approaches, structure and agency issues and the sociology of scientific knowledge). In the place of scientific 'truths' about the environment, discourses allow a critical evaluation of different versions of environmental issues. Appeals to better and more environmental science, better law and governance and to the logic of the market, in order to re-establish certainty and order in global management, are only partly successful. They, too, are vulnerable to the same evaluation. The author calls for a more politically aware understanding of the plurality of points of view regarding the environment, for 'environmental brokerage' and the opening up of spaces for negotiation between different parties. (SSCI)

Blaikie, P, K Brown, et al. (1997). “Knowledge in action: local knowledge as a development resource and barriers to its incorporation in natural resource research and development.” Agricultural Systems 55(2): 217-237.

Local knowledge (LK) cannot be assumed to be a necessary resource in development. The case must be argued successfully in the face of other development approaches which are indifferent or hostile to it. This paper identifies three distinct development approaches (or paradigms), the classic, neo-liberal, and neo-populist, which view the role of LK in the dynamics of technical change in different ways. Each approach often incorporates elements of various paradigms into strategy statements and policy or project documents. This paper focuses on the role of LK in natural resource (NR) research and development at the 'development interface'. Here, stakeholders bring both local and scientific knowledge to the interface and, in relation to the dominant paradigm within which external actors operate, together produce an outcome termed 'Knowledge-in-Action' (KIA). Six ways in which KIA is produced are characterised, and it is recommended that priority be given to those likely to produce synergy. The paper also reviews the degree to which the ODA (UK) has so far integrated LK into natural resource development projects. The paper identifies a number of structural and behavioural barriers to a greater role for LK in natural resource research and development. (Journal)

Borghese, E (1987). “Third world development: the role of non-governmental organizations.” The OECD Observer 145.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G (1996). Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. Washington, Biodiversity Support Program.

Boyden, S (1992). Biohistory: The Interplay between Human Society and the Biosphere. Paris, UNESCO Man and Biosphere Series Vol 8.

Brandon, K (1997). Policy and practical considerations in land-use strategies for biodiversity conservation. in Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. RA Kramer, CP vanSchaik and J Johnson, Ed. New York, Oxford University Press.

Brick, PD and RM Cawley, Eds. (1996). A Wolf in the Garden: the Land Rights Movement and the New Environmental Debate. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield.

Broad, R (1994). “The poor and the environment: friends or foes?” World Development 22(6): 881-893.

The conventional literature in the environment and development field often presents a rather deterministic view of the relationship between poverty and the environment, revolving around the negative impact of the poor on the environment. Based on extensive fieldwork in rural communities across the Philippines, this article is a case study of that relationship between the poor and the environment in a country with severe poverty rates, significant environmental degradation, and a highly organized civil society. As a country where large numbers of poorer people have been transformed into environmental activists, the Philippines offers both a refutation of the traditional paradigm of poor people as environmental destroyers and enormous insights into the conditions under which poor people become environmental protectors. This case study leads the author to posit a set of conditions under which poor people become environmental activists rather than environmental degraders. Suggestions are made as to the relevance of the Philippine case study for understanding the relationship between the poor and the environment in other parts of the Third World. (Econlit)

Brokensha, Dea, Ed. (1980). Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. Lanham, MD, University Press of America.

Bromley, D (1994). Economic dimensions of community-based conservation. in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. D Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Brosius, J, A Tsing, et al. (1998). “Representing communities: histories and politics of community-based natural resource management.” Society and Natural Resources 11(2): 157-168.

Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a loosely woven transnational movement, based particularly on advocacy by nongovernmental organizations working with local groups and communities, on the one hand, and national and transnational organizations, on the other, to build and extend new versions of environmental and social advocacy that link social justice and environmental management agendas. One of the most significant developments has been the promotion of community-based natural resource management programs and policies. However the success of disseminating this paradigm has raised new challenges, as concepts of community, territory, conservation, and indigenous are worked into politically varied plans and programs in disparate sites. We outline a series of themes, questions, and concerns that we believe should be addressed both in the work of scholars engaged in analyzing this emergent agenda, and in the efforts of advocates and donor institutions who are engaged in designing and implementing such programs. (Authors)

Brown, M and B Wyckoff-Baird (1995). Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, Biodiversity Support Program.

Brownrigg, LA (1985). Native cultures and protected areas: management options. in Culture and Conservation: The Human Dimension in Environmental Planning. JA McNeely and D.Pitt, Ed. New York, Croom Helm: 33-44.

Brush, S (1993). “Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual property rights: the role of anthropology.” American Anthropologist 95(3): 653-686.

Bryant, R (1992). “Political ecology: an emerging research agenda in Third World studies.” Political Geography 11(1): 12-36.

This paper is a preliminary exploration of Third-World political ecology. In the first part of the paper, a framework for understanding the emerging research agenda is developed that embraces three critical areas of inquiry. These are: the contextual sources of environmental change; conflict over access; and the political ramifications of environmental change. Each of these areas of inquiry is addressed by way of a two-fold strategy-the relevant literature is first reviewed, and then central analytical issues are discussed. Throughout, it is suggested that Third-World political ecology represents an attempt to develop an integrated understanding of how environmental and political forces interact to mediate social and environmental change. In a world where environmental problems assume growing political significance, this form of integrated understanding is long overdue. (SSCI)

Bryant, RL (1997). “Beyond the impasse: the power of political ecology in Third World environmental research.” Area 29(1): 5-19.

In the context of a deepening impasse in Third World environmental research, this paper suggests that researchers should adopt a Political ecology perspective to ensure that research addresses the political and economic issues that underlie the Third World's environmental problems. Since an understanding of unequal power relations is central to political ecology, the paper considers how questions of power influence human-environmental interaction, before assessing briefly how research of this kind might contribute to a resolution of the Third World's environmental problems. (Source)

Bryant, RL (1998). “Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review.” Progress in Physical Geography 22(1): 79-94.

Political ecology examines the political dynamics surrounding material and discursive struggles over the environment in the third world. The role of unequal power relations in constituting a politicized environment is a central theme. Particular attention is given to the ways in which conflict over access to environmental resources is linked to systems of political and economic control first elaborated during the colonial era. Studies emphasize the increased marginality and vulnerability of the poor as an outcome of such conflict. The impact of perceptions and discourses on the specification of environmental problems and interventions is also explored leading on to debates about the relative merits of indigenous and western scientific knowledge. Future research needs also to address issues linked to changing air and water quality, urban processes, organizational attributes and the human body. (SSCI)

Bryant, RL and S Bailey (1997). Third World Political Ecology. New York, Routledge.

Bryant, RL and G Wilson (1998). “Rethinking environmental management.” Progress in Human Geography 22(3): 321-343.

The field of environmental management developed as a technocentric problem-solving initiative, providing 'practical' assistance to state officials involved in environmental management. Since the field was largely associated with what state officials and associated experts 'do', little effort was devoted to understanding the political, economic or cultural forces conditioning the process of environmental management The potentially significant contribution of diverse nonstate actors-for example, farmers, shifting cultivators, businesses or nongovernmental organizations - to this process was notably neglected. The field has recently become the target of mounting criticism with 'environmental managerialism' dismissed as a research agenda divorced from key issues in human-environment interaction. This article argues that a recognition of the limitations of traditional understandings of environmental management ought to serve as the basis for a rethink of this field of study. This argument is developed in two stages. The article first explores how the traditional approach understands environmental management as a state-centred process, assesses diverse problems with that understanding and sketches an alternative way of thinking about this issue. The article then assesses how environmental management as a field of study is usually understood, the pitfalls of that understanding and the possible contours of an alternative appreciation of the field of environmental management. By adopting a more inclusive understanding of what environmental management is as a process, a broader appreciation of the nature of environmental management as a field of study can be obtained. The article concludes that a revitalized field can overcome existing deficiencies so as to be in a position to make thereafter an important contribution to research on human-environment interaction. (SSCI)

Buell, J and T DeLuca (1996). Sustainable Democracy: Individuality and the Politics of the Environment. London, Sage.

Bunker, SG (1992). Natural resource extraction and power differentials in a global economy. in Understanding Economic Process, Lanham, Maryland: University of Press of America: 61-84.

Burton, R (1991). Nature's Last Strongholds. New York, Oxford University Press.

Callicott, JB and K Mumford (1997). “Ecological sustainability as a conservation concept.” Conservation Biology 11(1): 32-40.

Neither the classic resource management concept of maximum sustainable yield nor the concept of sustainable development are useful to contemporary, nonanthropocentric, ecologically informed conservation biology. As an alternative, we advance an ecological definition of sustainability, that is in better accord with biological conservation: meeting human needs without compromising the health of ecosystems. In addition to familiar benefit-cost constraints on human economic activity, we urge adding ecologic constraints. Projects are not choice-worthy if they compromise the health of the ecosystems in which human economic systems are embedded. Sustainability, so defined, is proffered as an approach to conservation that would complement wildlands preservations for ecological integrity, not substitute for wildlands preservations. (SSCI)

Carpenter, L (1997). “Disinformation campaigns and indigenous peoples.” Oryx 31(2): 92-93.

Cernea, M (1985). Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. New York, Oxford University Press.

Chambers, R (1979). “ Rural Development: Whose Knowledge Counts?” IDS Bulletin 10(2).

Chambers, R and MK McBeth (1992). “Community encouragement: returning to the basis for community development.” Journal of the Community Development Society 23(2): 20-38.

Chekki, D (1997). Research in Community Sociology: Environment and Community Empowerment. JAI Press.

Chowdhry, Kea (1989). “Poverty, environment, development.” Daedalus 118: 141-154.

Clark, J (1991). Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations. West Hartford, Connecticut, Kumarian Press.

Clark, J (1995). “Economic-development vs sustainable societies - reflections on the players in a crucial contest.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 225- 248.

The World Commission on Environment and Development adopted and legitimated the idea of sustainable development in its report Our Common Future. Without substantiation, WCED claimed that economic growth and environmental protection were compatible. The 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro adopted the idea, without further testing, as its intellectual core. Since 1992, the United Nations, the United States, and many other nations have created agencies to track progress toward sustainable development. In favor of the idea are individuals, including, it appears, most economists, who advocate centralization, internationalization, and rapid economic development. The opposition consists principally of people from academic disciplines, especially ecologists and humanists. This group does not communicate effectively, but if it did, it might agree that: economic development and environmental protection are not compatible; insistence by economists that all natural resources be given a dollar value is useless, if not harmful; biodiversity has intrinsic value; sustainable development weakens local autonomy; and social welfare is a key component of environmental health. To strengthen the defense of ecosystems, ecologists, humanists, and others should apply their knowledge to practical environmental problems. By making their knowledge accessible in local political arenas, they will concurrently shore up the ability of local units to protect their environments and speak with force in larger political arenas. All proponents of environmental health must become advocates of environmental justice. (Author)

Critchley, W, C Reij, et al. (1994). “Indigenous soil and water conservation: a review of the state of knowledge and prospects for building on traditions.” Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 5(4): 293-314.

After half a century of failed soil and water conservation projects in tropical developing countries, technical specialists and policy makers are reconsidering their strategy. It is increasingly recognised that the land users have valuable environmental knowledge themselves. This review explores two hypotheses: first, that much can be learned from previously ignored indigenous soil and water conservation (ISWC) practices; second, that ISWC can often act as a suitable starting point for the development of technologies and programmes. However, information on ISWC is patchy and scattered. Many ancient, derelict systems are better described than traditions which still persist today. ISWC has been most commonly developed under dry and marginal conditions, and/or on steep hillsides. Sustained population pressure has often tended to stimulate ISWC. There is a need for more incorporation of ISWC into resource conservation programmes: many projects have ignored local traditions to their detriment. It is widely agreed that further study and research on ISWC is required and justified as a logical starting point towards developing adoptable and sustainable soil and water conservation systems for small-scale farmers. (SSCI)

Crosby, A (1985). Ecological Imperialism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Cutter, SL (1994). “Environmental issues: green rage, social change and the new environmentalism.” Progress in Human Geography 18: 217-226.

Davis, SH, Ed. (1993). Indigenous views of land and the environment. World Bank Discussion Papers, no. 188. Washington, D.C., World Bank.

Deacon, RT and P Murphy (1997). “The structure of an environmental transaction: the debt-for-nature swap.” Land Economics 73: 1-24.

Deutsch, KW (1977). Ecosocial systems and ecopolitics: a reader on human and social implications of environmental management in developing countries. Paris, UNESCO.

DeWalt, BR (1994). “Using indigenous knowledge to improve agriculture and natural resource management.” Human Organization 53(2): 123-131.

Dodds, K (1998). “The geopolitics of regionalism: the Valdivia Group and southern hemispheric environmental co-operation.” Third World Quarterly 19(4): 725-743.

Dravnieks, D and DC Pitcher (1982). Public participation in resource planning: selected literature abstracts. Berkeley, CA, Management Sciences Staff, Forest Service, USDA.

Durning, AB (1989). Action at the grassroots: fighting poverty and environmental decline. Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute.

Durning, AB (1989). “People, power, and development.” Foreign Policy Fall(76): 66-83.

Dwivedi, O (1996). “Environmental stewardship: our spiritual heritage for sustainable development.” Journal of Developing Societies 12: 217-231.

Dwivedi, OP and D Vajpeyi (1995). Environmental Policies in the Third World: A Comparative Analysis. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press.

Dye, T (1998). “On tribal conservationists.” Current Anthropology 39(3): 352-353.

Edgerton, R (1992). Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony. New York Free Press.

Ellen, R and K Fukui, Eds. (1995). Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication. Oxford, Berg Publishers.

Escobar, A (1996). Constructing nature: elements for a poststructural political ecology. in Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. R Peet and M Watts, Ed. London, Routledge.

Etzioni, A (1996). “ Positive aspects of community and the dangers of fragmentation.” Development and Change 27: 301-314.

Feldmann, F (1994). Community environmental action: the national policy context. in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. R Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press: 393-402.

Fellizar, F and K Oya (1994). “Achieving sustainable development through community-based resource management.” Regional Development Dialogue 15(1): 201-217.

Quality of life in any particular context depends on resource endowment (land, water, forests) & the manner in which resources are allocated & utilized. Participants can opt to derive maximum short-term benefit or to plan for future needs. While the latter is the essence of sustainable development, there is a growing recognition among aid planners, academics, decisionmakers, & development workers that sustainable development requires a better understanding of the role of communities in the management & conservation of resources. The concept of community-based resource management (CBRM) - its elements, preconditions, & underlying assumptions - is therefore clarified. CBRM projects throughout the Philippines are offered as illustrative examples. In Comment, Kenji Oya (UN Center for Regional Development) comments that the success of CBRM projects depends on the extent to which institutional arrangements support local resource management groups. (Copyright 1995, Sociological Abstracts, Inc., all rights reserved.)

Ferraro, PJ and RA Kramer (1995). A framework for affecting household behavior to promote biodiversity conservation. Arlington VA, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Training, Winrock International Environmental Alliance.

Folke, C, C Perrings, et al. (1993). “Biodiversity conservation with a human face: ecology, economics and policy.” Ambio 22(2-3): 62-63.

Fonseca, Cd, F Sunimal, et al. (1994). “Economy, ecology and spirituality: toward a theory and practice of sustainability (part II).” Development 4: 67-72.

Fowler, A (1998). “Authentic NGDO partnerships in the new policy agenda for international aid: dead end or light ahead?” Development and Change 29(1): 137-159.

Since the 1970s,'partnership' has been an aspiration for relationships amongst non-governmental organizations involved in international development (NGDOs). Unfortunately, NGDOs have shown little ability to form equitable relations, or true partnership, amongst themselves. The first part of this article examines why. The new policy agenda for international aid emphasizes contract-based relationships which will make real partnerships even more difficult to achieve. The second part of the analysis argues that trust-based authentic partnerships remain vital for development, and outlines some steps that NGOs might take towards forming them. In the long term: however, NGDOs must radically rethink their roles, which calls for a transformation from intermediaries in a funding chain to facilitators of international co-operation between the diverse groups which comprise civil society. NGDOs unwilling to take this step could be classified as hypocrites if they continue to employ the term 'partnership' for what is essentially old wine in re-labelled civic bottles. (SSCI)

Fox, J (1992). “Democratic rural development.” Development and Change 23: 201-244.

Freeman, M and L Carbyn (1988). Traditional Knowledge and Renewable Resource Management. Geneva, IUCN Commission on Ecology.

French, HF (1992). After the earth summit: The future of environmental governance, Worldwatch Institute.

Gadgil, M, F Berkes, et al. (1993). “Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.” Ambio 22(2-3): 151-156.

Indigenous peoples with a historical continuity of resource-use practices often possess a broad knowledge base of the behavior of complex ecological systems in their own localities. This knowledge has accumulated through a long series of observations transmitted from generation to generation. Such ''diachronic'' observations can be of great value and complement the ''synchronic''observations on which western science is based. Where indigenous peoples have depended, for long periods of time, on local environments for the provision of a variety of resources, they have developed a stake in conserving, and in some cases, enhancing, biodiversity. They are aware that biological diversity is a crucial factor in generating the ecological services and natural resources on which they depend. Some indigenous groups manipulate the local landscape to augment its heterogeneity, and some have been found to be motivated to restore biodiversity in degraded landscapes. Their practices for the conservation of biodiversity were grounded in a series of rules of thumb which are apparently arrived at through a trial and error process over a long historical time period. This implies that their knowledge base is indefinite and their implementation involves an intimate relationship with the belief system. Such knowledge is difficult for western science to understand. It is vital, however, that the value of the knowledge-practice-belief complex of indigenous peoples relating to conservation of biodiversity is fully recognized if ecosystems and biodiversity are to be managed sustainably. Conserving this knowledge would be most appropriately accomplished through promoting the community-based resource-management systems of indigenous peoples. (Journal)

Gardner, SS (1995). “Major themes in the study of grassroots environmentalism in developing countries.” Journal of Third World Studies 12(2): 200(245).

Grassroots environmental organizations (GEOs) have proliferated in the Third World. Although diverse in the political and environmental aspirations, these GEOs have several major common themes. GEOs seek to challenge the notion that people from developing countries have no concern for the environment and often start off as local defenders of the environment but soon branch out to different social goals. Most GEOs are headed by women and are viewed by their native governments with hostility or indifference. Many GEOs bask in the financial and political support of international non-government organizations and religious groups. (Wilsonweb)

Gasper, D (1996). “Culture and development ethics: needs, women's rights, and western theories.” Development and Change 27(4): 627-661.

Can development ethics avoid presuming that European cultures have universal validity and yet also avoid treating every distinct culture as sacrosanct and beyond criticism? While work on 'culture and development' valuably stresses the importance of cultural differences and identity it has often been hindered by conceptual limitations when faced with the ambiguities, variety, conflict and change within societies. This article queries a communitarian belief, that morality cannot be anything other than whatever a community's norms are, and suggests that recent development ethics work usefully blends universalist ethics with room for local traditions and choices. As advances on both (a) forms of liberalism that are universalist in scope but Eurocentric and over-individualistic in content, and (b) relativist forms of communitarian or post-modern ethics, three current approaches are noted: new work on Basic Human Needs theory, including Amartya Sen's capabilities approach; Martha Nussbaum's Aristotelian extension of Sen; and Onora O'Neill's Kantian development ethic. Particular attention is paid in the article to disputes concerning women's rights. (Journal)

Ghai, D and J Vivian (1992). Grassroots Environmental Action: People's Participation in Sustainable Development. London, Routledge.

Goldstein, B (1994). Community based conservation: an annotated bibliographic database. New York, Art Ortenberg and Liz Claiborne Foundation.

Gould, KA, A Schnaiberg, et al. (1996). Local Environmental Struggles: Citizen Activism in the Treadmill of Production. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Goulet, D (1989). “Participation in development: new avenues.” World Development 17(2): 165-178.

Gowdy, J (1997). “The value of biodiversity: markets, society and ecosystems.” Land Economics 73: 25-41.

Greenberg, J and T Park (1994). “Political ecology.” Journal of Political Ecology 1: 1-9.

Grigsby , WJ and JE Force (1993). “Where credit is due: forests, women and rural development.” Journal of Forestry June: 29.

Grove, R (1990). Colonial conservation, ecological hegemony, and popular resistance: towards a global synthesis. in Imperialism and the Natural World. J MacKenzie, Ed. Manchester, Manchester University Press: 15-50.

Grove, R (1995). Green Imperialism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Herrmann, P (1995). “Human environmental crisis and the transnational corporation - the question of culpability.” Human Ecology 23(2): 285-289.

This commentary outlines the conflict of interests inherent in the state-transnational corporation relationship, and briefly discusses the failure of bilateral and multilateral mechanisms to ensure corporate accountability and compliance with basic human rights and international environmental laws. (Journal)

Hillborn, R, CJ Walters, et al. (1995). “Sustainable exploitation of renewable resources.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 45-67.

Hillery, GAJ (1955). “Definitions of community: areas of agreement.” Rural Sociology 20: 111-123.

Hoban, TJ and MG Cook. (1988). “Challenge of conservation.” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 3: 100-102.

Huizer, G (1965). “Evaluating community development at the grass-roots: some observations on methodology.” America Indigena 15(3): [279]-301.

Iacofano, DS (1990). Public involvement as an organizational development process: a proactive theory for environmental planning program management. New York, Garland.

Jackson, C (1995). “ Radical environmental myths.” New Left Review 210: 124-140.

Jenkins, JC (1983). “Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements.” Annual Review of Sociology 9: 527-553.

Joekes, S (1994). “Gender, environment and population.” Development and Change 25(1): 137-165.

Based on field research from three regions with distinct variations in environment, population density, livelihood bases and levels of resource dependency, this study investigates the gender aspects of environmental change. It seeks to illustrate the relevance of gender factors for the patterns of adaptation to change, for the welfare impact of changes on the population, and for the ramifications for resource management and livelihood generation at the community level. It employs a gender analysis to examine the impact of such changes on population variables, particularly on health and nutrition, and to explore the more general question of whether women's socio-economic status is being threatened by the pressures of environmental change. (Sociological Abstracts)

Johnston, B (1995). “Human rights and the environment.” Human Ecology 23(2): 111-123.

This issue of Human Ecology focuses on the interrelated-nature of crisis in human and environmental systems and argues that the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental human right. In this article I present a conceptual framework for the ''human rights and environment'' special issue, followed by a brief review of significant insights offered by each contributor. Collectively the cases presented in this issue explore connections between international and national policy, government action or sanctioned action, and human environmental crises. Cultural notions are seen to play a key role in influencing social relations, legitimizing power relations, and justifying the production and reproduction of human environmental crises. And finally, these cases explore the ways in which political, economic, and cultural forces influence and at times inhibit efforts to respond to human environmental crises. (SSCI)

Klee, G, Ed. (1980). World Systems of Traditional Resource Management. New York, Halstad Press.

Kleymeyer, C (1994). Cultural traditions and community-based conservation. in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. D Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Klinger, J (1994). “Debt-for-nature swaps and the limits to international cooperation on behalf of the environment.” Environmental Politics 3: 229-246.

Kottak, CP and ACG Costa (1993). “Ecological awareness, environmentalist action, and international conservation strategy.” Human Organization 52(4): 335-343.

Lafferty, WM and J Meadowcraft, Eds. (1996). Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Leach, M, R Mearns, et al. (1997). “Challenges to community based sustainable development - Dynamics, entitlements, institutions.” IDS Bulletin-Institute Of Development Studies 28(4): 4.

Recent approaches to community-based natural resource management frequently present 'communities' as consensual units, able to act collectively in restoring population-resource imbalances or reestablishing harmonious relations between local livelihoods and stable environments. Arguing that these underlying assumptions and policy narratives are flawed as guidelines for policy, this article presents an alternative perspective which starts from the politics of resource access and central among diverse social actors, and sees patterns of environmental change as the outcomes of negotiation or contestation between their conflicting perspectives. The notion of 'environmental entitlements' encapsulates this shift in perspective, and provides analytical tools to specify the benefits that people gain from the environment which contribute to their well-being. The processes by which people gain environmental endowments and entitlements are, in rum, shaped by diverse institutions, both formal and informal. (SSCI)

Lee, Y (1998). “Intermediary institutions, community organizations, and urban environmental management: the case of three Bangkok slums.” World Development 26(6): 993-1011.

There is a limit to "self-help" or community-based" schemes. External intermediary institutions are needed to provide support to communities in mobilizing internal resources and gain access to outside inputs that enhance their capacities to improve their habitat. The paper first presents a framework that links intermediary institutions, community organizations, and communal actions on environmental management and then uses this framework to explore the findings of a case study of three low-income communities in Bangkok. The analysis shows that intermediary institutions have played a crucial role in facilitating the development of community capacity to deal with environmental and other communal problems. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Lele, UJ (1981). “Cooperatives and the poor: A comparative perspective.” World Development 9(1): 55-72.

Lind, A (1997). “Gender development and urban social change: women's community action in global cities.” World Development 25(8): 1205-1223.

This article addresses the gender dimensions of women's community action in global cities. it focuses on two types of women's organizations (food provision and anti-violence) and draws our their implications for community and national development frameworks in the context of economic restructuring and urban poverty. The article undertakes three tasks: First, it rethinks

frameworks of development and urban social change from a gender perspective. Second, it analyzes the ways in which local women's organizations have acted proactively-rather than merely reactively-to processes of urban restructuring. Third, it proposes an approach in which women's informal political and economic participation is better accounted for in national development frameworks and related community development initiatives. (C) 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Machlis, GE (1992). “The contribution of sociology to biodiversity research and management.” Biological Conservation 62(3): 161-170.

As the loss of biodiversity is a serious ecological problem, biodiversity research and management are important components of current conservation biology. This paper describes how sociology can contribute to biodiversity research and management. Biodiversity is, like all scientific and environmental issues, partially a socially constructed problem. Case study and comparative multinational data suggest that the causes of biodiversity decline are largely socio-economic, and solutions will require interdisciplinary approaches. Sociology can make several contributions to biodiversity research and management, including (1) a better understanding and management of habitat change; (2) improved research and decision-making methodologies; (3) development of a theoretical synthesis; and (4) analysis of the social organization of conservation and conservation biology. (Author)

Martin, G (1994). “Ethnoecology and postmodernism: Friends or foes?” Journal of Ethnobiology 14(2): 265-272.

McCallum, S (1993). “Local action in a new world order.” Environmental Law 23(2): 621-634.

Discussions concerning environmental aspects of the New World Order ever-emphasize the roles of national governments and international organizations. While these large groups are important, the command-and-control regulations they tend to employ do not fit all situations and may fail to recognize solutions developed on the local level. Effective management of natural resources and the environment must involve changes at the state and local level where environmental problems are felt by the people. (Econlit)

McCormick, J (1989). Reclaiming Paradise: The Global Environmental Movement. Bloomington, University of Indiana Press.

McNeely, JA (1995). Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Washington DC, Island Press.

McNeely, JA (1995). Partnerships for conservation: an introduction. in Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. JA McNeely, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Merchant, C (1992). Radical Ecology: The Search for a Liveable World. London, Routledge.

Mercier, J (1997). Downstream and Upstream Ecologists: The People, Organizations and Ideas behind the Movement. Westport, CT, Praeger.

Meyer, C (1996). “NGOs and environmental public goods: Institutional alternatives to property rights.” Development and Change 27(3): 453-474.

NGOs are linked to environmental objectives for good reason: non-profit NGOs provide a flexible, private-sector answer to the provision of international environmental public goods. The non-profit sector can link for-profit, non-profit, and public-sector objectives in complex contracts. This article examines how, for the case of the National Biodiversity Institute (INBio) in Costa Pica, such complex contracts with both domestic and international parties provide partial solutions to public goods problems in the absence of private property rights over genetic resources. INBio's 'monopoly' position, legitimized by the local government, brings in rents from genetic resources which are reinvested in the production of public goods. (Journal)

Meyer, C and F Moosang, Eds. (1992). Living with the Land: Communities Restoring the Earth. Philadelphia, PA, New Society Publishers.

Miller, M, R Gale, et al. (1987). Social Science in Natural Resource Management Systems. Boulder, Westview Press.

Mittelman, JH (1998). “Globalization and environmental resistance politics.” Third World Quarterly 19(5): 847-872.

Morell, D and J Poznanski (1985). Rhetoric and reality: environmental politics and environmental administration in developing countries. in Divesting Nature's Capital: The Political Economy of Environmental Abuse in the Third World. HJ Leonard, Ed. New York, Holmes and Meier: 137-176.

O'Connor, J (1989). “Political economy of ecology of socialism and capitalism.” Capitalism/Nature/Society 3: 93-107.

OECD (1997). Globalization and Environment: Preliminary Perspectives. Paris, OECD.

O'Neill, J (1993). Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-Being and the Natural World. London, Routledge.

Orlove, B (1980). “Ecological anthropology.” Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 235-273.

Orlove, B and S Brush (1996). “Anthropology and the conservation of biodiversity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 329- 352.

Conservation programs for protected areas and plant genetic resources have evolved in similar ways, beginning with a focus on single species and expanding to ecosystem strategies that involve the participation of local people. Anthropologists have described the increasing importance of the participation of local people in conservation programs, both of local populations in protected area management and of farmers in plant genetic resources. Both protected areas and plant genetic resources link local populations, national agencies, and international organizations. Anthropological research (a) documents local knowledge and practices that influence the selection and maintenance of crop varieties and the conservation of rare and endangered species in protected areas, and (b) clarifies the different concerns and definitions of biodiversity held by local populations and international conservationists. In addition, anthropologists operate in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international agencies, participating in policy debates and acting as advocates and allies of local populations of farmers and indigenous peoples. (Source)

Ostrom, E (1996). Scales, polycentricity, and incentives. in Protection of Global Biodiversity: Converging Interdisciplinary Strategies. J McNeely and L Guruswamy, Ed. Durham, NC, Duke University Press.

Ostrom, E, L Schroeder, et al., Eds. (1993). Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspective. Boulder, Westview Press.

Ostrom, E, J Walker, et al. (1992). “Covenants with and without a sword - Self-governance is possible.” American Political Science Review 86(2): 404-417.

Contemporary political theory often assumes that individuals cannot make credible commitments where substantial temptations exist to break them unless such commitments are enforced by an external agent. One such situation may occur in relation to common pool resources, which are natural or man-made resources whose yield is subtractable and whose exclusion is nontrivial (but not necessarily impossible). Examples include fisheries, forests, grazing ranges, irrigation systems, and groundwater basins. Empirical evidence, however, suggests that appropriators in common pool resources develop credible commitments in many cases without relying on external authorities. We present findings from a series of experiments exploring (1) covenants alone (both one-shot and repeated communication opportunities); (2) swords alone (repeated opportunities to sanction each other); and (3) covenants combined with an internal sword (one-shot communication followed by repeated opportunities to sanction each other). (Journal)

Otto, J and K Elbow (1994). The background to community-based conservation. in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. D Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Parayil, G (1992). “Social movements, technology and development: a query and an instructive case from the Third World.” Dialectical Anthropology 17(3): 339-352.

Patterson, TC (1994). Toward a properly historical ecology. in Historical Ecology. CL Crumley, Ed. Santa Fe, School of American Research Press.

Payne, RA (1996). “Nonprofit environmental organizations in world politics: domestic structure and transnational relations.” Policy Studies Review 14(1-2): 171-183.

Peet, R and M Watts, Eds. (1996). Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. London, Routledge.

Poole, P (1995). Indigenous peoples, mapping, and biodiversity conservation: an analysis of current activities and opportunities for applying geomatics technologies. Washington, Biodiversity Support Program.

Pratt, J (1994). “Human ecology: lost grail found? A critical review of programs to address human-environment relationships.” Advances in Human Ecology 3: 173-247.

Princen, T and M Finger, Eds. (1994). Environmental NGOs in World Politics: Linking the Local and the Global. London, Routledge.

Raberg, P (1997). The Life Region: The Social and Cultural Ecology of Sustainable Development. London, Routledge.

Raven, P (1991). Winners and losers in the twentieth-century struggle to survive. in Resources, Environment, and Population: Present Knowledge, Future Options. K Davis and M Bernstam, Ed. New York, Oxford University Press.

Redford, K and A Stearman (1993). “On common ground: response to Alcorn.” Conservation Biology 7(2): 427-428.

Renn, O, T Webler, et al., Eds. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic.

Robinson, JG (1993). “The limits to caring: sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity.” Conservation Biology 7(1): 20-28.

Robinson, M (1995). “Towards a new paradigm of community development.” Community Development Journal 30(1): 21-30.

Rocheleau, D, B Thomas-Slayter, et al. (1996). Feminist Political Ecology. London, Routledge.

Rose, C (1991). “Rethinking environmental controls: management strategies for common resources.” Duke Law Journal 1: 1-38.

Sachs, W, Ed. (1993). Global Ecology. London, Zed Books.

Salafsky, N (1994). Ecological limits and opportunities for community-based conservation. in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. R Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press: 448-471.

Schroeder, RA and RP Neumann (1995). “Manifest ecological destinies: local rights and global environmental agendas.” Antipode 27(4): 321-324.

Seymour, F (1994). Are successful community-based conservation projects designed or discovered? in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. D Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Sillitoe, P (1998). “The development of indigenous knowledge - A new applied anthropology.” Current Anthropology 39(2): 223-252.

The widespread adoption of bottom-up participation as opposed to top-down modernisation approaches has opened up challenging opportunities for anthropology in development. The new focus on indigenous knowledge augurs the next revolution in anthropological method, informants becoming collaborators and their communities participating user-groups, and touches upon such contemporary issues as the crisis of representation, ethnography's status with regard to intellectual property rights, and interdisciplinary cooperation between natural and social scientists. Indigenous-knowledge studies are challenging not only because of difficulties in cross-cultural communication and understanding but also because of their inevitable political dimensions. Contributing to development which intervenes in people's Lives, these studies engage with them in novel ways. (SSCI)

Singh, K and V Ballabh (1996). Cooperative Management of Natural Resources. New Dehli, Sage Publications.

Smyth, D (1992). “The involvement of indigenous people in nature conservation.” Report on IVth world Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas.

Tacconi, L and C Tisdell (1993). “ Holistic sustainable development: Implications for planning processes, foreign aid and support for research.” Third World Planning Review 15(4): 411-428.

Discusses a holistic concept of sustainable development in which economic, ecological, social, & political factors are simultaneously considered. Participation by individuals, particularly at the community level, is seen as an important means for achieving sustainable development & formulating development goals. These goals grow out of an organic interactive participatory process. Methods of project appraisal are reviewed in the light of sustainable development concepts, & the role of research & foreign aid in promoting sustainable development is addressed. The analysis is illustrated utilizing the case of the South Pacific in general, along with a specific research project, ie, giant clam farming. 1 Table, 1 Figure. Adapted from the source document. (Copyright 1994, Sociological Abstracts, Inc., all rights reserved.)

Taylor, M (1998). “Natural connections. Perspectives in community-based conservation.” Society and Natural Resources 11(3): 251-258.

Tilley, C (1985). 15 Years Of Community-Based Development - An Annotated-Bibliography, 1968-83. Chicago, CPL Bibliographies.

Turner, BL, WC Clark, et al., Eds. (1990). The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

United Nations Environmental Programme and World Health Organization (1987). Improving environmental health conditions in low-income settlements: a community-based approach to identifying needs and priorities. WHO offset publication no. 100. Geneva, World Health Organization.

USAID (1992). Community Variables in Natural Resources Management: Workshop Proceedings. Washington, USAID.

Wapner, P (1995). “Politics beyond the state: environmental activism and world civic politics.” World Politics 47: 311-340.

Warren, DM, Ed. (1991). Indigenous Knowledge Systems: The Cultural Dimensions of Development. London, Kegan Paul International.

Warren, DM (1991). Using Indigenous Knowledge in Agricultural Development. World Bank Discussion Paper 127. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Watts, M and R Peet (1996). Conclusion: towards a theory of liberation ecology. in Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. R Peet and M Watts, Ed. London, Routledge.

Weiss, T and L Gordenker, Eds. (1996). NGOs, the UN and Global Governance. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Wells, M (1992). “Biodiversity conservation, affluence and poverty: mismatched costs and benefits and efforts to remedy them.” Ambio 21(3): 237-243.

Considerable progress has been made recently in identifying and measuring protected area economic costs and benefits in developing countries. This paper departs from this approach by concentrating not on the measurement of total economic costs and benefits from protected areas but on their distribution, Protected area benefits and costs are discussed at three separate spatial scales: local, national/regional, and global/transnational. The overall picture shows that economic benefits-although difficult to measure and varying from site to site-are limited on a local scale, increase somewhat on a regional/national level and then become potentially substantial on a transnational/global scale. The economic costs follow an opposite trend, from being locally significant, regionally and nationally moderate, and globally small. It is evident that there are few local incentives and very limited regional and national incentives for protected area establishment and management in developing countries. Very little, if any, empirical work has been done on the distribution of protected area costs and benefits. The conclusion of this paper is that such analysis can provide an essential bridge between economic valuation studies and the identification of necessary and practical action steps. (Journal)

Wells, M (1995). Biodiversity conservation and local development aspirations: new priorities for the 1990s. in Biodiversity Conservation. CA Perrings, KG Maler, C Folke and CS Holling, Ed. Dordrect, Kluwer: 319-333.

Wells, M (1998). “Institutions and incentives for biodiversity conservation.” Biodiversity and Conservation 7(6): 815-835.

Incentive measures for biodiversity conservation cannot be evaluated and compared outside the context of institutional performance and relationships. The institutional framework for biodiversity incentives includes a variety of organizations operating on different spatial scales. The institutional actors with an impact on biodiversity include community groups, local and national governmental structures, NGOs, business enterprises and international organizations. But the positive influence of conservation-oriented organizations is often significantly outweighed by the negative influence of other sets of institutional actors who are largely unaware of biodiversity as a concept and not unduly concerned with its conservation. There are several options for improving the institutional framework for biodiversity incentives: (1) decentralization of resource management decision making to local levels; (2) engaging and reorienting government institutions; (3) establishing new national and international institutions; and (4) establishing functional linkages between key institutional actors. The role of local, national and international institutions in designing and implementing effective incentive measures for biodiversity conservation will be critical. But- the dynamics within and between institutional actors influencing biodiversity conservation are complex, variable and insufficiently understood, somewhat like biodiversity itself. (Source)

West, P (1989). “Collective adoption of natural resource practices in developing nations.” Rural Sociology 48(1): 44-59.

Sociological barriers to achieving collective adoption of natural resource conservation & development projects in rural areas of developing nations are discussed & include the following: (1) the contrast among equity issues in optional & collective adoption; (2) the special importance of property rights considerations in collectively adopted resource development projects; (3) the problems that community factions present for collective adoption; (4) the role of community organizing & social learning; & (5) the role of indigenous leadership. Modified HA (Copyright 1983, Sociological Abstracts, Inc., all rights reserved.)

Western, D (1994). Linking conservation and community aspirations. in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. D Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Western, D and RM Wright (1994). The background to community-based conservation. in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. D Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Western, D and RM Wright, Eds. (1994). Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Washington DC, Island Press.

Winterhalder, BL, F (1997). “A forager resource population ecology model and implications for indigenous conservation.” Conservation Biology 11(6): 1354-1364.

Population ecology and foraging theory can be combined to simulate the population dynamics of hunter-gatherers and their prey resources. Such simulation study is important to issues of conservation because many of the population processes that link human foragers and their prey occur over time scales that elude both ethnographic and archaeological fieldwork. To demonstrate, we used the model to examine hunter-gatherer population dynamics. We focused on a prey characteristic that affects its susceptibility to over-exploitation: the intrinsic rate of increase, r. We found that forager-prey systems can stabilize without intentional conservation behavior and that prey ''switching,'' fall-back foods, and in certain circumstances, a higher r contribute to resource species persistence. Furthermore, a prey's vulnerability to local depletion or extinction may depend on the demographic characteristics of the suite of resources harvested along with it. The model can serve as a ''null hypothesis'' for examining intentional resource conservation and presents points in concordance with, as well as divergent from tenets in conservation biology. In particular, we discuss the implications of these findings for indigenous resource conservation in Amazonia (e.g., the overhunting of large primates and avifauna and the adoption of new procurement technologies) as well as the ''Pleistocene Overkill Hypothesis.'' (Source)

Yacoob, M, E Brantly, et al. (1994). Public Participation in Urban Environmental Management: A Model for Promoting Community-Based Environmental Management in Peri-Urban Areas. WASH Technical Reports, 90.

Zimmerer, K (1994). “Human geography and the "New Ecology": the prospect and promise of integration.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84(1): 108-125.

The ''new ecology'' underscores the role of nonequilibrium conditions in biophysical environments, a reorientation of biological ecology based in part on biogeography. This paper describes the contributions of the ''new ecology'' and examines their implications for the analysis of biophysical environments in human geography, the most notable of which is a reformulation of certain key ecological postulates (generalized carrying capacity, area-biodiversity postulate, biodiversity-stability postulate). The irony of these reformulations is that our advanced understandings of biophysical environments come at the expense of the perceived certainty of prediction and possible justification for human-induced environmental degradation. These difficulties are not insuperable, however, as is readily demonstrated by the applications of the ''new ecology'' in landscape ecology and agroecology. Their example may prove instructive as geographers integrate the ''new ecology's perspectives on biophysical environments and interpret the relations between environmental conservation and economic development. (SSCI)