Conservation Debate

Conservation Debate - Mike Stengel Conservation Debates Part 1 Focusing solely on integrated conservation and development projects has had its

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Mike Stengel Conservation Debates  Part 1:   Focusing solely on integrated conservation and development projects has had its  shortcomings and does not offer a sustainable future.  Rather, other methods should be  explored such as habitat protection.  Claims Counterarguments Claim 1:  Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP’s) have not effectively safeguarded protected area core zones. -ICDP’s rely on the assumption that locals will not participate in illegal activities, so these communities need strict enforcement to protect the endangered land. Source: Wilshusen et al.  Counterargument 1: It is political suicide to implement authoritarian protection. Enforcing boundaries and control use around a restricted area leads to local tension and civil unrest. Wilshusen et al.  Response: Neither argument seems to offer  a solution and both have their downfalls.  Both also rely on the response of the local  people. 
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course ENVI STUDI 100 taught by Professor Wilshusen during the Spring '08 term at Bucknell.

Page1 / 2

Conservation Debate - Mike Stengel Conservation Debates Part 1 Focusing solely on integrated conservation and development projects has had its

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online