Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:04:09.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Public Understanding and Appreciation of the Biosphere Reserve Concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Stephen R. Kellert
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA.

Extract

The Biosphere Reserve concept potentially appears to be an extremely important basis for enhancing global land protection—particularly, although not exclusively, in developing countries. Far more clarification and education will be required, however, to produce the level of public appreciation that will be necessary to make this concept an effective force for conservation. It may be argued that a clear delineation of the Biosphere Reserve concept is less important than an adequate public understanding of the values to be derived from this land protection strategy. While this distinction may be useful, it would seem that the potential benefits of the Biosphere Reserve would be considerably enhanced by far more precise public appreciation of the meaning and intent of this land designation category.

Type
Main Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Batisse, M. (1980). The relevance of MAB. Environmental Conservation, 7 (3), pp. 179–84, map.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batisse, M. (1982). The Biosphere Reserve: a tool for environmental conservation and management. Environmental Conservation, 9 (2), pp. 101–14, 8 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castri, F. di, Hadley, M. & Damlamian, J. (1981). MAB: The Man and the Biosphere program as an evolving system. Ambio, 10 (2–3), pp. 52–7.Google Scholar
Halffter, G. (1981). The Mapimi Biosphere Reserve: local participation in conservation and development. Ambio, 10 (2–3), pp. 93–6.Google Scholar
Kellert, S.R. (1980). Public Attitudes Toward Critical Wildlife and Natural Habitat Issues. U.S. Govt Print. Off., Supt. of Doc, STOP: S.S.M.C., Washington, D.C., USA: 024-010-00-623-4, 138 pp.Google Scholar
Kellert, S.R. (1984). Assessing wildlife and environmental values in cost/benefit analysis. J. of Environ. Mangt, 18 (4), pp. 353–63.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. (1966). A Sand County Almanac. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, USA: 226 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Lusigi, W.J. (1981). New approaches to wild life conservation in Kenya. Ambio, 10 (2–3), pp. 8792.Google Scholar
McNeely, J.A. & Miller, K.R. (1983). IUCN, National Parks, and Protected Areas: priorities for action. Environmental Conservation, 10 (1), pp. 1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, N. (1979). The Sinking Ark, Pergamon Press, New York, NY, USA: 307 pp.Google Scholar
National Parks and Conservation Association (1979). Adjacent Lands Study. National Parks & Conservation Association, Washington, DC, USA: 25 pp.Google Scholar
Turner, M.G. & Gregg, W.P. (1983). The status of scientific activities in the United States Biosphere Reserves. Environmental Conservation, 10 (3), pp. 231–7, 4 figs and Appendix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [cited as UNESCO] (1979). The Biosphere Reserve and its Relationship to Other Protected Areas. UNESCO, Paris, France: [not available for checking].Google Scholar
US Department of the Interior (1981). National Park Statistical Abstract. National Park Service, Statistical Office, Denver, Colorado, USA: 39 pp.Google Scholar
Western, D. & Henry, W. (1979). Economics and conservation in Third World National Parks. BioScience, 29 (7), pp. 414–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar