A highly polarized debate has emerged in the conservation literature about whether national parks in lesser developed countries should follow a strict protectionist model or find ways to accommodate the development and livelihood needs of local people. A number of social science critiques of national park practice and policy in lesser developed countries have argued that one of the chief problems facing national parks in particular, and biodiversity conservation in general, has been the USA national park model, often termed the ‘Yellowstone model’. This model, in which local and indigenous people and uses have been excluded from parks, has been blamed for harming local people, providing benefits to developed country interests at the expense of local people, high costs of park protection, and ineffective biodiversity conservation (Machlis & Tichnell 1985; West & Brechin 1991; Pimbert & Pretty 1995). Alternatives (henceforth referred to as ‘parks and people’ approaches) seek accommodations between parks and local people, and include community-based conservation, which promotes local involvement and/or control in park decision-making, and integrated conservation and development projects, which attempt to ensure conservation by meeting social and economic needs of local people through agroforestry, forestry, tourism, water projects, extractive reserves, and wildlife utilization.