Introduction
There is considerable international policy debate concerning the relationship between biodiversity conservation policy and poverty (Sanderson & Redford, Reference Sanderson and Redford2003; Adams et al., Reference Adams, Aveling, Brockington, Dickson, Elliot, Hutton, Roe, Vira and Wolmer2004; Roe & Elliott, Reference Roe and Elliott2004). Here we explore the possibility of a relationship between poverty and conservation, in the form of protected areas, at the national scale.
The consensus reached at the end of the 20th century on the primacy of poverty eradication as a global target, and the dependence of many poor people on rural natural resources, can be interpreted as a powerful argument for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity, in the sense of species and functioning ecosystems, provides local and wider benefits. These include food, water, timber, genomes, regulation of floods and climate, waste treatment, recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, soil formation, nutrient cycling, breeding grounds for prey, and plant pollination (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The local and global benefits of goods and services from intact ecosystems subject to sustainable use have been estimated to substantially outweigh those from converted systems subject to more intensive farming or forestry (Balmford et al., Reference Balmford, Bruner, Cooper, Costanza, Farber, Green, Jenkins, Jefferiss, Jessamy, Madden, Munro, Myers, Naeem, Paavola, Rayment, Rosendo, Roughgarden, Trumper and Turner2002).
The importance of sustainable environmental management to the livelihoods of the rural poor is recognized in the Millennium Development Goals. The proportion of land in protected areas is specified as one of five indicators of performance against Target 9, Goal 7 (‘ensure environmental sustainability'; UN, 2005). The rationale for using the extent of land in protected areas as an indicator of environmental sustainability reflects not only conservation concerns but also the actual and potential contribution of protected areas to local livelihoods (World Bank, 2004), for example through direct usage, where access is permitted, or indirectly through tourism or other non-consumptive economic uses. The apparent linkages between poverty and conservation suggest that solutions can be identified that meet both livelihood and biodiversity goals (Timmer & Juma, Reference Timmer and Juma2005), notwithstanding evidence that such solutions have proved elusive to date (Hulme & Murphree, Reference Hulme and Murphree2001; Adams et al., Reference Adams, Aveling, Brockington, Dickson, Elliot, Hutton, Roe, Vira and Wolmer2004; Agrawal & Redford, Reference Agrawal and Redford2006).
On the other hand, conservationists express concern at the extent to which, since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, biodiversity has moved down the development agenda, and suggest that the pursuit of economic development in the name of poverty alleviation has become a major threat to biodiversity (Sanderson & Redford, Reference Sanderson and Redford2003; Sanderson, Reference Sanderson2005). The compatibility of conservation and development are increasingly being called into question (Sanderson, Reference Sanderson2005) and there is pessimism that solutions satisfying both agendas can be achieved on any scale.
Poverty and protected areas
The debate about poverty and conservation is particularly vigorous with respect to the social impacts of protected areas (West & Brockington Reference West and Brockington2006), which are the dominant approach to in situ biodiversity conservation (Ravenel & Redford, Reference Ravenel and Redford2005). Globally there are >105,000 protected areas that cover >20 million km2, more than 11% of the Earth's land surface (Chape et al., Reference Chape, Harrison, Spalding and Lysenko2005). There is conservation concern over the best means of safeguarding protected areas from development pressure (Brandon & Wells, Reference Brandon and Wells1992; Brandon et al., Reference Brandon, Redford and Sanderson1998; Struhsaker, Reference Struhsaker1999; Terborgh, Reference Terborgh1999) and renewed commitment to strictly protected parks, i.e. those that effectively prohibit human use and occupation, as the only effective strategy for conserving threatened biodiversity (Hutton et al., Reference Hutton, Adams and Murombedzi2005). At the same time, however, there is policy concern over the impact of protected areas on local livelihoods (Brockington, Reference Brockington2002; Colchester, Reference Colchester2002; Brechin et al. Reference Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler and West2003). While economic benefits from protected areas can be substantial (e.g. through wildlife tourism), net local socio-economic impacts can be strongly negative (Emerton, Reference Emerton, Hulme and Murphree2001). The biggest problem is involuntary displacement of human communities, defined to include not only the impacts of physical removal (Geisler & de Sousa, Reference Geisler and de Sousa2001; Brockington, Reference Brockington2002; Colchester, Reference Colchester2002; Fortwangler, Reference Fortwangler, Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler and West2003) but also the restriction of access to resources in the more exclusionary categories of protected areas, including restrictions on the use of resources by people living outside a protected area (Cernea, Reference Cernea2006).
Policy debate about people and parks, as in the case of more general debates about conservation and poverty, is thus characterized by strong divisions of opinion, often grounded in data from a restricted number of specific case studies (Ghimire and Pimbert, Reference Ghimire and Pimbert1997; Spinage, Reference Spinage1998; Terborgh, Reference Terborgh1999; Geisler, Reference Geisler2003; Chapin Reference Chapin2004; Dowie, Reference Dowie2005). However, there are few systematic investigations of relationships between protected areas, poverty and prosperity on a larger scale (Brockington & Schmidt-Soltau, Reference Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau2004; Brockington et al., Reference Brockington, Igoe and Schmidt-Soltau2006; de Sherbinin, Reference de Sherbinin2008). Some studies do suggest that wider relationships between conservation and poverty exist. For example, Norton-Griffiths & Southey (Reference Norton-Griffiths and Southey1995) explored the national opportunity costs caused by the enclosure of land in protected areas. Geisler & de Sousa (Reference Geisler and de Sousa2001) analysed the relationships between the extent of protected areas and national wealth in Africa and concluded that those countries with highest indices of poverty also have the greatest extent of protected areas in IUCN protected area categories I-V (IUCN, 1994). Geisler has also observed that between 1985 and 1997 poorer African countries gazetted many more protected areas than richer African countries (Geisler Reference Geisler2003). The current figure of total protected areas in the WDPA (World Database on Protected Areas; IUCN, 2005) is now nearly four times higher than the 29,000 that were recorded when Geisler published his research. This issue requires further examination.
The question of scale is important because the relationship between protected areas and poverty may only be observable at particular scales, such as the sub-national (de Sherbinin, Reference de Sherbinin2008) or local (Dasgupta et al., Reference Dasgupta, Deichmann, Meisner and Wheeler2005). In this paper we explore whether poverty and conservation are linked at the national scale. If so, we might expect different numbers and kinds of protected area in countries with different levels of poverty. For example, richer countries may have more protected areas because they can afford them, and their larger conservation movements demand them; alternatively, poor countries may have more protected areas because they are dependent on foreign investment and therefore more likely to comply with protected area expansion agendas. We consider relationships between: (1) the extent and category of protected areas and World Bank national income categories, and (2) indicators of poverty and the extent of protected areas at the national scale.
Methods
In this analysis we include 136 countries listed in the World Bank World Development Indicators for 2005 (World Bank, 2005a). However, we exclude small countries (population <1.5 million), as their gross national income (GNI) per capita may be especially vulnerable to economic shocks, enabling them to move rapidly between national income groups. We also exclude small island states because our analysis is limited to terrestrial protected areas, and the considerable extent of marine protected areas typical of such states makes analysis in terms of terrestrial land area meaningless.
Countries were initially allocated to five World Bank income groups following the World Bank List of Economies, April 2005 (World Bank, 2005b): low, lower middle, upper middle, high income non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and high income OECD. Of the 136 countries only four were in the high income non-OECD category. These were combined with high income OECD countries to form an aggregate category (High Income OECD/non-OECD) in subsequent bivariate analyses.
Protected area data for each of the 136 countries are taken from the WDPA (IUCN, 2005) (Appendix). Polygon data on the extent of protected areas were used where available. We analyse only terrestrial protected areas as data on the extent of marine territorial claims were not readily available. We exclude proposed and degazetted protected areas. IUCN has identified six categories of protected areas according to management objectives to act as common labels for protected areas established at the national level (IUCN, 1994; Bishop et al., Reference Bishop, Dudley, Phillips and Stolton2004). Categories Ia, Ib and II strictly exclude significant human occupation and resource use, and potentially have the most significant impacts on local livelihoods. Categories III and IV refer to protected areas with lesser degrees of constraint on users, categories V and VI the least (Bishop et al., Reference Bishop, Dudley, Phillips and Stolton2004; Ravenel & Redford, Reference Ravenel and Redford2005). We use three protected area indicators according to the degree to which protected areas potentially constrain human economic activity: (1) total proportion of country protected (all six IUCN categories); (2) proportion of country in IUCN Categories Ia, Ib and II; (3) proportion of country in IUCN Categories Ia, Ib, II, III and IV (Appendix; country area data are from World Bank, 2005a). Individual country data from WDPA (IUCN, 2005) and income group allocations from the World Bank List of Economies (World Bank, 2005b) are used as a basis for calculation of protected area indicators by World Bank income group (Table 1). In addition, we also calculate average sizes of individual protected areas by country and World Bank income group (Table 1, Appendix). The latter data is used to examine fully the distribution and characteristics of protected areas by income groups.
Table 1 Total land area, number of protected areas, and protected land area (for all IUCN protected area categories combined), and total protected land area by selected area categories (WDPA, 2005), for the five World Bank income groups (World Bank, 2005b; see text for further details)
1 Includes all protected areas in IUCN categories I-VI, including those with no area data
2 As a percentage of total land area
3 As a percentage of country size
4 Mean size of protected areas
Data on poverty were obtained primarily from World Bank (2005a) and UNDP (2004). There are many possible indicators and definitions of poverty in current use. All available national level indicators have their limitations, typically failing to capture sub-national diversity and to represent subsistence-based rural livelihoods (Karshenas, Reference Karshenas2004/2005; Reddy & Pogge, Reference Reddy and Pogge2005). We use GNI per capita calculated by Atlas and Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) methods, the percentage of population living on <USD 1 per day, and the Human Development Index (HDI) from the suite of possible indicators on the basis of their widespread availability and usage, the importance of the <USD 1 per day indicator in poverty debates, and the need for monetary and non-monetary indicators. Data for the <USD 1 per day indicator were taken from McKay et al. (Reference McKay, Baulch, Hisarciklilar and Lawson2004) for Uganda, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, North Korea and Sudan, rather than from World Bank (2005a) because of concerns with data availability and accuracy (Appendix).
Spearman's 2-tailed rank correlations were performed on poverty and protected area indicators to identify covariation between the nature and extent of protected areas and poverty, both for the full dataset and by World Bank income group. Spearman's rank correlations are selected as the most robust and conservative given the presence of outliers in the dataset and/or non-normal distribution for many analyses.
Results
Distribution and characteristics of protected areas by country income groups
Table 1 provides a summary of the number and percentage of protected areas by IUCN categories in the five national income groups. The upper middle income group of countries has the greatest percentage of land in protected areas (14.89% of total land area). The average size of individual protected areas in richer countries is small compared to country area (0.04% of land area for high income OECD countries; Table 1). Where more restrictive Category I-II and I-IV protected areas occur these are small compared to those in poorer countries (average size of Category I-II protected areas is 170 km2 for high income OECD countries, as opposed to 2,270 km2 for low income countries; Table 1). However, the least restrictive Category VI dominates the protected area estate in terms of the total land area dedicated to any single protected area category in these wealthier countries (Table 1). In upper middle income countries most protected areas are of intermediate size, and again the least restrictive Category VI designation is most extensive, in this case exceeding even the composite categories I-II and I-IV as a percentage of land area (Table 1). In contrast, protected areas in low income countries (dominated by sub-Saharan Africa) are fewer but, on average, orders of magnitude larger both absolutely and as a proportion of country size (Table 1). In summary, protected areas in the poorest countries tend to be individually larger and in the more restrictive categories. In richer countries the overall area protected is larger but this total is made up of numerous smaller protected areas.
Protected areas and poverty indicators
Analysis of selected poverty indicators at national level for the whole dataset demonstrates weak negative correlations with the extent of different protected area categories (Table 2). There are positive correlations between protected area indicators and HDI in wealthy countries, suggesting that wealthy countries have placed more land in protected areas. There are no correlations between poverty and protected area indicators for other national income groups (Table 2).
Table 2 Significant spearman rank correlations between protected area (WDPA, 2005)Footnote 1 and poverty indicatorsFootnote 2, for all countries in database and by World Bank income groups. See text for further details.
1 Protected area indicators are total land in protected areas (all IUCN categories) as a percentage of total land area, and land area in IUCN categories I-II and I-IV as a percentage of total land area.
Discussion
Our analysis shows that the distribution, size and category of protected areas vary between countries of different income groups. Poorer countries tend to have fewer, larger protected areas, often dominated by the more restrictive categories, whereas high income OECD countries tend to have smaller, fragmented protected area systems, although overall a larger protected area estate. Upper middle income countries have particularly large percentages of their land areas set aside for conservation in protected areas.
However, there is no clear relationship between the area of land in protected areas and national levels of poverty or wealth. Our analysis identifies weak significant relationships between the size of the protected area estate (as % of total land area in IUCN categories I-II and I-IV) and poverty at the national scale, which vary according to national income category. Wealth and the extent of protected areas are positively correlated in the wealthiest economies but not in the poorest countries. In all instances correlations account for <35% of covariation, thus highlighting the existence of contingent conditions and variables that these national level indicators fail to reflect or capture. In no income-based category of countries do the economic and social effects (whether positive or negative) of conservation in the form of protected areas have a substantial effect on aggregate, national poverty statistics. Negative impacts on local livelihoods of the kind reported in case studies (Brockington, Reference Brockington2002; Emerton, Reference Emerton, Hulme and Murphree2001) are not reflected in national level data. De Sherbinin (Reference de Sherbinin2008) does note significant correlations between sub-national poverty indicators and large, restrictive protected areas in low income countries, although causal relationships remain unclear.
Clearly, while negative (or positive) socio-economic impacts of protected area designation may be significant for local residents and the local economy, particularly in poorer, resource-dependent communities (as micro-scale studies show: Brockington, Reference Brockington2002; Colchester, Reference Colchester2002; Timmer & Juma, Reference Timmer and Juma2005), these effects are not discernible at the national scale. The most likely explanation for this is simply that the number of people adversely affected by protected areas is small compared to the number of poor people nationally, even in countries with extensive rural poverty and large protected area estates. Significant factors here are likely to be dilution (the numbers affected by protected areas being small compared to national population size), and the proportion of the poor who live in urban as opposed to rural areas. As the urban population grows, the relative national significance of any impacts of protected areas on rural populations may be expected to fall. Local negative impacts of protected areas could increase levels of rural-urban migration and reduce any rural-urban economic remittances. However, such effects are unlikely to affect sufficient numbers of people to be discernible in national level statistics. Similarly, urban benefits from the preservation of habitat in protected areas (e.g. ecosystem services such as fresh water) are unlikely to be measurable at the national scale given the range of factors affecting urban poverty.
These are not surprising conclusions. As is obvious from numerous case studies (Ghimire & Pimbert, Reference Ghimire and Pimbert1997; Spinage, Reference Spinage1998; Brechin et al., Reference Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler and West2003; Dowie, Reference Dowie2005), a multitude of intervening site specific and contextual variables shape the effect of protected areas on local wealth or poverty. Our conclusion supports suggestions that the relationships between poverty and conservation are dynamic and often locally specific (Adams et al., Reference Adams, Aveling, Brockington, Dickson, Elliot, Hutton, Roe, Vira and Wolmer2004). It suggests, however, in agreement with de Sherbinin (Reference de Sherbinin2008), that at larger scales the relationships between protected areas and poverty remain indeterminate, and counters the suggestion that more protected areas are associated with greater poverty at the national scale (Geisler, Reference Geisler2003). Our conclusion also questions the wisdom of the Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2005) in using the extent of protected areas as an indicator of progress in achieving the livelihood dimensions of sustainability. While the total extent of protected areas may be a good measure of success in protecting biodiversity, it is not an effective measure of those aspects of environmental quality and accessibility relevant to poverty alleviation.
This analysis is useful in the context of the debate concerning ‘people and parks' (Brandon & Wells, Reference Brandon and Wells1992; Fortwangler, Reference Fortwangler, Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler and West2003; Hutton et al., Reference Hutton, Adams and Murombedzi2005; West & Brockington, Reference West and Brockington2006). It suggests that critics of conservation who build upon local case studies to erect a systematic critique of protected areas as a significant cause of poverty risk exaggerating the scale of the problem. On the other hand, those conservation advocates who see protected areas as the cornerstone of sustainable development strategies that can alleviate poverty nationally also need to temper their enthusiasm. It may be possible to find outcomes in which both poverty alleviation and conservation goals are achieved in some specific, possibly unusual, circumstances. However, very often, clear choices will need to be made between the relative importance of conservation and livelihood goals.
Acknowledgements
We thank the UK Poverty and Conservation Working Group for many discussions. We also thank staff at the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, and Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, for discussions in the early stages of the work.
Appendix
The appendix for this article is available online at http://journals.cambridge.org
Biographical sketches
Caroline Upton works on pastoralism and institutional change, and her current research interests include the impacts of conservation policy and practice on pastoral livelihoods. Richard Ladle's research interests include conservation biogeography and market-led solutions to the biodiversity crisis. David Hulme's research interests are in poverty reduction and conservation. Tao Jiang is an environmental consultant. Dan Brockington is working on a comparative global assessment of eviction and exclusion from protected areas. Bill Adams has a particular interest in the history of conservation and the development of conservation strategies that take account of human needs.
