Integrated Natural Resource and Conservation Development (INRCD) Projects is an umbrella term for a variety of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs), a concept first introduced by the World Wide Fund for Nature in the mid 1980s to target practice-oriented efforts in developing countries; and Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) research and development projects introduced as adaptive management for fisheries, wildlife, forest, and rangeland to target analysis-oriented efforts in developing and developed countries. Both efforts seek to balance economic development and natural resource conservation. This paper reviews the literature over the past four decades in an attempt to determine which planning and execution methods lead to greater success. A thematic analysis revealed three broad areas of importance: community inclusion and income diversification, inadequate training and management, and inability to properly quantify data. A systems design optimization approach for such projects is advocated to support project decision making in these areas of importance.

Despite decades of continuous research highlighting the biological success of mountain gorilla conservation in the Virunga-Bwindi Massif, there is little knowledge of whether people living near the mountain gorilla parks perceive benefits from protected areas (PAs). This paper is the first study in the region to use the sustainable livelihoods framework to understand drivers of local perceptions of PA benefits. We used a logit regression to examine the relationship between household socioeconomic characteristics and the costs and benefits that 752 men and women living near mountain gorilla PAs reported. Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) in the Virunga-Bwindi Massif have improved perceptions of mountain gorilla PAs, but they need to prioritize projects that improve human and social capital. The frustration voiced about inequitable benefit distribution highlights the need for further social equity research to ensure ICDPs, including revenue-sharing schemes, are managed transparently and equitably.

Annual revenue flow to developing countries for ecotourism could be as large as US$ 29 billion, providing an enormous financial incentive against habitat loss and exploitation. However, surprisingly little quantitative evidence exists on the profitability of the rainforest ecotourism sector, which determines the incentive and capacity of the sector to engage in conservation. A Peruvian rainforest ecotourism cluster generated US$ 11.6 million in 2005. The after-tax profit margin was at least 14% and has increased with tourist volume. High profitability, coupled with new legislation, has allowed operators to put 54 358 ha of rainforest near the new Interoceánica Sur highway under private management and to engage in conservation actions. A previously published microeconomic contract model of protected-areas management identifies two key features of rainforest tourism that link ecotourism to conservation: (1) tourists demand an immersive experience, which incentivizes the acquisition of large amounts of forest cover, and (2) institutional reforms have increased the expected effectiveness of conservation actions. In Peru, these conditions appear to be met, so that profits from ecotourism can combine with new land tenure rights to create a governance structure within which the industry can act as an independently financed partner to the conservation community.

Independent evaluations of the impact and legacy of large donor-funded integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) are critically important but rarely undertaken. The India Eco-Development Project around Periyar Tiger Reserve (PTR-IEDP) in southern India received US$ 6.0 million, of which 43.2% was spent on community-based conservation activities. The PTR-IEDP was internally evaluated as ‘successful’. Questionnaire surveys and on-site visits were used to independently evaluate its development impact and legacy, two years after the IEDP ended. Questionnaire surveys were administered to a random sample of 90 respondents from a treatment group who participated in and benefited from IEDP, and to 90 respondents from a control group who did not participate in IEDP. Among the treatment group, 71.1% of respondents were aware of IEDP's objectives, but receipt of community benefits did not influence their attitudes to conservation. Instead, their attitudes were best explained by previous experience of human-wildlife conflict, their age and their participation in an ecotourism-based profession. Furthermore, only 36.4% of the 55 community benefits sampled were still being used or maintained. Future investments in ICDPs, or any similar conservation and developmental projects need to carefully justify any of the developments they implement, and to use appropriate indicators and study design to measure project legacy.

Based on ethical, theoretical and practical concerns, community-based conservation projects have developed over the past 2 decades as alternatives to traditional protected areas. Recent criticisms of such programmes by biologists and social scientists involve a debate on who should manage our natural resources. Such criticisms have focused on large integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) and have largely ignored the successes of small community conservation projects. Practitioners of ICDPs have also been disappointed with the results of their projects and are seeking answers from ICDP failures. Two important differences separate community conservation projects and ICDPs and have led to the success of the smaller projects: (1) community conservation projects see local rural people as the solution to habitat degradation whereas ICDPs see them as the problem, (2) the scale of the smaller projects is at the community level but can use the same methods regionally, whereas ICDPs are large in scale and cost. We discuss, from a practitioner’s viewpoint, the strengths that contribute to the successes of community conservation projects, including actually functioning at the community level, creating an empowered community group to carry on the social sustainability of the project, continuous basic level funding, and the importance of monitoring.