Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Governing protected areas to fulfil biodiversity conservation obligations: from Habermasian ideals to a more instrumental reality

Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the implications of the growing recognition of scale challenges, with a particular focus on those concerning the governance of protected areas (PAs), through a critical literature review. Two key scale challenges raised by PAs are considered: (1) the divergence of objectives between resource exploitation and biodiversity conservation; (2) the requirement to fulfil biodiversity conservation obligations. These are explored through a review of a UK marine PA case study which found that even though the state had adopted a controlling role that had created tensions by undermining the authority and livelihoods of some stakeholders, the partnership had been sufficiently strengthened to withstand these tensions through the instrumental development of ‘bracing social capital’. Four conclusions for governance research with a particular reference to PA governance are drawn, and it is argued that presumptions based on Habermasian ideals should not constrain governance analyses, in that they should constructively incorporate the instrumental roles of the state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2006). The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society, 10(2), Article 9.

  • Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2002). Cross-scale institutional linkages: Perspectives from the bottom up. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Sonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 293–321). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 621–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2006). From community-based resource management to complex systems: the scale issue and marine commons. Ecology and Society, 11(1), Article 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 104(39), 15188–15193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2008). Commons in a multi-level World. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1999). Collaborative management of protected areas. In S. Stolton & N. Dudley (Eds.), Partnerships for protection: New strategies for planning and management for protected areas (pp. 225–234). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M. T., Kothari, A., & Renard, Y. (2004). Sharing power: A global guide to collaborative management of natural resources. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brechin, S. R., Wilshusen, P. R., Fortwangler, C. L., & West, P. C. (2002). Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 41–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, S. J. (1999). Multiple-use commons, collective action, and platforms for resource use negotiation. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(3), 237–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multi-level World. Ecology and Society, 11(2), Article 8.

  • CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). (2010). Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity at its tenth meeting, X/2, the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Target 11 (p. 9). www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2012.

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Rational ecology: Environment and political economy. New York: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

  • Edwards, V. M., & Steins, N. A. (1999). Special issue introduction: The importance of context in common pool resource research. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1(3), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler, C. (2002). Murphree’s Law. The Common Property Resource Digest, 60, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action; volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press. English translation by Thomas McCarthy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, T. M., & Ostrom, E. (2005). Conserving the world’s forests: Are protected areas the only way? Indiana Law Review, 38, 595–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J., Gegory, D., Pratt, G., & Watts, M. (2000). The dictionary of human geography (4th ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. J. S. (2001). Marine protected area strategies: Issues, divergences and the search for middle ground. Reviews in fish biology and fisheries, 11(3), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. J. S., & Burgess, J. (2005). Building partnership capacity for the collaborative management of marine protected areas in the UK: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 77(3), 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. J. S, Qiu, W., & De Santo, E. M. (2011). Governing marine protected areas: Getting the balance right. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.mpag.info. Accessed July 3, 2012.

  • Kelleher, G. (1999). Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kjær, A. M. (2004). Governance. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, M. B., & Corbett, T. (2005). The tyranny of localism: Indigenous participation in community-based environmental management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascia, M. (2003). The human dimension of coral reef marine protected areas: Recent social science research and its policy implications. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 630–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCay, B. J. (2002). Emergence of institutions for the commons: Contexts, situations and events. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Sonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 361–402). Washington. DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClanahan, T. (2004). The limits to beyond boundaries. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 14, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphree, M. W. (1994). The role of institutions in community-based conservation. In D. Western, R. M. Wright, & S. C. Strum (Eds.), Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation (pp. 403–427). Washington DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioural approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review Political Science, 2, 493–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2007). Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 104(39), 15176–15178.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D. (2005). Paradoxes in biodiversity conservation. World Economics, 6(3), 57–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. (2003). Turning ideas on their head: The new paradigm for protected areas. George Wright Forum, 20(2), 8–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkerton, E. W. (1992). Translating legal rights into management practice: Overcoming barriers to the exercise of co-management. Human Organization, 51(4), 330–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platteau, J.-P. (2004). Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development. Development and Change, 35(2), 223–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J., & Smith, D. (2006). Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 631–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raik, D. B., Wilson, A. L., & Decker, D. J. (2008). Power in natural resources management: An application of theory. Society and Natural Resources, 21(8), 729–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, T., & Jones, P. J. S. (2009). Shellfishing, eider ducks and nature conservation on the Wash: Questions raised by a fractured partnership. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 538–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydin, Y. (2006). Institutions and networks: The search for conceptual research tools. In Y. Rydin & E. Falleth (Eds.), Networks and institutions in natural resource management (pp. 15–33). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rydin, R., & Holman, N. (2004). Re-evaluating the contribution of social capital in achieving sustainable development. Local Environment, 9(2), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, F., Mohammed, S. M., Jiddawi, N., & Sjöling, S. (2008). An examination of governance arrangements at Kisakasaka Mangrove Reserve in Zanzibar. Environmental Management, 41, 663–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steins, N. A., & Edwards, V. M. (1999). Synthesis: Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(3), 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Ostrom, E., & Stonich, S. (2002). Knowledge and questions after 15 years of research. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Sonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 445–489). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, B. B. (2004). Local management of mangrove forests in the Philippines: Successful conservation or efficient resource exploitation? Human Ecology, 32(2), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. (2006). Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society, 11(1), Article 27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. S. Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, P.J.S. Governing protected areas to fulfil biodiversity conservation obligations: from Habermasian ideals to a more instrumental reality. Environ Dev Sustain 15, 39–50 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9375-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9375-3

Keywords

Navigation