Centralized conservation
- Variable relationship:
This theory refers to what some (critically) refer to as "fortress conservation." As a model for protected area-based conservation, fortress conservation is defined in the Sage encyclopedia of Environment and Society (Robbins 2007, see also Brockington 2002) as the following:
"Fortress conservation is a conservation model based on the belief that biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance. Fortress, or protectionist, conservation assumes that local people use natural resources in irrational and destructive ways, and as a result cause biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. Protected areas following the fortress model can be characterized by three principles: local people dependent on the natural resource base are excluded; enforcement is implemented by park rangers patrolling the boundaries, using a “fines and fences” approach to ensure compliance; and only tourism, safari hunting, and scientific research are considered as appropriate uses within protected areas."
In the language of SESMAD variables, fortress conservation occurs when a highly centralized (Centralization) governance system creates a protected area (Policy Instrument) that strictly prohibits user access (PA IUCN strict zones), with low cost (Transaction Costs) monitoring and sanctions by the government (External Monitoring; External Sanctions). This combination is predicted to lead to effective conservation (Commons Condition Trend).
- Project
- SESMAD
- Sector(s)
- Scientific Field
- Component Type(s)
- Natural Resource System
- Status
- Public
Variables
| Variable | Role | Role Explanation | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Centralization | Underlying independent variable | The approach of forest conservation has taken place within highly centralized governance systems. | Highly centralized |
| Policy instrument | Underlying independent variable | Fortress conservation applies to protected area-based governance systems. | Protected area |
| PA IUCN strict zones | Underlying independent variable | The PA falls into the following IUCN category: Ia: Category Ia are strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. | 100% |
| User-commons proximity | Proximate independent variable | As a result of the implementation of the PA, local users groups are pushed out of the commons to ensure that they don't over-use it. | No |
| External monitoring | Moderating independent variable | Enforcement needs to be high to exclude people from the protected area. Monitoring usually done by protected area rangers/enforcers, sometimes the military. | Yes |
| Transaction costs | Moderating independent variable | The lower the transaction costs of setting the boundaries of the protected area and enforcing them the higher the net benefits of the policy. | Low |
| Compliance | Moderating independent variable | onitoring and sanctioning can enable the compliance needed to ensure that the PA scheme is effective. | Yes |
| External sanctions | Moderating independent variable | Enforcement needs to be high to exclude people from the protected area. Sanctioning usually done by protected area rangers/enforcers, sometimes the military. | Yes |
| Commons condition trend | Final outcome | The condition of the commons within the boundary of the protected area is predicted to improve, or at least remain the same, as a result of the elimination of human-based use and intervention into the relevant ecosystems. | Remained the same or improved |
Related Theories
| Theory | Relationship | Characterizing Variables |
|---|---|---|
| Critique of fortress conservation | contradictory | |
| CAR principles for conservation area design | related | |
| Failure of centralized control | contradictory | |
| Decentralization and elite capture | related | |
| Ecological effectiveness of MPAs | related | |
| Decentralization and leakage | related | |
| Local livelihood and protected areas | related | |
| Enforcement | contains | |
| Centralization and corruption | contradictory | |
| Decentralization and local capacity | related |