领土保护:肯尼亚和纳米比亚基于社区的方法

Linus Kalvelage, M. Bollig, E. Grawert, Carolin Hulke, Maximilian Meyer, K. Mkutu, M. Müller-Koné, J. Díez
{"title":"领土保护:肯尼亚和纳米比亚基于社区的方法","authors":"Linus Kalvelage, M. Bollig, E. Grawert, Carolin Hulke, Maximilian Meyer, K. Mkutu, M. Müller-Koné, J. Díez","doi":"10.4103/cs.cs_18_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Community-based Conservation seeks to strike a balance between nature conservation and economic growth by establishing spatial and institutional settings that maintain and even regain biodiversity while simultaneously allowing for sustainable land use. The implementation of community-based conservation blueprints on communal, often agronomically marginal lands, is in many southern and eastern African countries encouraged by the national government. Despite vast academic literature on community-based conservation, it remains unclear how this re-shaping of resource governance has driven territorialisation in rural areas. To address this gap, this article compares the implementation of community-based conservation in Northern Kenya and Northern Namibia. By doing so, we intend to shed light on the question 'why does community-based conservation result in different forms of territorialisation negotiated between state agencies, non-governmental organisations and rural communities? We demonstrate how historical preconditions, contemporary project design, and the commodification of natural resources shape territorialisation in both cases in different ways. In Kenya, concerns for securitisation have been driving community-based conservation, while in Namibia it primarily aimed to benefit the previously disadvantaged rural residents. Furthermore, in both regions community-based conservation programmes serve as vehicles to articulate political claims, either to reify traditional authorities, to create ethnically homogenous territories or to define boundaries of resource use.","PeriodicalId":376207,"journal":{"name":"Conservation and Society","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Territorialising Conservation: Community-based Approaches in Kenya and Namibia\",\"authors\":\"Linus Kalvelage, M. Bollig, E. Grawert, Carolin Hulke, Maximilian Meyer, K. Mkutu, M. Müller-Koné, J. Díez\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/cs.cs_18_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Community-based Conservation seeks to strike a balance between nature conservation and economic growth by establishing spatial and institutional settings that maintain and even regain biodiversity while simultaneously allowing for sustainable land use. The implementation of community-based conservation blueprints on communal, often agronomically marginal lands, is in many southern and eastern African countries encouraged by the national government. Despite vast academic literature on community-based conservation, it remains unclear how this re-shaping of resource governance has driven territorialisation in rural areas. To address this gap, this article compares the implementation of community-based conservation in Northern Kenya and Northern Namibia. By doing so, we intend to shed light on the question 'why does community-based conservation result in different forms of territorialisation negotiated between state agencies, non-governmental organisations and rural communities? We demonstrate how historical preconditions, contemporary project design, and the commodification of natural resources shape territorialisation in both cases in different ways. In Kenya, concerns for securitisation have been driving community-based conservation, while in Namibia it primarily aimed to benefit the previously disadvantaged rural residents. Furthermore, in both regions community-based conservation programmes serve as vehicles to articulate political claims, either to reify traditional authorities, to create ethnically homogenous territories or to define boundaries of resource use.\",\"PeriodicalId\":376207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation and Society\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

以社区为基础的保护寻求在自然保护和经济增长之间取得平衡,方法是建立空间和机构环境,在允许可持续土地利用的同时维持甚至恢复生物多样性。在非洲南部和东部的许多国家,国家政府鼓励在通常是农艺边缘的公共土地上实施基于社区的保护蓝图。尽管有大量关于以社区为基础的保护的学术文献,但尚不清楚这种资源治理的重塑是如何推动农村地区的领土化的。为了解决这一差距,本文比较了肯尼亚北部和纳米比亚北部社区保护的实施情况。通过这样做,我们打算阐明这个问题“为什么以社区为基础的保护会导致国家机构、非政府组织和农村社区之间谈判产生不同形式的领土化?”我们展示了历史前提条件、当代项目设计和自然资源商品化如何以不同的方式塑造了两种情况下的领土化。在肯尼亚,对证券化的关注推动了以社区为基础的保护,而在纳米比亚,证券化的主要目的是使以前处于不利地位的农村居民受益。此外,在这两个区域,以社区为基础的保护方案成为表达政治主张的工具,要么具体化传统权威,要么建立种族同质的领土,要么确定资源使用的边界。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Territorialising Conservation: Community-based Approaches in Kenya and Namibia
Community-based Conservation seeks to strike a balance between nature conservation and economic growth by establishing spatial and institutional settings that maintain and even regain biodiversity while simultaneously allowing for sustainable land use. The implementation of community-based conservation blueprints on communal, often agronomically marginal lands, is in many southern and eastern African countries encouraged by the national government. Despite vast academic literature on community-based conservation, it remains unclear how this re-shaping of resource governance has driven territorialisation in rural areas. To address this gap, this article compares the implementation of community-based conservation in Northern Kenya and Northern Namibia. By doing so, we intend to shed light on the question 'why does community-based conservation result in different forms of territorialisation negotiated between state agencies, non-governmental organisations and rural communities? We demonstrate how historical preconditions, contemporary project design, and the commodification of natural resources shape territorialisation in both cases in different ways. In Kenya, concerns for securitisation have been driving community-based conservation, while in Namibia it primarily aimed to benefit the previously disadvantaged rural residents. Furthermore, in both regions community-based conservation programmes serve as vehicles to articulate political claims, either to reify traditional authorities, to create ethnically homogenous territories or to define boundaries of resource use.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Cactus Hunters: Desire and Extinction in the Illicit Succulent Trade Ecological Entanglements: Affect, Embodiment, and Ethics of Care What are the Impacts on Community Wellbeing of Social Relations in Conservation Projects? Medicine Wheel for the Planet: A Journey Towards Personal and Ecological Healing Animals and Epidemics: Interspecies Entanglements in Historical Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1