Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
complexity further undermines the validity of conventional planning
approaches to environment and development. 'Such narratives are operation-
alised into standard approaches with widespread application, often leading
to the standardised “blueprint” approaches to planning that have been so
often condemned as ineffective or destructive' (Adams & Hulme, 1992: 2).
This is exemplified by conventional approaches to national park planning in
much of the developing world. Despite being an essential aid to conservation,
their designation has often been to the distinct disadvantage of rural popula-
tions. Indeed, governments have often excluded local communities under the
misconception that people were disadvantageous to environmental conserva-
tion (Murphree & Hulme, 1998).
The crude notion of social sustainability extends into other areas of con-
temporary environmental management theory, such as the 'new conserva-
tion' articulated by Hulme and Murphree (1999). Community conservation
implies a more complex and dynamic phenomenon than a mere shift in
responsibility from state to community, suggesting similarly a more complex
approach to tourism planning than proposed by the traditional 'community'
approach (Murphy, 1985, 1988; see also Chapter 6). The concept embraces a
web of socio-political factors, core concepts including the elevation of indig-
enous environmental knowledge and the need to recognise rural inhabitants
as 'citizens not criminals'. Such an eclectic marriage of conservation philoso-
phies sits comfortably with the concept of sustainability. The notion of
conservation as preservation is challenged by the emerging sustainability
paradigm in which both conservation and development (in the sense of
improving security of livelihoods and welfare) are seen as mutually exclusive
targets. Natural resources accordingly can be utilised so long as sustainability
is not compromised (Hulme & Murphree, 1999).
The value of institutional capital has also become an established part of
development thinking. A common critique of neoclassical formulations of
sustainable development has been its oversimplified understanding of social
behaviour and, in particular, the social basis of environmental management.
For example, neo-classicists consider resources held as common property sus-
ceptible to unsustainable rates of consumption because while, they are sub-
ject to individual use, they are not subject to individual possession. Thus,
optimal rates of return from resource consumption can only be achieved
through the allocation of exclusive property rights to individuals and the
creation of a market in environmental damage (Jacobs, 1994). This perspec-
tive on the 'common pool resource' (CPR) problem has long pervaded aca-
demic and policy arenas (Berkes, 1989) and has spurred development agencies
and governments into measures to dismantle customary CPR management
regimes, many of which have consequently succumbed to formal land tenure
laws (McKean & Ostrom, 1995), all in the name of 'development'.
Environment and development discourse has, in recent years, begun to
reject the conventional wisdom, focusing instead upon the characteristics of
Search WWH ::
Custom Search