Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

152137-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Firstly, this study uses community asset mapping guided by the Community Capitals Framework (CCF) to explore the linkages between Protected Areas (PAs), tourism and community livelihoods. Secondly, it assesses changes in community needs facilitated by community participation in wildlife-based tourism in a protected area setting. Thirdly and finally, the study

Firstly, this study uses community asset mapping guided by the Community Capitals Framework (CCF) to explore the linkages between Protected Areas (PAs), tourism and community livelihoods. Secondly, it assesses changes in community needs facilitated by community participation in wildlife-based tourism in a protected area setting. Thirdly and finally, the study assesses whether the introduction of community wildlife-based tourism in a protected area as a sustainable management tool has led to the spiraling up or down of community capitals. The study adopted qualitative research method approach and made use of data collected through community asset mapping supplemented by data from focus group discussions, households, key informants, and secondary data materials that were analyzed and interpreted in light of community capital framework. The Chobe National Park (CNP) and Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust (CECT); a community living adjacent to CNP in Botswana provides the context on which this study's discussion focuses. Results indicate that the accession of Botswana from colonialism through post colonialism era intertwined considerable institutional arrangement changes in the field of protected area governance that reflects evolutionary management styles. Protected areas, tourism and community livelihoods linkages are based on many inter-dependents of community capitals relationships which are dependent on community socio-economic activities. In assessing changes in community needs, the results indicate that participation in wildlife-based tourism has brought both positive and negative changes that have implications on both the status quo for community livelihoods and protected areas, namely; the influence of changes in community capitals dynamics, mechanization and commercialization of agriculture, government funded infrastructural development, income generation, and the commodification of some of the community capitals. Finally, the increased livelihoods options and diversification dynamics, fragile wildlife-livestock co-existence, heightened human-wildlife conflicts, environmental education and awareness are the emerging themes that explain how the introduction of tourism in a protected area setting affect the spiraling up and down of the community capitals dynamics.
ContributorsStone, Moren T. (Author) / Nyaupane, Gyan P (Thesis advisor) / Buduk, Megha (Committee member) / Thapa, Brijesh (Committee member) / Timothy, Dallen J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
137215-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Conservation is a complicated entity consisting of a multitude of professional fields including social issues, cultural issues, and physical science. This thesis evaluates the positive and negative aspects of two broad types of conservation: top down fortress conservation and bottom up community-based conservation. Fortress conservation has many negative aspects, such

Conservation is a complicated entity consisting of a multitude of professional fields including social issues, cultural issues, and physical science. This thesis evaluates the positive and negative aspects of two broad types of conservation: top down fortress conservation and bottom up community-based conservation. Fortress conservation has many negative aspects, such as displacing human communities and preventing utilization of resources. However, it also has positive aspects, such as preventing the destruction of delicate ecosystems and slowing down extinctions. Community-based conservation is more inclusive and focuses on including the indigenous populations located within the proposed conservation site in the decision-making process. Its negatives include having an anthropocentric goal instead of valuing nature's intrinsic values. Understanding the differences inherent in these two methods is necessary in order to implement a conservation network with the highest chance for success.
ContributorsFink, Laurel Berylline (Author) / Smith, Andrew (Thesis director) / Collins, James (Committee member) / Minteer, Ben (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2014-05