© 2008 Valerie Hickey
Made by Serif
Theoretical Background Research Application
Traditional scientific efforts in conservation have focused on what to conserve,
not how (Redford and Sanjayan, 2003). The latter is largely address at two levels,
which rarely appear to meet (Bawa et al, 2004). On the ground, actions are applied
as band-
Environment is a challenging semantic domain (Reser, 2005). As such it has become
a prime site of contestation between opposing normative views; some of these espouse
a perspective wedded to the treadmill of production at any cost; others promulgate
a primal perspective that centres on our biophysical embodiment. In today’s politics,
environment has become a catch-
Biodiversity conservation is no less impacted by paradigmatic differences. Conservation
paradigms inhabit a spectrum that alternatively promotes a preservationist – bullets
and barbed wire, fines and fences – or a sustainable development approach. One espouses
a catastrophist interpretation of our modern way of life, the other a cornucopian
perspective. These paradigms are meta-
With fuzzy defining and boundary structures, a conservationist by another name is
not simply another conservationist. For example, within the biodiversity conservation
tribe, the conservation paradigm is articulated using language borrowed from religion,
genuine social protest, and economics, but what it advocates is not necessarily these
things. Indeed at its most expansive conservation is used as a term to embrace such
noble aspirations as human rights, sustainable development and indigenous self-
At its barest, the conservation movement is based on the need to end the pathology of extinction, not for any greater purpose, but for its own sake. A fortress conservation paradigm grew that extolled a bullets and barbed wire, or a fences and fines approach to conservation. First recognised in the Norman concept of royal forests in Britain in the fourteenth century, and first popularised as exclusive and unjust in Robin Hood stories from the same era, fortress conservation is most reflected in the establishment of strict protected areas. These began in modern form with the Yosemite Grant of 1864 and the dedication of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. But as protected areas become commonplace around the world, a clarion call went out to open them up to local participation in the interests of social justice (Spinage, 1998).
Conservation quickly adopted the mantle of development in the late 1980s and early
1990s. As argued then, and now, because environmental costs are not quarantined from
other social inequalities, and are more often instead distributed according to broader
societal and global norms of development and power, the quest for social justice
is difficult to completely disentangle from environmental advocacy (Hickey, 2006).
Marginalized groups suffer because of everyday proximity and gradual exposure to
environmental hazards and because of the negative externalities arising from systemic
activities such as industrial production and agriculture. They are also at risk of
greater vulnerability to episodic events such as natural disasters due to inhibited
flexibility (Bailey and Bryant, 1997). As a result, achieving biodiversity conservation
while simultaneously promoting human welfare was (and continues to be) viewed as
intuitively appealing (Alcorn, 1993; Bawa, 2006). While people-
In the 1980s, new projects were born of this desire to marry conservation and development.
They largely sought to address biodiversity conservation objectives through the use
of socio-
As much as fortress conservation values conservation at any cost, the ICDP paradigm at its least grand demands that conservation projects act in a socially responsible manner (Adams et al, 2004). Proponents of sustainable development are asked to temper their development projects with an environmental hue (Baker et al., 1997). These paradigms interact and conflict in the policy realm, with no clear winner. Whether or not these paradigms are reflected in a discrete set of actions on the ground is debatable, however. If they are not, then questions are raised as to the value of demanding a paradigmatic winner at the policy level. If paradigms are not translated into actions, why waste time and resources debating their correctness? What is the role of paradigm in the field? If paradigms don’t predict actions, then what does? Conversely, if paradigms own certain conservation actions, which paradigm is most popular? Indeed, are paradigms simply emphasis frames, and if so, how are they informing and undermining strategies for biodiversity conservation? My research will shed light on these questions.