Conservation, Development, and Power

By Sothun Nop   Introduction The issue of global political ecology remains complex as it associates with the contradiction of conservation, development and power. The controversy has emerged as the consequence of unbalancing between key factors above. In other words, focusing on improving one particular aspect without recognizing and compromising its impacts on others elements may result in inconsistency in achieving long-term goals of sustainable development and conservation. At the same time, the globalization process, which brings about more interaction and cooperation among the world nations, has played a significant role in sharing information in term of best practices and failures through contemporary communication technologies. Along with this process, the issues related to conservation, development and power, which substantially enlarge in the contexts of developed and developing countries, has become one of common topic for debate. The argument which will be presented in this essay is that while there are some similarities in terms of the overall models or structures of conservation-as-development in the first and third world countries, this system consists of some different characteristics in relation to political spaces for public participation, decision making process, and cultures. This essay will review two cases studies including Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area (CMWMA) in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and New Forest National Park (NFNP) in the United Kingdom (UK). This paper will begin with the analysis of key stakeholders who involved in conservation-as-development program and their power relations in each case study. Then, based on these two case studies, some similarities and differences in practicing conservation-as-development in the context of developed and developing countries will be discussed with some examples.   Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area (CMWMA) in PNG Stakeholders CMWMA is a biodiversity conservation area in PNG where conservation-as-development program has been applied to reach long-term goal of sustainable natural resource conservation and promote economic development. According to West (2006), the term conservation-as-development is parallel with sustainable development since this aims to promote sustainable growth through balancing environment, social and economic factors. As she mentions in her study on Crater Mountain project, global conservationists have applied this approach to reach the goal of biological conservation and improve the economic situation of local communities through establishing income generation projects and ecotourism. Main actors involved in this program include: (1) local communities- the group Gimi people in Maimafu villages and Pawaia people (the nearest neighbor of Gimi people). (2) private companies particularly international oil and natural gas company and a national alluvial mining company that extract goal mine.(3) outsiders including conservation scientists, activists, planners and practitioners who come along with the different cultures, perspective and strategies in order to help improve local economic and preserve the environment. (4) government of PNG who played roles in supporting the  process of conservation and development. Power relation among key actors   The power relation between main actors in conservation-as-development program complicated since it associates with cultural context and politics of natural conservation and development. West (2006) states that before the project, local people traditionally managed and used surrounding natures for their needs. From their perspectives, nature is an important part of their lives because nature not only provides them with source of incomes for livelihoods, but also maintains their social connections, cultures, and environment. Beside this, nature is a symbol, which retains a sense of connectivity between local communities and their ancestors. Based on this belief, local communities commit to protect and preserve surrounding nature for their lives and for people in the next generations. She further indicates that through conservation-as-development project, the habits of natural resources management of local communities have been reformed when conservationists impose new ideas and strategies base on their interpretation. Interventions from outsiders have occurred since they believed that traditional practices of local people, which continued cutting trees, hunting wild animals, and killing birds, can be a threat for sustainable ecological conservation. According to West (2006), outsiders who have different background and culture believe that the conservation-as-development discourse, which reveals the interchange of values between the conservationists and local communities that commits and binds new types of social relations, can lead to achieve goals of states in ecological conservation and enhance economic situation of local communities. She, however, highlighted that although both parties have worked collaboratively, there were some contradictions in term of their perspectives. On one hand, conservationists believed that active involvement of communities in sustainable use of resources can lead to good results since this will reach the states’ goals of environmental conservation and improve economic development at community level. Local communities, on the other hand, believed that when they give land and resources to states for conservation, they expected to get some services and materials such as schools, health care, roads, technology and so on. For West (2006) this contradiction can lead to tension and skepticism when both of their imaginations and expectations are not fully understood and fulfilled. From anthropologists’ point of views, misunderstanding about local people cultures and using capitalism ideology and liberal strategies to create new forms of social relation may result in environmental degradation (Beilin, 2010; Castree, 2003; Tsing, 2008; West, 2006). Karanth and Nepal (2012, p. 10) argue that shifting social practices of local people based on outsiders’ manipulation brings about negative impacts on biodiversity since new forms of social practices are somehow in association with restructuring landscape and nature around the communities. Furthermore, based on capitalism ideology, economic development is considered as a priority to achieve modernization mission.  Within this framework, governments need to promote a maximized use of natural resources as well as transforming natures or social values in to commodities. As West (2006) proves in her study, private companies have been authorized to invest on the land of Gimi people through exploring mines or extracting other natural resources for achieving economic development goal. This reflects the dominant power of governments and private companies in relation to managing and extracting natural resources. This dominant power often supported by government policies or laws and liberal systems. Once this power is used, it brings about negative impacts on nature and local community livelihoods when balancing social and economic, and environmental factor is overlooked. From conservationists’ perceptions, conservation-as-development approach is considered as a win-win approach since economy of local people has been improved and goal of conservation has achieved. This has increased the roles of local community in participation in biodiversity conservation based on the principle of neoliberal economy to fight against poverty through transforming nature in to commodity. For example, the establishment of local women group in making basket for engaging with global market is a tool to promote local people cultures and values, and to increase their own incomes in order to interact with other costumers goods that is seen as a part of development (West, 2006). However, this kind of transformation that creates new social relation, new meaning of culture, and new community’s values may be a kind of negatives change because this transformation can lead to the conflation of the variety of local cultural forms, knowledge and practices, and such become a part of universal dominant view (Beilin, 2010; Bryant & Goodman, 2004; Varsi, 2012). They also suggest that when nature is considered as a commodity, it could be converted to money to maintain the development of social, goods, and services. Consequently, this cultural tend will diminish biodiversity. New Forest National Park (NFNP) in UK Stakeholders NFNP was established to preserve biodiversity and promote development through transforming the area into recreational and ecotourism zone. Edwards and Smith (2011) indicate that this NFNP has been created in 2006 under long-term vision and commitment of governments, local communities and non-state agencies in contributing to achieving global goal of sustainable environmental conservation and development. To establish NFNP, there was active participation from various stakeholders such as local residents, recreational users from surrounding catchment areas, state foresters, international nature conservation interests and policy-makers and regulators responsible for governance of the New Forest. Power relation among stakeholders Through PROGRESS project (PROmotion and Guidance for Recreation on Ecologically Sensitive Sites), operational strategies have been designed to ensure relevant stakeholders involvement in the process of planning, making decision, and implementation through promoting empowerment, equity, trust, and learning. Local people are empowered to take part in all stages of project and local knowledge is valued and integrated in creating model which contributing in expanding social learning, building trust and solidarity in minimizing human-environment conflict and build common understanding for ecological conservation (Edwards & Smith, 2011). They also suggest that based on the principles of participatory management, local people are empowered to take part in policy development and reforms in order for them to provide inputs or comments based on their culture and perspectives as well as to learn new knowledge that introduced by outsiders. Within this process, local people have a privilege to contest any development activities that may impact their local natures or social relations. The governments’ roles are to coordinate and allocate finance and technical assistances for creating NFNP. Also, government has enhanced principles and policy enforcement in limiting activities and created conditions for stakeholders to benefit from the national parks within a frame that do not affect biodiversity conservation. Beside this, non-state actors encompassing NGOs, planners, conservationists, and practitioners have played a key roles in giving suggestions and inputs through sharing best practices, experiences as well as conducting new researches in order to improve the effectiveness of project outcomes and achieve better result in resources, wildlife conservation. For Edwards and Smith (2011) inputs which introduced by non-state actors to the process of conservation and development programs was not a kind of manipulation from outsiders’ interpretation, but it was a kind of offering alternatives for improving stakeholders participations in conservation and development project. This reflects the equal power relation among relevant stakeholders when their voices and concerns have been taken in to account. It is, however, suggested that to ensure active stakeholders’ participation in all steps of conservation and development programs, it took a lot of times and resources (Bryant & Goodman, 2004; Edwards & Smith, 2011). Discussion Based on these two cases, the practices of conservation-as-development program between developed and developing countries reveal some similarities and differences: Firstly, the overall structures and key actors of ecological conservation and development process are very similar. Key actors who involved in the programs encompass local communities, states governments, private sectors, and civil societies including NGOs, conservationist, environmentalists, and practitioners. In principles, these actors should work cooperatively based on their roles and responsibilities permitted by policies or laws to reach the ultimate goals of inclusive development and nature preservation. However, power relations between stakeholders in the context of developed and developing nations are quite different. In developed countries, relevant stakeholders specially local communities seem to have more spaces to participate in decision-making in local planning and conservation policy development because they know how to exercise their rights and have knowledge or experience about virtualism or capitalism ideology. Furthermore, having greater political spaces can also generate more opportunities for local people to use their power and rights more extensively in participating in natural resource conservation and development program such as recreation and ecotourism (Brown, 2002; Elena, 2011). In developing countries, local people are not independent in terms of making decision and managing their surrounding natures because top-down approach has been applied in conservation and development activities (Brown, 2002; Hodgson & Schroeder, 2002). This problem has a strong connection with politics of natural resources management and the different perceptions between local communities, governments, external developers, and conservationists. The interpretation and assumptions, which outsiders have brought to local communities, may result in failure of project implementation when the understanding about discourse of development and conservation between stakeholders are not consistent (West, 2006). For Bryant (2000) ecological conservation is a process of visualizing moral discourse, social relations, and socio-natural place. Meaning that to achieve a sustainable environmental conservation, it is necessary to understand and value local culture, moral, and their social relations between the community and natures. Secondly, the implementation strategies between the first and third world nations are similar since participatory management approach, which values relevant stakeholders participation, has been promoted. The conservation-as-development program in both contexts has been designed through public involvement. Promoting relevant stakeholders participation especially local people in all decision making process can lead to effective management over biodiversity (Brown, 2002; Hodgson & Schroeder, 2002; Varsi, 2012). Also, recognizing and valuing local cultures and knowledge is considered as a key tool to improve the effectiveness of program outcomes because this can make local people feel secure to involve in the projects (Hodgson & Schroeder, 2002; Robbins, 2006; West, 2006). It is, however, observed that the level of community participations is not the same between both contexts. While local people in developed countries have more power and political spaces to participate because they realize the values of public participation, community members in developing nations have less influence. By reflecting on the model of community participation introduced by Arnstein (1969) “Ladder of Participation” the level of public participation in developed nations is at the highest step ‘Delegated power or citizen control’ while in developing nations community participation level is at the bottom stage ‘informing or consultation’ (Edwards & Smith, 2011; Karanth & Nepal, 2012). This disparity has a strong correlation to the level of knowledge and political spaces between both contexts (Bryant & Goodman, 2004; Elena, 2011). Consequently, local people in developing nations are often manipulated by outsiders who sometimes do not understand the history and perception of local communities (Varsi, 2012; West, 2006). Related to this, West (2006) has criticized the conservationists who failed to conduct fully research or baseline assessment on the social history and socio historical nature of landscape that they want to preserve. Thus, these resulted in many confusion and contradiction between stakeholders. Thirdly, the main purpose of establishing conservation and development projects in both contexts is to achieve the goal of sustainable nature conservation and resource consumption through effective management of spaces for human and nature.  This attempt has made based on the belief that balancing biodiversity is a key tool to ensure ecological sustenance and environmental friendly. However, cultural and contextual differences between developing and developed countries generate different outcomes between similar programs. In developed nations, natural conservation is mainly for preserving nature such as wildlife, forest, fishes, birds, and other species in order to balance ecology and maintain environment since local people livelihoods depend slightly on nature. In developing countries, on the other hand, preserving nature aims for both balancing biodiversity and improving local people livelihoods because local community depends very much on natural resource extraction such as collecting non-timer forest products for livelihoods (Hodgson & Schroeder, 2002; Karanth & Nepal, 2012). According to West (2006), conservation-as-development, which follows neoliberal market-based development strategies, is the concept that outsiders bring to local communities in developing nations because they believe that strategies can produce win-win outcomes for state and local people. Although this concept has worked in some contexts, this can be a threat to nature as well local people livelihoods in many developing nations (Karanth & Nepal, 2012; West & Carrier, 2004). In Nepal and Philippines, for instance, some people have lost from conservation-as-development project that transforms nature into commodity because their access to natural resources has been framed (Bryant, 2000; Karanth & Nepal, 2012). To address this issue, the creation of PAs or ecotourism should aim to expand local people incomes and preserve local culture and existing social relations between community and surrounding nature (Brown, 2002; Elena, 2011; Karanth & Nepal, 2012). Conclusion In conclusion, understanding the complex relationship between conservation, development and power of multiple stakeholders is crucial since this helps to better reflect on current contradictions and issues around natural resource conservations and development. The increase of attentions and commitment of global institutions for preserving nature and balancing ecosystem services through promoting local people participation is a key tool to accomplish a long-term goal. Also, valuing local cultures and knowledge is a key contributing factor for sustainability. Conservation-as- development approach can be good strategy to promote natural resource protection and improve local people economy when every aspect has fully understood. Although the overall structures and key stakeholders and strategies in conservation-as-development programs in the first and third world countries are the similar, the political spaces for public participation, decision-making and cultural contexts (knowledge, needs, and livelihoods activities) are very different. These disparities can lead to different outcomes of conservation-as-development program due to different level of critical thinking and knowledge. Key lesson-learns from this study is that contextual and cultural differences can lead to different outcomes event though the conservation-as-development program follows similar process or strategies. Beside this, imposing new ideologies to local communities for promoting nature conservation may not be effective when outsiders miss to deeply understand the social history or social relations of local community because this misinterpretation can lead to contradictions and conflict among relevant parties. This can be reflected that the process of transforming nature into commodities may not always effective because this external concept will create change of existing social relations in the community, which can lead to environmental degradation. Therefore, to minimize this problem, conservationists and outside development practitioners need to be mindful and understand the complex structures of communities before introducing development projects. Exploring best alternatives to balance key elements including social, economic and environment can result in achieving long-term goals of sustainable development and ecological conservation. References Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation American Institute of Planners, Journal, 35(4), 216. Beilin, R. (2010). Paige West, Conservation is our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (24), 75-85. Brown, K. (2002). Innovations for Conservation and Development. The Geographical Journal, 168(1), 6-17. doi: 10.1111/1475-4959.00034 Bryant, R. L. (2000). Politicized moral geographies Debating biodiversity conservation and ancestral domain in the Philippines. Political Geography 19, 673-705. Bryant, R. L., & Goodman, M. K. (2004). Consuming Narratives: The Political Ecology of 'Alternative' Consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(3), 344-366. Castree, N. (2003). Commodifying what nature? Progress in Human Geography, 27(3), 273-297. doi: 10.1191/0309132503ph428oa Edwards, V. M., & Smith, S. (2011). Lessons from the Application of Decision‐support Tools in Participatory Management of the New Forest National Park, UK. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(6), 417-432. doi: 10.1002/eet.589 Elena, M. (2011). The Ecotourism's Development In The Romanian Carpathians' Protected Areas: Facts, Figures And Needs. Human Geographies, 5(2), 31. Hodgson, D. L., & Schroeder, R. A. (2002). Dilemmas of Counter‐Mapping Community Resources in Tanzania. Development and Change, 33(1), 79-100. doi: 10.1111/1467-7660.00241 Karanth, K. K., & Nepal, S. K. (2012). Local Residents Perception of Benefits and Losses From Protected Areas in India and Nepal. Environmental Management, 49(2), 372-386. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1 Robbins, P. (2006). The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum, 37(2), 185-199. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011 Tsing, A. (2008). Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, Nature, and People in the Neoliberal Age J. Nevins & N. L. Peluso (Eds.),    Varsi, R.-A. (2012). Imagined biodiversity through conservation-as-development: Tracing more than a decade with Natural Co- Management in Shey Phoksumdo National Park in Nepal. (Master), University of Oslo, CopyCat, Oslo.   West, P. (2006). Conservation is our government now: the politics of ecology in Papua New Guinea. Durham U6 Duke University Press. West, P., & Carrier, J. G. (2004). Ecotourism and Authenticity: Getting Away from It All? Current Anthropology, 45(4), 483-498. doi: 10.1086/422082

Political Ecology of Media and Representations of Human-Environment Conflict: Avatar

By Sothun Nop

Introduction

Media plays an important role in substantiating reality in societies because media, especially movies, are designed based on contexts, ideologies, cultures, technologies and issues of those who make them. Avatar, which was produced by James Cameron in 2011, is a contemporary movie reflecting human-environment conflict around the issue of natural resource management. This essay argues that while natural resource consumption may bring societies development through achieving goals of economic growth and advanced technologies, over extraction of natural resources without concerning benefits and cultures of related creatures could result in serious disagreements and environmental catastrophes. This paper will first examine how characters in Avatar represent different parties around global development nexus. Then, the politics of resources management and development will be analyzed. This article will end by discussing the potential consequences of human-environment conflicts around issues of natural resources extraction.

Politics of characterization
Avatar has manifested a battle of the Omaticaya people and the Sky people around the issue of natural resource management. The Omaticaya people is a group of blue monkey who traditionally live in forest and consider those natural resources as their lives. The Sky people is a group of soldiers and scientists who try to encroach Omaticaya people’s territory in order to extract natural resources and develop that place through removing local people and eliminating their culture by replacing new ideologies and technologies. From this aspect, the author aims to reflect a fact of global community in relation to modern development and human-environment conflict. This could be revealed that Omaticaya people represent grassroots communities, indigenous groups or minority people who are still holding traditional believes, hunting, farming, and depending very much on natural resources for daily lives. Whereas, the Sky people symbolize the potential developers, institutions, or colonizers who desire to take control over land or natural resources for development based on neoliberal perspectives. Beside this, there is a team of biologist who work with both Sky and Omaticaya people finding appropriate solutions to avoid conflict between the two groups. In fact, the group of biologist represents civil society organizations, researchers or other non- profit agencies exploring the best alternatives to reduce conflicts around issues of resources management and modern development.

Politics of resources management and development
As having shown in Avatar, the Sky people have tried all the possible ways to remove Omaticaya people from their land and take control over natural resources because they believe that development goals can be achieved through removing local people or imposing new ideologies and modern technologies to transform conventional societies. This can be reflected to contemporary development process, which neoliberal concepts have been introduced around natural resource management and consumption in order to promote high-mass consumption societies (Rostow, 1960). Based on Virtualism perspective that values economic growth, nature and environment should be transformed into capital or commodities for trading, so that it will generate more profits for society development (Miller & Carrier, 1998; West & Brockington, 2006). West and Brockington (2006, p. 609) urged that many protected areas around the world have been converted into abstract models supported by economic policies, which ignore a complexity of people’s daily social activities, practice and lives. Neumann (1995, p. 150), for example, claimed that under the process of development and conservation introduced by European colonizers particularly the British, the societies and nature in Africa have been recast through imposing new policies, systems, politics and ideologies. As a result, African culture, nature, productions and consumptions have been removed, reoriented and reorganized because most development and conservation projects in Africa were designed based on the needs and desires of the colonizers rather than supporting local people to improve living standard and maintain their culture (Neumann, 1995, p. 153&164). The evidence seems to suggest that society transformation based on neoliberal ideologies and natural resource management based on virtualism concepts may not assist local communities to preserve their culture or improve their livelihoods activities because those processes focus more on modernization rather than social and environmental impacts.

Another critical point indicated in Avatar is the problems in the promise of development. To achieve their goals, the Sky people have promised to provide the best education, health care, roads and food to the group of Omaticaya, if they would agree to move from their territory and allow the Sky people to develop that area. This clearly represents a game of development politics that many investors and colonizers have played with local people or indigenous communities. In the case of Africa, for instance, Neumann (1995, p. 164) stated that control over nature means control over people. This colonization that follows capitalism ideologies may result in many problems and inequality since most decision making processes aim to achieve modernizing missions and improve economy rather than concerning nature conservation, accepting culture differences and protecting people’s benefits (McMichael, 2008; Neumann, 1995, p. 164). Also, neoliberal conservation and development, which accelerate land use change and economic multipliers tend to ignore social welfare because capitalism promotes free market and resources privatization that limit capacity of the poor communities from accessing public services. (McMichael, 2008; Miller & Carrier, 1998; Neumann, 1995; West & Brockington, 2006). The argument tends to reveal that neoliberal conservation and development process is unlikely to contribute to natural resource preservation or to address basic needs of local communities because those mechanisms aim to achieve modern development goals rather than eradicating poverty or promoting social justice.

Potential consequences of human-environment conflict
Avatar has shown a mass killing event during large-scale armed conflict between the Sky people and the Omticaya group when the Sky people were trying to invade Omaticaya people’s territory with disregard their culture, values and rights. This is a representation of severe clash in current societies when rights of grassroots communities are violated. West and Brockington (2006, pp. 613-614) argued that natural resource management and conservation based on virtualism can be a fuel for social conflict because the process creates displacement and tension when benefit of local communities are not considered. For instance, Keith (2008, p. 211) emphasized that natural resources management and biodiversity conservation of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR) in the Garhwal Himalayas of India lead to serious conflict between local people and the global conservation efforts because traditional economic, culture and subsistence opportunities of local communities has been threatened. While local communities seek to protect biodiversity through livelihoods, the policies that follow virtualism or the Western perception aim to limit those activities. West and Brockington (2006, p. 613) stated that top-down approach that fail to appreciate and work closely with local communities can also lead to conflict because local people are excluded from decision making process. Camaroon (2011) suggest that if you want to share the world with people, you need to understand them otherwise they will fight for survival. This seems to prove that understanding local people’s culture, working with them and maintaining their traditional economic activities are the key tool to promote effectiveness of natural resource management, inclusive development and minimize human environment conflict.

Last but not least, the serious argument around natural resource management and development in Avatar is a clear representation of human-environment conflict leading to environmental degradation. Nightingale (2003, p. 525) claimed that human–environment disputes which resulted from shifting, dialectical relationships between social and power relations, cultural beliefs and practices, and ecological processes have created social and environmental change in Nepal. This changes has associated with uneven development that generate gain of economic growth at the expense of environmental and social factors. Onwuka (2005, p. 655), for example, urged that the extraction of oil and gas in Nigeria has resulted in severe environmental problems such as damaging the fertility of the soil, destroying wildlife and breeding ground for marine fishes due to the toxicity of oil and gas. Consequently, livelihoods activities and culture of local communities including indigenous groups have been threatened because their income sources have been destroyed through unsustainable natural resource extraction process. Downey, Bonds, and Clark (2010, p. 417) also indicated that under the picture of development, large scale of resources extraction practiced by industrial societies has fostered environmental degradation and ecological imbalance due to poor enforcement of environmental protection policies. This seems to reveal that human-environment conflict around the issues of natural resource management not only bring about detrimental affects on economic and culture of local communities, but also lead to environmental catastrophes and ecosystem imbalance that can become a new challenge for contemporary world.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Avatar is one of the movies reflecting the reality of current world issues in regards with natural resource management and development. Avatar not only provides a lot of information for reconsideration, but also gives an alert for investors or governments, who involve in natural resource extraction without understanding and concerning benefits and culture of local communities. Although resource extraction can push societies to be more advanced, but utilizing resources without recognizing the violation on other creature’s lives may lead to many devastations in both social and environment aspects. In order to achieve a long-term goal of sustainable development, the three important elements including social, environmental and economic factors need to be balanced. In the mean time, collaboration between all relevant stakeholders especially local communities need to be enhanced because this can be an effective tool to provide spaces for grassroots communities to participate in decisions making process that may impact their lives. Also, accepting culture differences can also be a key tool to create a peaceful world because providing respect to people means giving them freedom and options. Therefore, the issues of inequality and injustice can be eradicated when the rights and dignities of grassroots and indigenous communities are regarded.

 

Reference

Cameron, J. (2011). Avatar. Sydney, N.S.W U6 Showtime Premiere.
Downey, L., Bonds, E., & Clark, K. (2010). Natural Resource Extraction, Armed Violence, and Environmental Degradation. Organization & Environment,
23(4), 417-445. doi: 10.1177/1086026610385903
Keith, B. (2008). Nature, Conflict and Biodiversity Conservation in the Nanda Devi
Biosphere Reserve. Conservation and Society, 6(3), 211. doi: 10.4103/0972-
4923.49214
McMichael, P. (2008). Development and social change: a global perspective.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press.
Miller, D., & Carrier, J. G. (1998). Virtualism: A new political economy. Virtualism:
a new political economy.
Neumann, R. P. (1995). Ways of seeing Africa: colonial recasting of African society
and landscape in Serengeti National Park. Cultural Geographies, 2(2), 149-
169.
Nightingale, A. (2003). Nature–society and development: social, cultural and
ecological change in Nepal. Geoforum, 34(4), 525-540. doi: 10.1016/s0016-
7185(03)00026-5
Onwuka, E. C. (2005). Oil extraction, environmental degradation and poverty in the
Niger Delta region of Nigeria: a viewpoint. International Journal of
Environmental Studies, 62(6), 655-662. doi: 10.1080/00207230500040823 Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth: a non-communist manifesto:
[Cambridge] University Press.
West, P., & Brockington, D. (2006). An anthropological perspective on some
unexpected consequences of protected areas. Conservation biology, 20(3), 609-616.