Abstract
Both conservationists and harvesters may be willing to contribute to participatory monitoring of exploited species. However, this can be costly and stakeholders need to choose whether monitoring programs or other alternatives, such as a moratorium or unmonitored exploitation, meet their objectives most efficiently. We discuss when, and how much, stakeholders may be willing to contribute to monitoring of exploited resources. We predict that communities’ contributions will usually be much less than the annual value of the harvest, and will be affected by their dependency upon it; their discount rate; its cultural importance, vulnerability to overexploitation and amenability to monitoring. ‘Efficient’ conservationists’ willingness to contribute should be similar to that of communities’, since monitoring and management programs must compete with compensated moratoria. The combined willingness to contribute of both stakeholder groups will usually be much less than twice the annual revenue from the resource. Applying this framework to a case-study of crayfish harvesting in Madagascar, we find that the total willingness to contribute to monitoring is likely to be insufficient to support conventional monitoring efforts. We conclude that conservation planners must be realistic about what stakeholders are willing to contribute to monitoring programmes and consider low cost methods or negotiated moratoria.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
M.S. Alvard (1998) ArticleTitleEvolutionary ecology and resource conservation Evol. Anthropol. 7 62–74 Occurrence Handle10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1998)7:2<62::AID-EVAN3>3.0.CO;2-I
R. Beverton (1998) ArticleTitleFishfact and fantasy: a long view Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8 229–249 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1008888411100
B.E. Burke (2001) ArticleTitleHardin revisited: a critical look at perception and the logic of the commons Hum. Ecol. 29 449–476 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1013145905257
F. Danielsen D.S. Balete M.K. Poulsen M. Enghoff C.M. Nozawa A.E. Jensen (2000) ArticleTitleA simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country Biodivers. Conserv.s 9 1671–1705 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1026505324342
F. Danielsen N. Burgess A. Balmford (2005) ArticleTitleMonitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches Biodivers. Conserv. 14 2507–2542
D. Feeny F. Berkes B.J. McCay J.M. Acheson (1990) ArticleTitleThe tragedy of the commons: twenty two years later Hum. Ecol. 18 1–19 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00889070 Occurrence Handle12316894
P.J. Ferraro (2002) ArticleTitleThe local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar Ecol. Econ. 43 261–275 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00219-7
J.P.G. Jones (2004) The sustainability of crayfish harvesting in Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK
K. Korhonen O. Rahkonen E. Hemminki (2004) ArticleTitleImplications of integrated conservation for human reproductive health: a case study from Ranomafana National Park Development Southern Africa 21 603–621 Occurrence Handle10.1080/0376835042000288815
C. Kremen I. Raymond K. Lances (1998) ArticleTitleAn interdisciplinary tool for monitoring conservation impacts in Madagascar Conserv. Biol. 12 549–563 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96374.x
M. Leach R. Mearns I. Scoones (1999) ArticleTitleEnvironmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management World Development 27 225–247 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00141-7
G.M. Mace J.D. Reynolds (2001) Exploitation as a conservation issue J.D. Reynolds G.M. Mace K.H. Redford J.G. Robinson (Eds) Conservation of Exploited Species Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK 3–15
D. Pimentel M. McNair L. Duck M. Pimentel J. Kamil (1997) ArticleTitleThe value of forests to world food security Hum. Ecol. 25 91–120 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1021987920278
D. Policansky (1993) ArticleTitleUncertainty, knowledgeand resource management Ecol. Appl. 3 583–584
A.R. Poteete E. Ostrom (2004) ArticleTitleHeterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management Dev. Change 35 435–461 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00360.x
M. Richards J. Davies G. Yaron (2003) Stakeholder Incentives in Participatory Forest Management ODI London, UK
J.G. Robinson K.H. Redford (1994) ArticleTitleMeasuring the sustainability of hunting in tropical forests Oryx 28 249–256
D. Sheil (2001) ArticleTitleConservation and biodiversity monitoring in the tropics: realities, priorities, and distractions Conserv. Biol. 15 1179–1182 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041179.x
P.E. Smith (1993) ArticleTitleBalancing sampling precision and fisheries management: objectives, minimal methods Bull. Mar. Sci. 53 930–935
E. Topp-Jørgensen M.K. Poulsen J.F. Lund J.F. Massao (2005) ArticleTitleCommunity-based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands in Iringa District, Tanzania Biodivers. Conserv. 14 2653–2677
G.C. White K.P. Burnham (1999) ArticleTitleProgram MARK: survival estimations from populations of marked birds Bird Study 46 120–138
J.G. Wong K. Thornber N. Baker (2001) Resource Assessment of Non-wood Forest Products Food and Agriculture Organization Rome, Italy
P.C. Wright B. Andriamihaja (2004) The conservation value of long-term research: a case study from Parc National de Ranomafana S.M. Goodman J.P Benstead (Eds) The Natural History of Madagascar University of Chicago Press Chicago, USA 1485–1488
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hockley, N., Jones, J., Andriahajaina, F. et al. When Should Communities and Conservationists Monitor Exploited Resources?. Biodivers Conserv 14, 2795–2806 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-8416-8
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-8416-8