• Login
    View Item 
    •   IDA Home
    • Faculty -- Research, Data, Projects, and Papers
    • Collaborative Event Ethnography of Global Conservation Governance
    • Public Resources
    • View Item
    •   IDA Home
    • Faculty -- Research, Data, Projects, and Papers
    • Collaborative Event Ethnography of Global Conservation Governance
    • Public Resources
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Everyone's Solution? Defining and Redefining Protected Areas at the Convention on Biological Diversity

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Corsonetal-2014-BiologicalDiversity-CandS.pdf (1.147Mb)
    Date
    2014
    Author
    Catherine Corson
    Rebecca Gruby
    Rebecca Witter
    Shannon Hagerman
    Daniel Suarez
    Shannon Greenberg
    Maggie Bourque
    Noella Gray
    Lisa M. Campbell
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    For decades, conservationists have remained steadfastly committed to protected areas (PAs) as the best means to conserve biodiversity. Using Collaborative Event Ethnography of the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD/CoP), we examine how the PA concept remains hegemonic in conservation policy. We argue that, as a broadening base of actors frame their political objectives through PAs in order to further their agendas, they come together in a discourse coalition. In this coalition, actors do not necessarily have common interests or understandings; rather, it is through dynamic struggles over the meaning of the PA concept and the continual process of reshaping it that actors reproduce its hegemony. In this process, the CBD/CoP disciplines and aligns disparate actors who might otherwise associate with distinct discourse coalitions. As the concept accommodates a wider range of values, PAs are increasingly being asked to do more than conserve biodiversity. They must also sequester carbon, protect ecosystem services, and even promote human rights. These transformations reflect not only changes in how PAs are defined and framed, but also in the realignment of relationships of authority and power in conservation governance in ways that may marginalise traditional conservation actors.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10166/5984
    Collections
    • Public Resources

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback | MHC Accessibility Barriers Form
    Theme by 
    @mire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of IDACommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback | MHC Accessibility Barriers Form
    Theme by 
    @mire NV