Abstract
An increasingly utilized strategy for expanding conservation in the developing world has been the promotion of protected areas that supersede national borders. Alternatively known as transfrontier biosphere reserves, transfrontier or transboundary conservation areas, or Peace Parks, these protected areas are aggressively advanced by conservation agencies for their purported ecological and economic benefits. This article provides a comparative assessment of two case studies to understand the various impacts of transboundary conservation. The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which unites protected areas in South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, is contrasted with efforts to protect jaguars along the United States-Mexico border. We argue that while these cases are promising for the purposes of biodiversity protection, they demonstrate that transboundary conservation can minimize political context, contributes to the hegemony of international conservation agendas, and remains closely linked to economic neoliberalism and decentralization in the developing world.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 221-231 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | GeoJournal |
| Volume | 71 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Apr 1 2008 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Geography, Planning and Development
Cite this
}
Peace Parks and jaguar trails : Transboundary conservation in a globalizing world. / King, Brian Hastings; Wilcox, Sharon.
In: GeoJournal, Vol. 71, No. 4, 01.04.2008, p. 221-231.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Peace Parks and jaguar trails
T2 - Transboundary conservation in a globalizing world
AU - King, Brian Hastings
AU - Wilcox, Sharon
PY - 2008/4/1
Y1 - 2008/4/1
N2 - An increasingly utilized strategy for expanding conservation in the developing world has been the promotion of protected areas that supersede national borders. Alternatively known as transfrontier biosphere reserves, transfrontier or transboundary conservation areas, or Peace Parks, these protected areas are aggressively advanced by conservation agencies for their purported ecological and economic benefits. This article provides a comparative assessment of two case studies to understand the various impacts of transboundary conservation. The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which unites protected areas in South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, is contrasted with efforts to protect jaguars along the United States-Mexico border. We argue that while these cases are promising for the purposes of biodiversity protection, they demonstrate that transboundary conservation can minimize political context, contributes to the hegemony of international conservation agendas, and remains closely linked to economic neoliberalism and decentralization in the developing world.
AB - An increasingly utilized strategy for expanding conservation in the developing world has been the promotion of protected areas that supersede national borders. Alternatively known as transfrontier biosphere reserves, transfrontier or transboundary conservation areas, or Peace Parks, these protected areas are aggressively advanced by conservation agencies for their purported ecological and economic benefits. This article provides a comparative assessment of two case studies to understand the various impacts of transboundary conservation. The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which unites protected areas in South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, is contrasted with efforts to protect jaguars along the United States-Mexico border. We argue that while these cases are promising for the purposes of biodiversity protection, they demonstrate that transboundary conservation can minimize political context, contributes to the hegemony of international conservation agendas, and remains closely linked to economic neoliberalism and decentralization in the developing world.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=47649101525&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=47649101525&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10708-008-9158-4
DO - 10.1007/s10708-008-9158-4
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:47649101525
VL - 71
SP - 221
EP - 231
JO - Geo Journal
JF - Geo Journal
SN - 0343-2521
IS - 4
ER -