Legitimacy and Biological Integrity of National Parks
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Master’s Thesis 2019 60 ECTS Faculty of Landscape and Society Legitimacy and Biological Integrity of National Parks: A Comparative Case Study of Hardangervidda National Park in Norway and Yellowstone National Park in the United States of America María Andrea Zárate Benoit MSc International Environmental Studies ii Legitimacy and Biological Integrity of National Parks: A Comparative Case Study of Hardangervidda National Park in Norway and Yellowstone National Park in the United States of America By María Andrea Zárate Benoit Master Thesis in International Environmental Studies Norwegian University of Life Sciences Faculty of Landscape and Society 2019 iii The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments. The Noragric Master’s theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master’s programmes ‘International Environmental Studies’, ‘International Development Studies’ and ‘International Relations’. The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric. © María Andrea Zárate Benoit, May 2019 [email protected] Noragric Department of International Environment and Development Studies The Faculty of Landscape and Society P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway Tel.: +47 67 23 00 00 Internet: https://www.nmbu.no/fakultet/landsam/institutt/noragric iv DECLARATION I, María Andrea Zárate Benoit, declare that this thesis is a result of my research investigations and findings. Sources of information other than my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work as not been previously submitted to any other university for award of any type of academic degree. Date: _______________________ Signature: ______________________ María Andrea Zárate Benoit v vi To my parents; Diana L. Benoit Seegrove, Eduardo N. Zárate González and my grandmother Elizabeth Seegrove de la Vega vii viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all the people who have helped me and supported me throughout this process. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my brilliant supervisor Professor Pål Olav Vedeld. Pål, you have been in my opinion an excellent supervisor, you have guided me and pointed me in the right direction several times. You are a dedicated, patient and rigorous supervisor that any student would be lucky to have. Thank you for all the constructive criticism and for having an open mind and spirit. I would like to thank Professors Erik GomeZ-Baggethun, Arild Vatn, and Professor emeritus Thor Larsen for their support, time, and advice. I would also like to thank my family for always believing in me and supporting me throughout this period. Thanks also go to my cousin Fernando Bolaños Zárate for his advice and support. Finally, special thanks go to Gunnar Størseth Haarr for being a caring and patient kjæreste, and being an invaluable support throughout this process. ix x ABSTRACT The United States of America and Norway are two countries with outstanding natural beauty and international high standards of human development. Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and Hardangervidda National Park (HNP) are relevant because of their natural assets. These two parks also represent the academic debate between community conservation and protectionist/fortress conservation; and between anthropocentric and ecocentric values respectively—for the purpose of resource and biodiversity conservation. This study focused on comparing the perceived outcomes produced by the parks in biological integrity and public legitimacy. The study looked at these two drastically different conservation approaches in different contexts to learn from their successes and shortcomings. The findings were based on secondary data sources and to a lesser degree on primary data. On this particular case study it was found that, as anticipated, community conservation appears to produce higher public legitimacy, and protectionist conservation appears to produce higher biological integrity. Interestingly, the difference in the outcomes did not seem to be drastic, which could indicate that bridging these two conservation approaches might not be an impossible deed. In addition, some uncharacteristic qualities of their respective conservation approach were found in each park. Infrastructure and technology in the parks proved to have different effects on the wildlife, suggesting that context, regulations, and the role played by people and the infrastructure, might determine whether these prove to be neutral, positive or detrimental to the ecosystem. The context in which the conservation method is applied, could also matter more for reaching high levels of biological integrity and high public legitimacy, than the conservation method itself. This study highlighted how a protectionist conservation approach (YNP) could potentially borrow from conservation approach methods (HNP), and vice versa, to improve their respective shortcomings. Key terms: biodiversity Conservation, biologiCal integrity, Community Conservation, fortress Conservation, proteCtionist Conservation, Conservation, Hardangervidda National Park, proteCted areas, management, institution, legitimacy, park management, National Park, resourCe management, Yellowstone National Park, Convention on BiologiCal Diversity, environmental governance, governance xi xii Table of Contents DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................................ V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................... IX ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... XI LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... XIV LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. XV LIST OF ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... XV CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................... 3 1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 6 1.3.1 Goal ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4. OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................... 6 1.4.1 Objective 1: ........................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4.2. Objective 2: .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4.4 Objective 3: ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.3 Objective 4: ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.5 Objective 5: ........................................................................................................................................... 9 1.5 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 10 1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS ...................................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2 - CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 13 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 13 2.2 BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................... 16 2.3 LEGITIMACY CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODS ............................................................................................................... 21 3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ..........................................................................................................................................