Consilience: The Journal of Vol. 4, Iss. 1 (2010), Pp. 119–133

Must Hot-Spots Be Social Not-Spots? Win-Win as Sustainable Social Policy

Charles Geisler Development Sociology Cornell University, Ithica, NY

Abstract

Reconciliation ecology, a family of socially inclusive conservation strategies that depart from traditional management, is on trial. Skeptics find it problematic for a range of reasons, faulting it for lack of evidence and calling it a "bio-diversion" from the agenda of strict protected area conservation. Supporters counter that only by re-embedding conservation in human-dominated landscapes beyond protected areas will conservation succeed. The present paper builds on the work of Michael Rosenzweig, a leading example of this latter perspective, fortifying it with information from different world regions and programs. Simultaneously, I suggest that narrow reliance on formal protected areas yields conservation , environmental backlash, and set-backs to efforts. Author’s Note

My thanks to Paul Gellert, Riley Dunlap, Barbara Bedford, Jason Con, and the anonymous reviewers of Consilience for thoughtful comments on early drafts of this paper.

Keywords: Anthropocene, win-win ecology, protected areas, greenlining, human displacement, conservation refugees, sustainability

1. Introduction

The Anthropocene is the contemporary geological era said to be replacing the Holocene era of the past 10,000 years. Its defining feature is the human- domination of nature and, to the concern of many, the risk of overstepping the or thresholds upon which life itself depends. Many authorities argue that there are points of no return with respect to global soil erosion, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, , carbon dependency, and the overconsumption of renewable as well as non-renewable resources. Last year the distinguished Stockholm Resilience Center assembled thirty scientists to consider which planetary thresholds are at greatest risk of Anthropocene violation and catastrophy for planetary life. These boundaries, according a summary account published in Naturei, are the vital signs of planetary wellness; if neglected, we threaten the earth’s capacity to regulate itself. They are also the drivers for a planetary recovery strategy.

120 Consilience

Of the twenty-five boundaries identified in Stockholm, nine were considered priorities and prominently featured biodiversity and human land uses. This paper explores a formulation that seeks to reconcile these two planetary boundaries, often thought to be irreconcilable. The formulation is called win-win ecology by its intellectual parent, Michael Rosenzweigii,iii and others.iv Rosenzweig’s framework integrates biodiversity and land uses outside of parks and protected areas. His work is fertile with sustainability insights. It prompts anyone with conservation inclinations to reflect on how we construct ―nature,‖ where we allocate our resources, and on this question: is win-win ecology really doable? Can we protect biological hotspots without creating ―social not-spots‖ through evictions and displacements of human residents and resource users?

In answering this question, I will expand on the affirmative evidence Rosenzweig himself provides and critically consider some of the thinking that finds the win-win logic specious. Following a brief overview of win-win ecology and its detractors, I offer examples of its growth and operation in different world regions and suggest that win-win ecology is expanding in both scale and sophistication. In my view, the conservation project of the future must be an inclusionary project. Though not a panacea, win-win ecology avoids various dilemmas of narrowly conceived biological conservation—that I refer to as ―greenlining‖—and holds out hope for both social and biological sustainability.

2. Win-Win Ecology

Rosenzweig’s core argument is compelling. He concurs with other conservation biologist that the state of planet, biologically speaking, is precarious: 5 percent or less of the world’s terrestrial habitats retain near-pristine quality despite on-going human efforts to lock these and other habitats into parks and protected areas (―reservation ecology‖). Yet even if this 5 percent could be saved, he argues, the remaining 95 percent would remain severely compromised. Indeed, even if conservationists use standard reservation ecology together with to achieve their ends, we will be left with biological ―crumbs,‖ that is, small islands of biodiversity precariously connected (or not) with conservation corridors. We are also apt to be left, as a consequence of lines on maps declaring sites as parks and protected areas, with a signal to nonconservationists that they are free to develop unprotected areas (the majority of land and habitat) with little environmental stewardship. Conservationists should instead turn their attention to reconciliation ecology and seek new ways to stop short of the biodiversity threshold emphasized by the Stockholm Resilience Center.

This perspective aligns well with the species-area relationship ―law‖ of ecology: large islands (whether real islands or park ―islands‖) support more species than smaller ones. In other words, biodiversity increases with area.v Win-win ecology maps cogently onto this time-tested conservation logic, yet moves beyond the logic of green garrisons in a sea of humanity. Immense biodiversity persists beyond formally protected areas and awaits conservation beyond the green line of park boundaries. To the extent that much biodiversity thrives in zones where food is Consilience Geisler: Biodiversity Hotspots produced, food security and environmental security can go hand-in-hand rather than compete for space, energy, and stewardship. Rosenzweig makes this point in numerous ways, suggesting that many systems (marine, terrestrial, wetland, freshwater, etc.) can service human needs and, with certain caveats, offer conservation opportunities as well. And, as noted in the Millennium Environmental Assessment,vi global climate change (the lead concern for the Stockholm scientists) is indifferent to park boundaries, making new conservation strategies imperative.

Still, some conservationists remain unconvinced, and see the solution to dwindling biodiversity as expanding protected areas to 50 percent of the earth’s surface.vii,viii Others accuse Rosenzweig of poorly supporting his win-win contentions.ix One reviewer of his work, for example, asserts that reconciliation ecology is problematic and that Rosenzweig is overzealous in what he includes in his model. Further attention must be paid to vexing issues of , species de-isolation, and species survival outside of natural ranges. Unless these challenges are met, the reviewer charges, reconciliation ecology risks being a ―biodiversion.‖ Others chide Rosenzweig for unbridled idealism, suggesting that his examples are ―selective, small scale, sparse, and shaky.‖x Rosensweig is faulted for underreporting actual successes, for being ―Americocentric,‖ and for biasing his case towards temperate zone . Still others note the win-win solutions are not workable in all situations. DeFries and colleagues identify both win-win and win-lose cases, the latter being those in which restrictions on land uses outside protected areas yield ―nonlinear‖ (disproportionately small) biodiversity benefits in protected zones or beyond them.xi Net loss is a constant risk in poorer societies and the inherent complexities of , including the interactions between biotic, abiotic, and human components on different scales, ―foreclose simple prescriptions.‖xii

But skeptics may do a disservice to sustainability potential of win-win ecology with their parries. In light of recent documentation, Rosenzweig’s logic appears to be growing in stature, realism, and large-scale application rather than the reverse. Today, few would concur that reconciliation ecology is hypothetical or limited to temperate zones. As for naïve optimism, the same may be said of Lovelock’sxiii ―Gaia‖ and Wilson’sxiv ―biophilia‖ hypotheses, and win-win ecology may be the impetus for important new discourses, behavioral changes, and collective actions to protect the global commons. Nor should the shortcomings of near exclusive reliance on reservation conservation, be minimized.xv Rosenzweig, in the end, is not hostile to reservation and restoration ecology, only to over-dependency on them.

3. Protecting beyond the Protected: Farms and

Rosenzweig offers multiple examples of environmental stewardship that endure in formally unprotected landscapes. Numerous species have adapted to habitats not necessarily designed for their reproduction and survival, from patchy farm and landscapes to hundreds of military bases. Elsewhere, architects, planners, and everyday users of the earth’s ecosystems embed the habitat needs of non-human species into Anthropocene living spaces (rooftop gardens and urban 122 Consilience forests; highway animal crossings and fish ladders; bird sanctuaries and restored wetlands; ships scuttled as ―reefs‖ and irrigation systems that host fish and migratory waterfowl, etc.). However imperfectly, we often protect genetic wealth and function without creating parks; for Rosenzweig, the entire world is a potential ―park‖ and a site where humans and nature (itself a contested binary) can coexist. But the empirical basis of his argument would benefit from broader shoulders.

A foremost instance of win-win ecology is ―eco-.‖ In 1990, Jeffrey McNeelyxvi of the World Conservation Union warned that in fifty years protected areas may indeed no longer exist. This claim rested on aggressive land clearing by landless peasants worldwide and, as if to anticipate the Stockholm findings, on the unsustainable ways humans now manage the landscapes of the world. Later, McNeely and Scherrxvii mapped the planet’s agricultural lands onto priority conservation zones and found ubiquitous overlap between the two. Of the 17,000 largest protected areas in the world, 45 percent were heavily farmed by small and marginal farmers. They concluded that the majority of the earth’s biodiversity survives in working rather than protected landscapes. Based on case studies covering over a billion acres from different world regions, they urged greater integration of agriculture and conservation for both biodiversity protection and social equity. A partnership of global environmental groups called Ecoagriculture Partners is, with joint sponsorship by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the Future Harvest Foundation, aggressively responding to this challenge at present.xviii,

Forestry has a long history of de facto reconciliation ecology. In North America, Robert Marshall advanced the idea of transforming the United States’ National Forest system into a ―people’s forest‖ during the Great Depression.xix His vision played out in multiple-use doctrines on US Forest Service lands and, with substantial inputs from abroad, in the global agro- movement that followed. Since the 1970s, has been recognized as an effective way of integrating and silviculture,xx but also, according to research by the Biodiversity Research Group at the Oxford Center for the Environment, of protecting biodiversity.xxi Mounting evidence suggests that, in the face of global deforesting trends, that intensive and extensive forest systems can coexist,xxii,xxiii and yield environmental benefits by sequestering carbon, restoring habitat, mimicking natural forest systems, soil stabilization, watershed protection, and buffering existing protected areas.xxiv The footprint of global agroforestry far surpasses that of the world’s protected areas; the many forms of agro-forestry make estimation of its total acreage difficult to determine, but much of the 400-800 million hectares of forest owned by local communities or indigenous people worldwide is probably subject to multi-functional (conservation and extractive) use.xxv The potential is immense. On 46 percent of the world’s farmlands tree cover exceed 10 percent of the farm.xxvi Some 37 countries now participate in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of the World Bank.xxvii The appeal of agroforestry is signaled by the campaign to plant 5.5 billion tree seedlings during the current decade by the World Agroforestry Centre.xxviii

Consilience Geisler: Biodiversity Hotspots

3. Protecting beyond the Protected: Unnoticed Niches

Another institutionalized example of reconciliation ecology is found in cultural parks and landscapes and is markedly different from protected areas qua parks. In North America cultural park thinking dates back to George Catlin’s early proposal for an interior zone for nature and Native American culturesxxix; today, 300 noncontiguous Indian reservations comprise just under 100 million acres and mix conservation with living culture.xxx A subset of these, a consortium of 57 Native American governments, operates an Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative to foster prairie ecosystems and buffalo for both tourism and consumption. Closer to Catlin’s vision, a vast ―Buffalo Commons‖ of 140,000 square miles (parts of 10 states) has been proposed as a recovery strategy for Great Plains people and ecosystems.xxxi,xxxii Ted Turner, one of the largest private landowners in the United States, owns over 2 million acres of private land and uses it for recreation, , and de facto wildlife sanctuaries, including the nation’s largest buffalo herd.xxxiii

Cultural parks and landscapes are expanding in the eastern United States as well and include the 26 million-acre Northern Forest (spanning portions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York), the million-acre New Jersey-New York Highlands zone, and the Pinelands National Reserve of New Jersey, which exceeds a million acres. Some 40 percent of New Jersey is in human-inhabited protected area status, affirming claims by Rosenzweig and others that valued biodiversity exists in urban and semi-urban zones.xxxiv Globally, nearly 150 global cities are located in or adjacent to the planet’s largest 25 biodiversity hotspots,xxxv underscoring the challenge of finding conservation paradigms that don’t limit biodiversity to ―.‖

Cultural landscapes that provide a degree of protection for nature are expanding in many parts of the world. In 1972 the General Conference of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) adopted the World Heritage Convention conserving sites of outstanding natural or cultural importance and today has almost 900 properties in 148 countries.xxxvi These cultural landscapes range from the rice terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras to the cedar forests in Lebanon and agricultural systems in the high Andes. England, Italy, France, and Austria offer a variant of cultural parks (―regional parks‖) with twin cultural and conservation objectives.xxxvii And in Britain and France, ―national parks‖ support human settlement, farming, forestry, and commerce while emphasizing cultural preservation. Though human densities therein are low, overall resident populations are sizeable: 316,000 for Britain and 715,000 for France (Table 1). Outside its national parks, Britain has used public subsidies since the 1990s to ―encourage environmental amenities.‖ Pretty notes that over 8000 commons still exist in England and Wales (covering .5 million HA),xxxviii a tribute to farmers who produced win-win ecologies in the past without government subsidies and might again do so under favorable incentive structures.

124 Consilience

Table 1: Selected Peopled Parks in Britain and France (circa 2000) [Britain] Area (HA) [Britain] Inhabitants* Beacon Beacons 135,000 32,000 Cairngorms 27,000 16,000 Dartmoor 94,500 33,000 Exmoor 69,000 10,500 Lake District 229,000 40,000 Loch Lomond & 186,000 15,600 The Troccachs Northumberland 103,000 2,500 North York Moors 143,000 25,000 Peak Park 140,000 40,000 Pembrokeshire Coast 58,000 22,000 Snowdonia 217,000 25,500 Yorkshire Dales 176,000 16,800 New Forest 6,600,000 n.a.

[France] Amorique 113,500 51,500 Ballons des Vosges 291,500 253,500 Camargue 86,500 8,000 Chartreuse 69,000 35,000 Guyane 611,300 8,870 Louir-Anjoy-Touraine 235,000 177,000 Luberon 165,000 148,000 Morvan 226,000 33,000

Population estimates for France are 1909, for Britain, 2000. Source for France: Allali- Puz, Bechaux and Jenkins (2003-22). Source for Britain: 2000 Population Census.

Another dramatic and under-referenced example of reconciliation ecology exists in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area classification system. The IUCN hierarchy contains six categories. The first four conform to Rosenzweig’s notion reservation ecology and exclude most human uses. The remaining two blur the distinction between in-situ and ex-situ conservation and present degrees of reconciliation ecology. Category V (protected landscape/seascape) extends to areas where ―the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological, and/or culture value, and often with high biological diversity.‖xxxix There are 7,000 protected areas in this IUCN category extending to every . Category VI (Managed Resource Protected Areas) are areas ―containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long-term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet needs.‖ Though few in number, these are among the largest protected areas in the world,xl and of increasing importance to IUCN as an Anthropocene conservation strategy.xli IUCN’s PARKS magazine now publishes Consilience Geisler: Biodiversity Hotspots special issues on bioregionalism, populated ―hotspots‖ and landscape protection in areas of human settlement.

Category VI was added to the IUCN classification largely because of the rapid growth of extractive reserves in Brazil (sites of conservation and sustainable community resource harvesting, especially latex rubber and Brazil nuts), a use wholly consistent with the definition of the category: ―Category VI protected areas conserve ecosystems and habitats, together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with is seen as one of the main aims of the area.‖xlii In addition to the 31 extractive reserves that by 2004 covered over 5 million hectares of Brazil’s interior,xliii Category VI includes village and panchayat forests in , roadless areas on U.S. national forests, and a spectrum of multiple use areas wherein biodiversity conservation has paramount importance. Both protection and production are respected, though a minimum of two-thirds of these areas are dedicated to native species conservation.

A related example of win-win ecology is the nearly 40-year old UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program, viewed by some as the gold standard for integrative conservation. MAB is the organizational backbone for Biosphere Reserves—the UNESCO designation for areas of shared cultural and biological value in which priority is given to sustainable living--in over half the countries of the world. From the outset, Biosphere Reserves have served as experimental laboratories for conservation and sustainable human development.xliv Each Reserve has one or several core areas that enjoy protected status. These areas are ringed by buffer zones to maintain their ecosystem functionality. Beyond the buffer areas are zones of cooperation that typically contain multifunctional human settlements. According to UNESCO, there are 553 Biosphere Reserves in 107 countries at present, encompassing well over 300 million hectares.

Not all examples of win-win ecology entail vast areas, green architecture being a foremost example. As of 2004, over 47,000 green homes had been built in the U.S. alone and nearly 2000 commercial buildings were registered with the Green Building Council to be certified in the LEED system (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). As of 2010, the Council had over 18,500 member organizations from all building sectors and routinely reviews building proposals in Canada, Australia, India, Japan, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Germany, and Guatemala (17 other countries have provisional Green Building Councils). The environmental implications of altering building design in countries such as China are monumental and include a potential 60 percent reduction in urban energy use that directly address the threshold effects listed by the Stockholm Resilience researchers by relieving pressure on rural environments affected by hydrocarbon extraction.xlv

These ecological design principles originated with John Lylexlvi and include reduced light and water pollution, on-site recycling, and the mimicking of natural 126 Consilience functions. They are now widely adopted across the US by state and federal agencies, by 14,000 LEED-accredited professionals, and by an expanding list of universities and commercial giants such as Wal-Mart. The greening of Wal-Mart is of interest as a market-based stimulus for conservation broadly conceived. The behemoth company has rolled out a highly fuel-efficient national truck fleet, boasts of zero waste, leverages green products and processes from its suppliers (China among them), and publically supports environmental sustainability goals.xlvii

The preceding examples of win-win ecology constitute a somewhat truncated inventory of win-win experience bank. They supplement Rosenzweig’s own work and could extend, as well, to the growing foot print of conservancy land trusts which, though originally crafted to defend nature, are experimenting with working landscapes at multiple scales.xlviii,xlix They include the results Pretty (2002) found upon surveying 200 sustainable farming projects in 52 countries covering 70 million acres. He concluded that these initiatives, with proper encouragement, could feed a substantial fraction of the world’s food-insecure people without environmental harm. A quarter of a century ago Stroup and Badenl called on policy makers to use private ―endowment areas‖ to advance conservation on private lands; others see the 3000 soil conservation districts in the United States as model ― districts‖ in the U.S. and elsewhere.li Finally, community-based conservation, though far from problem-free, occupies many win-win niches across the globe. The foundational fact remains that rural people have conserved vast areas of land and biodiversity for their own utilitarian, cultural and spiritual needs for millennia and ‖the history of this kind of conservation…is much older than government-managed protected areas, or even the notion of the nation-state.‖lii Garret Hardinliii himself has retracted his landmark pronouncement against local commons as a conservation tragedy.

4. “Greenlining” and Its Discontents

The case for win-win ecology does not exist in a vacuum. ―Greenlining,‖ or the enclosing of nature, stricto sensu, and the enforcement of enclosure through human removal, usually occurs without consent or compensation and has a troubled history when it comes to environmental justice.liv It has advanced aggressively in recent decades. Today, all but six of the world’s 200 nations have turned to parks and protected areas as conservation tools. At the time of the Durban World Parks Congress in 2003, the world’s protected areas accounted for twice the area protected areas reported at the 1992 World Congress and appeared in virtually every major biome (Table 2). A small army of committed environmentalists is working devotedly to double or triple this total yet again.lv

But a pressing paradox accompanies the growth of greenlining. Were traditional park-centric conservation to indeed double or triple again, the collateral human damage would be incalculable along with potential environmental backlash. Consider the magnitude of the problem. Almost half of the world’s 17,000 largest parks and preserves are used for survival by poorly nourished communities lacking other subsistence options.lvi The insecurities of ―conservation ‖ status, which they will experience when displaced, is well documented,lvii,lviii but poorly understood Consilience Geisler: Biodiversity Hotspots

Table 2: Global Land Protection by Biome, 2003 Biome (Udvardy, 1975) Extent Percent Protected Protected (Km2) Tropical Humid Forests 2,450,344 23.3 Subtropical/Temperate 665,174 16.9 Rainforests/Woodlands Temperate Needle-Leaf Forests/Woodlands 1,350,221 8.6 Tropical Dry Forests/Woodlands 2,210,563 12.8 Temperate Broad-leaf Forests 856,502 7.6 Evergreen Sclerophyllous Forests 399,587 10.6 Warm Deserts/Semi-Deserts 2,492k,377 10.3 Cold-Winter Deserts 704,037 7.6 Tundra Communities 2,606,041 11.8 Tropical Grasslands Savannahs 654,310 15.3 Temperate Grasslands 411,839 4.6 Mixed Mountain Systems 1,735,828 16.3 Mixed Island Systems 967,129 29.7 Lake Systems 7,989 1.5 Total 17,511,941 12.3 Chape et at., 2003:29 in both ecological and legal terms. Conservation refugees, surely in the millions,lix lack the protected status accorded to political refugees by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. There is pathos as well as paradox here. A recent compilation of over 200 academic and popular studies sheds light on many unreported cases of park evictions and the traumas that accompany them.lx The victims of park displacement are often indigenous people, subsistence farmers with valuable local environmental knowledge, or commoners familiar with diverse ecosystems. Not only is there the risk of losing indigenous knowledge but, in their struggle to survive, their specialized skills (e.g., hunting, controlled burning, plant collecting) may be turned on the environments that produced them. Victims of greenlining at times protest their security loss by extirpating endangered species, , or destroying trophy species of the rich.lxi Nor does the backlash against nature come only from displaced victims of greenlininglxii--it can arise in the environmental community itself. Commenting on greenlining in the United States, Baldwin and colleagues observe the following: ―In this time of heightened ecological awareness and anxiety, the conservationist pieties of the generations who created the national park system… no longer hold. Some writers have even begun to question the ideology of preservation…we are less and less clear about what it would mean to preserve nature.‖ lxiii

Among the many examples of greenlining that could be cited are in the United States are Yellowstone National Park,lxiv the Virgin Island National Park,lxv and the Shenandoah National Park.lxvi Native people were evicted in the first two cases; hundreds of non-Native families were collateral damage of the last. In each 128 Consilience case, government officials stripped the use and residency rights of local people in the name of tourism tied to reservation ecology, despite the fact that the victims were long-term denizens and knew the local ecosystems intimately. Sustainable living with nature is not only about innovation and new relationships with nature; it is also about retaining abiding relationships from the past, particularly those that connected (and in some geographies continue to connect) biodiversity and cultural diversity.lxvii

5. Conclusion

Much is known about park-centric approaches to conserving biodiversity due its longevity, the national-level data gathered to monitor it, and the sprawling interest of conservation biologists in the biology of these units. Far less is known about reconciliation ecology and its strengths as well as its weaknesses. Where the former is committed to converting as much of every continent as possible into de jure nature parks, Rosenzweig would convert much of the world into a de facto park in which humans coexist with nature and accept responsibility for both its use and protection. Although I have focused on experiences relevant to win-sin ecology and offered strong cautionary notes on the wisdom of greenlining, there is surely a place for both strategies in the Anthropocene, and the Stockholm Resilience Center scientists would insist on it. Rosenzweig’s optimism must be tempered by the concerns of conservation biologists, some of which were posed above. Embedding biodiversity conservation into a globalized world is by no means easy. The paradox of greenlining—that park- based conservation success begets social dislocation, disaffection, and revenge effects—would be unremarkable if parks and protected areas were uninhabited by humans. Yet the opposite holds for 70 to 85 percent of the world’s protected areas.lxviii Our brief journey through the global conservation landscape suggests that much is at stake in the debate between the defenders and detractors of park-based conservation: human welfare and social justice on the one hand and ecosystem integrity and services on the other. Surely McNeely is right in observing that policies which ignore the presence of people within national parks are doomed to failure and that this failure will not end with the people but with the conservation edifice erected around them.lxix

Consilience Geisler: Biodiversity Hotspots

End Notes

1Rockström, J., et al., A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 2009. (461): p. 472-475. 2Rosenzweig, M.L., Win-win ecology: how the earth's species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. London: Oxford University Press, 2003a. 3Rosenzweig, M.L., Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Oryx, 2003b. (37): p. 194-205. 4DeFries, R., et al., Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications, 2007. 17(4): p. 1031-38. 5Gotelli, N. J. A primer of ecology. Third edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. 2001.

6MEA, Biodiversity synthesis, in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005. 7Soulé, M.E. and M.A. Sanjayan, Conservation targets, Science, 1998. (279): p. 2060-2061. 8Wilson, E.O., The future of life. New York: A. A. Knopf, 2000. 9Welz, A. Winning concept seeks work. Review of Win-Win Ecology by Michael rosenzweig. Diversity and Distributions: A Journal of Conservation. 2004. (10:5/6) p.506. 10 Brooks, T. Rose-tinted ecology. Plos Biology, 2003. 1(3) p. 73.

11DeFries, R., et al., Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Applications, 2007. 17(4): p. 1031-38.

12Ibid, 1032.

13 Lovelock, J.E., A physical basis for life detection experiments. Nature, 1965. 207(7): p. 568-570.

14Wilson, Edward O., Biophilia, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. 15 For an extended critique of island , for example, see G. P. Nabhan, 2003, Singing the Turtles to Sea. Berkeley: University of California Press. 16McNeely, J.A., The future of national parks. Environmental Education, 1990. (32): p. 16-27. 17McNeeley, J.A. and S.J. Scherr, Ecoagriculture: Strategies to feed the world and save wild biodiversity. Island Press. Washington, D.E. 2003. 130 Consilience

18 Collet, L. and A. Jarvis, Spatial assessment of agriculture, wildlife, and in E. . CIAT and Ecoagriculture Partners. Washington, D.C., 2008. 19Marshall, R., The people's forest. New York: Harrison Smith and Robert Haas, 1933. 20 Izac, A.M.N. and P. A. Sanchez. Towards a natural resource management paradigm for international agriculture: the example of agroforestry research. Agricultural Systems, 2001 (69):5-25.

21Bhagwat, S.A., K. J. Willis, H. J. B. Birks, and R. J. Whittaker. Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biology.Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2008 (23: 5):261-67. See also Lance, J. 2009. Cited at http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0924-hance_bhagwat.html on June 12, 2010: Could agroforestry solve the biodiversity crisis and address poverty?, an interview with Shonil Bhagwat (Sept. 24).

22Buck, L.E., J.P. Lassoie and E.C.M. Fernandes, (eds), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Baton Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999. 23Carroll, C.R., A.M. Dix, and J.S. Kettler, Tropical agroecology and conservation ecoplogy: two paths toward sustainable development. Conservation Biology - for the Coming Decade, 1998. 24Schroth, G., et al., Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2004. 25Molnar, A. and S. Scherr, Who conserves the world‟s forests? Community driven strategies that protect forests and respect rights. Washington, DC: Forest Trends, 2003. 26 Zomer, R.J., et al., Trees on farm: analysis of global extent and geographical patterns of agroforestry. Nairobi, : World Agroforestry Centre. 2003. 27Sierra, K., Forest carbon partnership facility FY2009 annual report. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2009. 28International Centre for Research Agroforestry (ICRAF), Towards a natural resource management paradigm for international agriculture: the example of agroforesty research. Agricultural Systems, 2000. (69): p. 5-25. 29Colchester, M. 2003. Salvaging Nature. Maldonado, Uruguay. World Rainforest Movement. 2003.

30Kristoff, N.D., “Make way for the buffalo”. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803EED91630F93AA15 753C1A9659C8B63, New York Times Magazine, 29 Oct. 2003. Web 2 Apr. 2008. Consilience Geisler: Biodiversity Hotspots

31Popper, D.E. and F.J. Popper. Great Plains: From Dust to Dust. Planning Magazine, Dec. 1987. 32Popper, D.E. and F.J. Popper. The buffalo commons as regional metaphor and geographic method. Geographical Review, 2009. 33Doyle, L., “Turner becomes largest private landowner in US.” The Independent, 1 Dec. 2007. 34Trzyna, T. 2007. Global Urbanization and Protected Areas. Sacramento, CA: Californian Institute of Public Affairs for IUCN.

35McNeeley, J.A. and S.J. Scherr, Ecoagriculture: Strategies to feed the world and save wild biodiversity. Island Press. Washington, D.E. 2003.

36Rossler, M., World heritage cultural landscapes: a global perspective, in Brown, J., N. Mitchell, and M. Beresford (eds). Gland, Switzerland: The World Conservation Union, 2005. 37Mitchell, N. and S. Buggy. Protected landscapes and the cultural landscapes: taking advantage of diverse approaches. The George Wright Forum, 2000 (17,1):35-46.

38 Pretty, J.N., Agri-culture: reconnecting people, land and nature. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications, 2002.

39Phillips, A. Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas Protected landscapes/Seascapes. World Commission on Protected Areas, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 9. Cardiff University, Cambridge, UK/IUCN, Gland Switzerland. 2002

40Chape, S., M. Spalding, M.D. Jenkins, 2008. The World‟s Protected Areas: Status, Value, and Prospects in the 21st. Century. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press, Berkeley. 2008.

41Phillips, A. Protected Areas come in all shapes and sizes. PARKS , 2002 (14,3) p. 1.

42 See IUCN Website, accessed 6/12/10 at http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products/wcpa_categ ories/pa_categoryvi/

43Maretti, C., et al., From pre-assumptions to a „just world conserving nature‟: the role of category VI in protecting landscapes, in Brown, J., N. Mitchell, and M. Beresford (eds), The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2005. 132 Consilience

44 Chape, S., et al., United Nations list of protected areas. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN-UNEP, 2003. 45Stack, M., Green dwelling not just a dream. The Baltimore Sun, 5 Mar. 2005. 46Lyle, J.T., Design for human ecosystems: landscape, land use, and natural r esources. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1999. 47Aston, A. “Wal-Mart: Making its suppliers to green”. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_21/b4132044814736. htm. BusinessWeek, 14 May 2009. Web accessed. 25 Feb. 2010. 48Poiani, K.A., et al., Biodiversity conservation at multiples scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience, 2000. (50): p. 133-146. 49Libby, J. and D. Bradley, Vermont housing and conservation board: a conspiracy of good will among land trusts and housing trusts, in Geisler, C. and D. Daneker (eds), Property and Values: Alternatives to Public and Private Ownership. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000. 50 Stroup, L. and J. Baden, Endowment areas: a clearing in the policy wilderness?, Cato Journal, 1982. (Winter) p. 691-708. 51Heal, G., et al., Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 2001. (21): p. 333-364. 52 Barrow, E. and N. Pathak. Conserving “unprotected” protected areas. Ch. 4 in J. Brown, N. Mithchell and M.Beresford (eds.). The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture, and Community. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2005. 53Hardin, G., The tragedy of the unmanaged commons. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1994. (9): p. 199-206. 54Geisler, C., A new kind of trouble: evictions in Eden. International Social Science Journal, 2003. (175): p. 30-42. 55 Meyers, N., Biodiversity and biodepletion: the need for a paradigm shift, in O'Riordan, T. and S. Stoll-Kleemann (eds), Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting Beyond the Protected. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 56McNeeley, J.A. and S.J. Scherr, Common ground, common future. How ecoagriculture can help feed the world and save wild biodiversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 2001. 57 Dowie, M. Conservation Refugees. Orion Magazine (Nov./Dec.). 2005. 58 Cernea, M.M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau, Poverty risks and national parks: policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Development, 2006. 34:1808-1830. 59Geisler, C. and R. de Sousa, From refuge to refugee: the African case. Journal of Public Administration and Development, 2001. (21): p. 159-170. Consilience Geisler: Biodiversity Hotspots

60 Brockington, D. and J. Egoe. „Eviction for conservation: a global overview.‟ Conservation and Society. 2006. 4 (3): 424-70. 61 Meyerson, F. “Guatemala Burning.” The Amicus Journal, 1998 (4):28-32; and Thompson, E.P., Whigs and hunters: the origin of the black act. New York: Pantheon, 1975. 62 Colchester, M., Salvaging nature: , protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Maldonado, Montivideo: World Rainforest, 1994. 63Baldwin, A., Jr., J. De Luce and C. Pletsch, Introduction: ecological preservation versus restoration and invention, in Baldwin, A., Jr., J. De Luce, C. Pletsch, (eds), Beyond Preservation; Restoring and Inventing Landscapes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994. p. 5. 64 Spence, M. 1999. Dispossessing the Wilderness:Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks. New York: Oxford University Press. 65Igoe, J. and D. Brockington. “Neoliberal Conservation: A Brief Introduction,” Conservation & Society, 2007 (5:4) 432-449.

66 Powell, K. A. The Anguish of Displacement: The Politics of Literacy in the Letters of Mountain Families in Shenandoah National Park. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. 67 Kassam, K. Biocultural Diversity and Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Human Ecology in the Arctic. .Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2009. 68Chatty, D., Mobile peoples and conservation: an introduction. Nomadic Peoples, 2003 (7): p. 5-16. 69 McNeely, J.A., The future of national parks. Environmental Education, 1990 (32): p. 23.