OUTCOMES Lencois Maranheses National Park Low Brazil 30 1,550

OUTCOMES CHARACTERISTICS

Level of compliance of 2009 GDP PPP per Local community Notes: Level of Notes: Level of INFORMATION P.A NAME Protected Area Existence of IUCN P.A Population Density local community with Country Area (km2) capta (Intl participation-decision Compliance** Participation*** SOURCE Age Buffer Zones Category in Vicinity of PA park's policies dollars) making

No participation:there isn't any form of consultation or Lencois Maranheses National Frequent illegal fishing Low Brazil 30 1,550 no II 10,453.25 10.53 Excluded interaction between (Abakerli, 2001) Park detected community and PA managers.

(Zimmerman, Peres, no illegal activity Community plays a major Kayapo Indigenous Area High Brazil 22 32,972 no not known 10,453.25 0.91 Included Malcolm, & Turner, detected role on PA management 2001)

Some illegal activity Community is consulted Jigme Singye Wangchuck detected: Cattle grazing, through some meetings, (Wang, Lassoie, & Moderate Bhutan 16 1,730 yes II 5,131.23 69.29 Partially Included National Park Fuelwood, NTFP* & but does not influence PA Curtis, 2006) poaching management No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal any form of consultation or Korup National Park Low Cameroon 50 1,294 no II 2,139.57 33.98 Excluded Poaching & NTFP* interaction between (Mbile, et al., 2005) detected community and PA managers.

no illegal activity Community plays a major (Usongo & Nkanje, Lobeke National Park High Cameroon 37 1,838 yes II 2,139.57 4.06 Included detected role on PA management 2004)

Community is consulted Some illegal activity through some meetings, Benoue National Park Moderate Cameroon 43 1,665 yes II 2,139.57 7.95 Partially Included detected: agriculture, (Mayaka, 2002) but does not influence PA poaching & fishing management Frequent illegal activity Community is consulted detected: Cattle grazing, through some meetings, Waza National Park Low Cameroon 43 1,407 no II 2,139.57 58.20 Partially Included Fishing, (Bauer, 2003) but does not influence PA poaching,fuelwood,loggi management ng & NTFP* (Abbot, Thomas, no illegal activity Community plays a major Kilum-Ijim Forest High Cameroon 24 200 no not known 2,139.57 150.84 Included Gardner, Neba, & detected role on PA management Khen, 2001) No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: Agriculture, Wolong Nature Reserve Low China 32 2,000 no VI 6,785.87 69.03 Excluded interaction between (Fu, et al., 2004) Cattle Grazingg, community and PA fuelwood & NTFP* managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: fuelwood, wild Shimentai Nature Reserve Low China 13 822 yes V 6,785.87 120.90 Excluded interaction between (Jim & Xu, 2002) honey, logging, poaching community and PA & NTFP* managers. Community is consulted Some illegal activity through some meetings, (Albers & Grinspoon, Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve Moderate China 53 1,428 no V 6,785.87 53.20 Partially Included detected:Fuelwood,Poac but does not influence PA 1997) hing, timber &NTFP* management OUTCOMES CHARACTERISTICS

No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or (Fiallo & Jacobson, Machalilla National Park Low Ecuador 32 750 no II 7,573.13 38.97 Excluded detected: Agriculture, interaction between 1995) Cattle grazing & Fishing community and PA managers. no illegal activity Community plays a major St Katherine Protectorate High Egypt 23 4,712 no VI 6,105.91 4.51 Included (Grainger, 2003) detected role on PA management

no illegal activity mentioned on article but Passive: community is (Maikhuri, S., & Rao, Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve Low India 23 2,236 yes not known 3,039.48 31.38 Partially Included locals are extremely consulted but does not 2001) dissatisfied with PA's influence PA management managemnet.

No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or Rajaji National Park Low India 28 820 no II 3,039.48 615.66 Excluded detected: Cattle grazing, interaction between (Ogra, 2009) fuelwood & NTFP* community and PA managers. Community is consulted Some illegal activity (Arjunan, Holmes, Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger through some meetings, Moderate India 35 900 yes IV 3,039.48 565.29 Partially Included detected: Cattle grazing, Puyravaud, & Davidar, Reserve but does not influence PA fuelwood & NTFP* 2006) management Community is consulted Frequent illegal activity through some meetings, (Mukherjee & Borad, Gir National Park Low India 31 1,265 no II 3,039.48 231.35 Partially Included detected: Cattle grazing, but does not influence PA 2004) fuelwood & NTFP* management No participation:there isn't Some illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: Agriculture, Sariska tiger Reserve Moderate India 56 492 no IV 3,039.48 400.59 Excluded interaction between (Sekhar, 2003) Cattle grazing, Fuelwood community and PA & NTFP* managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or (Nagendra, Pareeth, & Tadoba Andahari Tiger Reserve Low India 18 625 yes II 3,039.48 153.33 Excluded detected: Cattle grazing, interaction between Ghate, 2006) fuelwood & NTFP* community and PA managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or (Yonariza & Webb, Barisan I Nature Reserve Low Indonesia 91 740 no VI 4,155.45 465.43 Excluded detected: Poaching, interaction between 2007) logging & NTFP* community and PA managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: Agriculture, (Akama, Lant, & Nairobi National Park Low Kenya 65 117 no II 1,614.07 2,495.16 Excluded interaction between cattle grazing & Burnett, 1995) community and PA poaching managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or Tsavo National Park ( East & detected: Agriculture, (Akama, Lant, & Low Kenya 63 20,812 no II 1,614.07 11.66 Excluded interaction between West part) cattle grazing & Burnett, 1995) community and PA poaching managers. OUTCOMES CHARACTERISTICS

Some illegal activity Community is consulted detected: poaching, through some meetings, (Ormsby & Kaplin, Masoala National Park Moderate Madagascar 14 2,204 yes II 944.95 37.03 Partially Included fuelwood, logging & but does not influence PA 2005) NTFP* management No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: Agriculture, Mantadia National Park Low Madagascar 22 154 yes II 944.95 28.04 Excluded interaction between (Shyamsundar, 1996) timber, fuelwood & community and PA NTFP* managers. Frequent illegal activity No participation:there isn't detected: fuelwood, any form of consultation or (Mkanda & Munthali, Kasungu National Park Low Malawi 41 2,316 no II 790.15 31.94 Excluded NTFP*, cattle grazing interaction between 1994) and agriculture, community and PA poaching managers. no illegal activity Community plays a major Batang Ai National Park High Malaysia 20 251 no II 13,733.30 6.74 Included (Horowitz, 1998) detected role on PA management no illegal activity Community is consulted (Garcia-Frapolli, mentioned on article but Otoch Ma'ax Yetel Kooh through some meetings, Ramos- Fernandes, Moderate Mexico 9 53 no VI 13,681.32 12.51 Partially Included locals are not completely (OMYK) but does not influence PA Galicia, & Serrano, satisfied with PA management 2009) management. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or (Durand & Lazos, Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve Low Mexico 13 1,551 yes VI 13,681.32 89.63 Excluded detected: Agriculture, interaction between 2008) Cattle grazing community and PA managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity (Garcia-Frapolli, any form of consultation or detected: Swidden Ramos- Fernandes, Calakmul Biosphere Reserve Low Mexico 22 7,231 yes VI 13,681.32 10.33 Excluded interaction between Agriculture & Cattle Galicia, & Serrano, community and PA grazing 2009) managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: Agriculture, (De Boer & Baquete, Maputo Elephant Reserve Low Mozambique 42 900 no IV 954.04 12.73 Excluded interaction between Hunting, Fishing, fuel 1998) community and PA wood & NTFP* managers. No participation:there isn't Some illegal activity any form of consultation or Alaugndaw Kathapa National detected: Cattle grazing, Moderate Myanmar 27 1,606 yes II 1,199.74 54.83 Excluded interaction between (Allendorf, et al., 2006) Park timber, fuelwood & community and PA NTFP* managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary Low Myanmar 70 269 yes III 1,199.74 65.51 Excluded detected: fuelwood & interaction between (Allendorf, et al., 2006) NTFP* community and PA managers. No participation:there isn't Some illegact activity any form of consultation or Htamanthi wildlife Sanctuary Moderate Myanmar 37 2,150 no III 1,199.74 10.58 Excluded detected: fuelwood & interaction between (Allendorf, et al., 2006) NTFP* community and PA managers. OUTCOMES CHARACTERISTICS

Some illegal activity Community is consulted Royal Chitwan National Park detected: poaching, through some meetings, (Straede & Treue, Moderate Nepal 38 932 yes II 1,215.26 322.50 Partially Included (RCNP) fishing, logging, but does not influence PA 2006) fuelwood & NTFP* management Community is consulted (Baral & Heinen, Some illegal activity through some meetings, 2007) and (Allendorf, Royal Bardia National Park Moderate Nepal 35 968 yes II 1,215.26 229.74 Partially Included detected: fuelwood, but does not influence PA Smith, & Anderson, timber & NTFP* management 2007) no illegal activity Community plays a major (Bajracharya, Furley, Annapurna Conservation Area High Nepal 19 7,629 no VI 1,215.26 75.26 Included detected role on PA management & Newton, 2006) Community is consulted Some illegal activity Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife through some meetings, (Baral & Heinen, Moderate Nepal 35 305 yes IV 1,215.26 308.17 Partially Included detected: fuelwood, Reserve but does not influence PA 2007) timber & NTFP* management

Some illegal activity Community is consulted Makalu Baurun Conservation detected: Cattle grazing, through some meetings, (Mehta & Kellert, Moderate Nepal 19 830 yes VI 1,215.26 49.26 Partially Included Area fuelwood, timber, but does not influence PA 1998) poaching & NTFP* management

No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: fishing, Cross River National Park Low Nigeria 20 8,000 yes II 2,274.12 60.38 Excluded interaction between (Ite & Adams, 2000) hunting, fuelwood & community and PA NTFP managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or Rajah Sikatuna Protected detected: Agriculture, (Lynagh & Urich, Low Philippines 11 110 yes V 3,515.74 243.38 Excluded interaction between Landscape poaching, logging and 2002) community and PA NTFP* managers. no illegal activity Community is consulted mentioned on article but through some meetings, Kruger National Park Moderate South Africa 85 9,150 no not known 10,237.99 21.76 Partially Included locals are not completely (Anthony, 2007) but does not influence PA satisfied with PA management management. no illegal activity Community is consulted mentioned on article but Greater St Lucia Wetland through some meetings, Moderate South Africa 116 2,133 no II 10,237.99 41.70 Partially Included locals are not completely (Picard, 2003) Nature Reserve but does not influence PA satisfied with PA management management. No participation:there isn't Tsitsikamma National park Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or (Watts & Faasen, (including the terrestrial and Low South Africa 11 298 no II 10,237.99 17.21 Excluded detected: Fishing & interaction between 2009) marine park) Poaching community and PA managers. Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge no illegal activity Community plays a major (Lu, Chou, & Yuan, High Taiwan 18 1 no not known 31,769.78 180.10 Included (WWK) detected role on PA management 2005) Community is consulted (Kaltenborn, Some illegal activity through some meetings, Serengeti National Park Moderate Tanzania 60 14,763 no II 1,340.91 50.75 Partially Included Nyahongo, Kidegesho, detected: Cattle grazing but does not influence PA & Haaland, 2008) management OUTCOMES CHARACTERISTICS

no illegal activity Community is consulted mentioned on article but through some meetings, (Gillingham & Lee, Selous Game Reserve Moderate Tanzania 106 44,000 yes IV 1,340.91 15.90 Partially Included locals are not completely but does not influence PA 2003) satisfied with PA management management. Community is consulted Some illegal activity through some meetings, Katavi National Park Moderate Tanzania 37 4,471 no II 1,340.91 12.49 Partially Included detected: Logging & (Holmes, 2003) but does not influence PA Fuelwood management No participation:there isn't Some illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: Agriculture, (Albers & Grinspoon, Khao Yai National Park Moderate Thailand 49 2,185 no II 8,488.69 87.12 Excluded interaction between Fuelwood, logging 1997) community and PA &NTFP* managers. No participation:there isn't no illegal activity any form of consultation or mentioned but locals are (Lepp & Holland, Kibale National Park Low Uganda 20 766 no II 1,210.42 197.89 Excluded interaction between extremely dissatisfied 2006) community and PA with park's managemnet. managers. Kibale Association for Rural and no illegal activity Community plays a major (Lepp & Holland, Economic Development High Uganda 17 not known no not known 1,210.42 281.00 Included detected role on PA management 2006) (KAFRED) Frequent illegal activity Community is consulted detected: Agriculture, through some meetings, (Infield & Namara, Lake Mburo National Park Low Uganda 29 370 no II 1,210.42 81.34 Partially Included Cattle grazing & but does not influence PA 2001) Poaching management (Hamilton, Bwindi Impenetrable National no illegal activity Community plays a major Cunningham, High Uganda 20 327 no II 1,210.42 212.86 Included Park detected role on PA management Byarugaba, & Kayanja, 2000) Community is consulted no illegal activity through some meetings, (Adams & Infield, Mgahinga Gorila National Park High Uganda 81 38 no II 1,210.42 484.67 Partially Included detected but does not influence PA 2001) management No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or (Boissiere, Sheil, Phong Dien Nature Reserve Low Vietnam 10 414 no not known 2,941.67 45.65 Excluded detected: NTFP*, interaction between Basuki, Wan, & Le, Timber & Poaching community and PA 2009) managers. No participation:there isn't Frequent illegal activity any form of consultation or detected: Agriculture, (Mombeshora & Le Gonarezhou National Park Low Zimbabwe 36 5,053 no II 394.30 16.91 Excluded interaction between poaching & Cattle Bel, 2009) community and PA grazing managers.

NTFP*: Non Timber Forest Product ** Frequency and type of illegal activity detected on PA case studies *** Level of community participation specified on PA case studies LITERATURE CITED

Abakerli, S. (2001). A critique of development and conservation policies in environmentally sensitive regions in Brazil. Geoforum 32:551-565. Abbot, J., Thomas, D., Gardner, A., Neba, S., & Khen, M. (2001). Understanding the Links Between Conservation and Development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29(7):1115-1136. Adams, W., & Infield, M. (2001). Park Outreach & Gorilla Conservation Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda. Page 131-147 in D. Hulme, & M. Murphree, African Wildlife & Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. James Currey Ltd, Oxford, UK. Akama, J., Lant, C., & Burnett, G. (1995). Conflicting Attitudes Towards State Wildlife Conservation Programs in Kenya'. Society and Natural Resources 8:133-144. Albers, H., & Grinspoon, E. (1997). 'A comparison of the enforcement of access restriction between Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve (China) and Khao Yai National Park (Thailand). Environmental Conservation 24(4):351-362. Allendorf, T., Smith, J., & Anderson, D. H. (2007). Residents' perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning 82:33-40. Allendorf, T., Swe, K., OO, T., Htut, Y., Aung, M., Allendorf, K., et al. (2006). Community attitudes toward three protected areas in Upper Myanmar (Burma). Environmental Conservation 33(4):344-352. Anthony, B. (2007). The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 34(3):236-245. Arjunan, M., Holmes, C., Puyravaud, J., & Davidar, P. (2006). Do developmental initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 79:188-197. Bajracharya, S., Furley, P., & Newton, A. (2006). Impacts of community-based conservation on local communities in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:2765-2786. Baral, N., & Heinen, J. (2007). Decentralization and people's participation in conservation: a comparative study from the Western Terai of Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14:520-531. Bauer, H. (2003). Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30(2):175-181. Boissiere, M., Sheil, D., Basuki, I., Wan, M., & Le, H. (2009). Can engaging local people's interests reduce forest degradation in Central Vietnam?. Biodiversity Conservation 18:2743-2757. De Boer, W., & Baquete, D. S. (1998). Natural resource use, crop damage and attitude of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephante Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation 25(3):208- 218. Durand, L., & Lazos, E. (2008). The Local perception of Tropical Deforestation and its Relation to Conservation Policies in Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Human Ecology 36:383-394. Fiallo, E., & Jacobson, S. (1995). Local Communities and Protected Areas: Attitude of Rural Residents Towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22(3):241-249. Fu, B., Wang, K., Lu, Y., Liu, S., Ma, K., Chen, L., et al. (2004). Entangling the Complexity of Protected Area Management: The Case of Wolong Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern China. Environmental Management 33(6):788-798. Garcia-Frapolli, E., Ramos- Fernandes, G., Galicia, E., & Serrano, A. (2009). The complex reality of biodiversity conservation through Natural Protected area policy: Three cases Studies from yucatan Pneninsula, Mexico. Land Use Policy 26:715-722. Gillingham, S., & Lee, P. (2003). People and protected areas: a study of local people perceptions of wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve. Oryx 37(3):316-325. Grainger, J. (2003). People are living in the park. Linking biodiversity consereavtion to community development in the Middle East region: a case study from the Saint Katherine Protectorate, Sourthern Sinai. Journal of Arid Environment 54:29-38. Hamilton, A., Cunningham, A., Byarugaba, D., & Kayanja. (2000). Conservation in a Region of Political Instability: Bwindi Impenetrable Forest, Uganda. Conservation Biology 14(6):1722-1725. Holmes, C. M. (2003). The influence of protected area outreach on conservation attitude and resource use patterns: a case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 37(3):305-315. Horowitz, L. S. (1998). Integrating Indigienous Resource management with Wildlife Conservation: A Case Study of Batang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Human Ecology 26(3):371-403. Infield, M., & Namara, A. (2001). Community attitudes and behaiviour towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35(1):48-60. Ite, U., & Adams, W. (2000).Expectation, Impacts, and attitude: Conservation and Development in Cross River National Park, Nigeria. Journal of International Development 12:325-342. Jim, C., & Xu, S. (2002). Stifled Stakeholders and Subdue Participation: Interpreting Local Responses Toward Shimentai Nature Reserve in South China. Environmental Management 30(3):327-341. Kaltenborn, B., Nyahongo, J., Kidegesho, J., & Haaland, H. (2008). Serengeti National Park and its neighbours- Do they interact? Journal for Nature Conservation 16:96-108. Lepp, A., & Holland, S. (2006). A Comparison of Attitudes Towards State-Led Conservation and Community-Based Conservation in the Village of Bigodi, Uganda. Society and Natural Resources 19:609-623. Lu, D., Chou, Y., & Yuan, H. (2005). Paradigm shift in the instutional arrangement of protected areas management in Taiwan: a case study of Wu-Wei-Kang Waterfowl Wildlife Refuge in Ilan. Taiwan. Environmental Science & Policy 8:418-430. Lynagh, F., & Urich, P. (2002). A Critical Review of Buffer Zone Theory and Practice: A philippine Case Study. Society and Natural Resources 15:129-145. Maikhuri, R., S., N., & Rao, K. S. (2001). Conservation policy-people conflicts: a case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (a World Heriatge Site), India. Forest Policy and Economics 2:355-365. Mayaka, T. (2002). Wildlife Co-Management in the Benoue National Park-Complex, Cameroon: A Bumby Road to Instutional Development. World Development 30(11):2001-2016. Mbile, P., Vabi, V., Meboka, M., Okon, D., Arrey-Mbo, J., Nkongho, F., et al. (2005). Linking management and livelihood in environmental conservation: case of Korup National Park Cameroon. Journal of Environmental Management 76:1-13. Mehta, J., & Kellert, S. (1998). Local attitudes toward community-based xonservation and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation 25(4):320-333. Mkanda, F., & Munthali, S. (1994). Public attitudes and needs around Kasungu National Park, Malawi. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:29-44. Mombeshora, S., & Le Bel, S. (2009). Parks-people conflicts: the case of Gonarezhou National Park and the Chitsa community in south-east Zimbabwe. Biodiversity Conservation 18:2601-2623. Mukherjee, A., & Borad, C. (2004). Integrated approach towards conservation of Gir National Park: The last refuge of Asiatic Lions, India. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:2165-2182. Nagendra, H., Pareeth, S., & Ghate, R. (2006). People within parks-forest villages, Land-cover change and landscape fragmentation in the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve, India. Applied Geography 26:96-112. Ogra, M. (2009). Attitudes Toward Resolution of Human-Wildlife Conflict Among Forest-Dependent Agriculturalists Near Rajaji National Park. India. Human Ecology 37:161-177. Ormsby, A., & Kaplin, B. (2005). A framework for understanding community resident perceptions of Masoala National Park, Madagascar. Environmental Conservation 32(2):154-164. Picard, C. (2003). Post-apartheid perceptions of the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 30(2):182-191. Sekhar, N. (2003). Local people's attitude towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management 69:339-347. Shyamsundar, P. (1996). Constraints on socio-buffering around the Mantadia National Park in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation 23(1):67-73. Straede, S., & Treue, T. (2006).Beyond buffer zone protection: A comparative study of park and buffer zone' products importance to villagers living inside Royal Chitwan National Park and to villagers living in its buffer zone. Journal of Environmnetal Management 78:251-267. Usongo, L., & Nkanje, T. (2004). Participatory approaches towards forest conservation: The case of Lobeke National Park, South east Camerron. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 11:119-127. Wang, S., Lassoie, J., & Curtis, P. (2006). Farmer attitude towards conservation in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Environmental Conservation 33(2):148-156. Watts, S., & Faasen, H. (2009). Community-Based Conflict Resolution Strategies for Sustainable Management of the Tsitsikamma National Park, South Africa. South African Geographical Journal 91(1):25-37. Yonariza, & Webb, E. (2007). Rural household participation in illegal timber felling in a protected area of West Sumatra, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation 34(1):73-82. Zimmerman, B., Peres, C., Malcolm, J., & Turner, T. (2001).Conservation and development alliances with Kayapo of south-eastern Amazonia, a tropical forest indiginous people. Environmental Conservation 28(1):10-22.