Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 3446 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

Year : 2014  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 190-202

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

1 Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA, USA
2 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
3 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
4 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, USA
5 University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
6 University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA
7 Duke University Marine Lab, Beaufort, NC, USA

Correspondence Address:
Catherine Corson
Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.138421

Rights and Permissions

For decades, conservationists have remained steadfastly committed to protected areas (PAs) as the best means to conserve biodiversity. Using Collaborative Event Ethnography of the 10 th 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.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded802    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal