Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Environmental Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha Conflict and conservation: On the role of protected areas for environmental justice Antonio Bontempi a, *, Pietro Venturi b, Daniela Del Bene b, Arnim Scheidel b, Quim Zaldo- Aubanell c, Roser Maneja Zaragoza a, d a Geography Department, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain b Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA-UAB), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain c BETA Technological Center, University of Vic - Central University of Catalonia (UVic-UCC), Vic, Catalonia, Spain d Forest Science and Technology Center of Catalonia (CTFC), Solsona, Catalonia, Spain A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: When are protected areas drivers of environmental injustices and conflict, and under which circumstances may Protected Areas they support customary users in protecting their lands and livelihoods against extractivist development? We Conservation address these questions by analyzing the diverse roles that protected areas play in the context of environmental Environmental Conflicts conflicts. We build a global database of 474 environmental conflicts in protected areas by overlapping data from Environmental Justice Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJAtlas) the World Database of Protected Areas and the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice. Through descriptive World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) statistics and content analysis, we characterize the intersections between the two databases and discuss those cases where protected areas play an important role in the origin, dynamics, or outcomes of the conflicts. Our findings show that growth-oriented extractivism and development are major drivers of conflicts in protected areas, where these latter can both jeopardize and support environmental justice. While several cases describe protected areas as drivers of injustices and conflicts, they can also become tools that support peoples’ struggles against controversial extractivism and development projects. The diversity of possible interactions between conflict configurations, movement claims, and forms of conservation thus require a nuanced understanding of the complex implications of protected areas for environmental justice. 1. Introduction the designation of many PAs worldwide, and questioning the origins, meaning and desirability of conservation policies. Meanwhile, behind The effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) to serve not only biodi­ the doors of the IUCN World Conservation Congress, the IUCN’s Indig­ versity conservation but also to support livelihoods and address social enous Peoples’ Organization Members presented a provocative coun­ justice concerns of customary land users is not a given. Civil society termotion to protect 80% of the Amazon rainforest by 2025 to secure groups and social movements have taken different stands regarding the their land rights (Farand, 2021; IUCN, 2021c). conditions and the extent to which PAs should be further expanded This is just one example of how PAs may be arenas of debate and globally. For instance, in September 2021, on the streets of Marseille, a struggle over the social impacts of conservation programs. Several coalition of organizations and activists concerned with agrarian and viewpoints emerge on the specific implications that PAs hold for local environmental justice protested against the International Union for the groups. Although the body of literature that considers more PAs as a Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress’ ’30 × 30’ necessary measure for conservation is vast, critical perspectives on motions to increase global surface cover of PAs from the current 16% conservation issues have been growing in number. While many authors (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2023) to a target of 30% by 2030 (IUCN, are concerned with how and why the PA global estate should increase 2021a, 2021b; OLON, 2021). Gathered at the first international (Allan et al., 2022; Baillie and Zhang, 2018; Dinerstein et al., 2019, Congress ‘to decolonize conservation’ (OLON, 2021), they were 2017; Maxwell et al., 2020; Venter et al., 2018, 2014; Wilson, 2016), denouncing land grabbing, human rights abuses, and corruption behind political ecologists and critical geographers have been describing many * Corresponding author at: Departament de Geografía, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici B, despatx B9/1054, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Barcelona, Spain. E-mail addresses: antoniobontempi88@gmail.com, antonio.bontempi@uab.cat (A. Bontempi). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102740 Received 4 August 2022; Received in revised form 19 July 2023; Accepted 15 August 2023 Available online 31 August 2023 0959-3780/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/). A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 PAs as contentious because of their links with neoliberal agendas, or as 2. Background tools for control over resources, territories and peoples (Apostolopoulou et al., 2021; Brockington et al., 2008; Büscher et al., 2012; Peluso, 2.1. Protected areas & environmental justice: The debate is alive 1993). At the 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15), 188 Nations Globally, conservation policies and projects have been marked by recently agreed to the ‘30 × 30’ target (CBD, 2022). Therefore, it is controversial debates regarding questions of justice and sustainability. important to gain a better understanding of the implications of such a Intergovernmental organizations, transnational NGOs and donor policy for people and the environment, not only to ensure biodiversity agencies dedicated to conservation policy, advocacy and funding conservation, but also for supporting and protecting the rights and needs recognize the positive role that PAs may play not only for environmental of people living within or close to PAs. The Rights & Resources Initia­ sustainability but also for supporting social justice and local livelihoods. tives (2020) estimates that about 363 million people live in existing PAs They showcase initiatives, best practices, guidelines, and roadmaps in worldwide. Allan et al. (2022) warn that 1.8 billion people live on land relation to sustainable human development, equitable distribution of that should require conservation attention, and Schleicher et al. (2019) natural resources, just governance mechanisms, rights of local commu­ argue that at least 1 billion live in areas likely to be protected if the nities, and human well-being in PAs (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; global conservation estate were to increase to 50% - as the ‘Half Earth’ CIHR, 2016; Conservation International, 2022; Dudley and Stolton, movement1 advocates for. Environmental justice (EJ) concerns arise as 2022; GEF, 2022; UNESCO, 2021; WWF, 2020). the establishment of PAs may imply radical changes in livelihoods and Unfortunately, the documentation of ‘worst practices’ in PAs is land uses. EJ in conservation encompasses but is not limited to questions robust as well. Critical geographers, political ecologists, and environ­ of distribution (of environmental costs and benefits, rights and re­ mental justice scholars have been questioning the very origins and im­ sponsibilities), recognition (of different worldviews, epistemologies, plications of conservation programs and PAs, unveiling their identities), and participation (of all actors in decision making and relationship with neoliberal capitalism and neo-colonialism, particu­ resource management) (Martin et al. 2013, 2016; Shoreman-Ouimet and larly in the Global South (Brockington et al., 2008; Büscher et al., 2017, Kopnina, 2015). Warning bells especially ring for those cases where PAs 2012; Duffy et al., 2019; Escobar, 1998; Igoe et al., 2010; MacDonald, have been associated with violence and violations of human rights, 2010a, 2010b; Peluso, 1993; Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2020; West et al., including forced evictions of customary groups from their traditional 2006). Calling these authors ‘conservation critics’, Kopnina (2016) sums lands to set up conservation areas (Brockington and Igoe, 2006; Fanari, up their positions in four main points. First, they denounce the 2022; RRI, 2018; SI, 2022a; Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2020). This is happening displacement of local communities from their land to make space for even though the role of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities PAs. Second, they criticize the nature-culture discursive dichotomy that (hereafter, IPLCs) has been widely recognized as crucial for ensuring underpins the rationale for strict conservation PAs. Third, they maintain effective and equitable conservation targets (Dawson et al., 2021; Ens that those who really damage the biosphere are just an elite sector of et al., 2021; Garnett et al., 2018; Reyes-García et al., 2019). society, instead of the whole of humanity. Fourth, they believe that In this context, it becomes important to better understand the spe­ social metabolism rather than population growth is the main driver of cific implications of protected areas for environmental justice, particu­ biodiversity loss. We add to these four arguments that conservation larly, when PAs may act as drivers of environmental injustices and critics point to the embeddedness of many conservation programs in conflict, and when they may contribute to protect and defend the rights global capitalism, in such a way that conservation and neoliberal of local groups, their livelihoods and claims for justice against extrac­ agendas are usually controversially intertwined (Apostolopoulou et al., tivist development pressures. In this paper we aim to shed light on these 2021; Brockington et al., 2008; Igoe et al., 2010; MacDonald, 2010a, questions by discussing 474 environmental conflict cases that intersect 2010b). with PAs worldwide. We created this dataset by overlapping data from Labeling ‘mainstream conservation’ the other side of the debate, the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and the Global Atlas of Brockington et al. (2008) describe it as a”dominant strain of conserva­ Environmental Justice (EJAtlas), the two largest global databases on, tion [whose] ideas and values […] are perhaps most clearly represented respectively, PAs and environmental conflicts currently available. While in the larger conservation organizations which dominate conservation the resulting dataset represents a convenience sample of environmental funding“ (ibid., p. 9). Critics of modern conservation programs are conflicts occurring within PAs worldwide that has inherent data limi­ concerned with the trend in shifting control over territories and re­ tations, to the best of our knowledge, it enables the largest empirical sources from local groups to state, private, or corporate actors after the analysis carried out so far. designation of PAs - and denounce the related negative implications on Our analysis aims to address three issues. First, we characterize, human rights and access to land for IPLCs. Concerned with the claims of through descriptive statistics, the intersections between environmental IPLCs and organizations dedicated to human rights advocacy, they have conflicts and PAs. We look at the conflict drivers within PAs and the been labeling mainstream conservation projects as ‘neoliberal’ (Apos­ types of PAs that are overlapping with environmental conflicts. Second, tolopoulou et al., 2021), ‘colonial’ (Domínguez and Luoma, 2020), we aim to gain a deeper understanding of the specific role that PAs play ‘fortress’ (Brockington, 2002; Brockington et al., 2008), ‘militarized’ in the origins, dynamics and outcomes of the environmental conflicts. (Duffy et al., 2019), arguing instead for more ‘convivial’ modes of pro­ We analyze a sub-sample of 107 cases in which different types of actors tecting the biosphere (Büscher and Fletcher, 2020, 2019). From outside involved mobilize for, against or through PAs. This provides insights on academia, civil society organizations like Survival International (2022), who is able to take advantage of PAs, their underlying motives and their Rainforest Foundation UK, (2022) and Minority Rights Group Interna­ mobilization strategies. Third, we discuss the environmental justice tional (2022b), among other environmental activists and groups have implications of such mobilizations, with a particular focus on who gains shared these views and uphold these terms and ideas in recent and who loses because of PAs, and on the outcomes of mobilizing for or campaigns. against PAs. This analysis nourishes the understanding of the conditions Besides conservation critiques, and despite considerable literature on under which protected areas may jeopardize or serve environmental EJ in PAs (Anaya and Espírito-Santo, 2018; Benetti and Langemeyer, justice. 2021; Boillat et al., 2018; Dahlberg et al., 2010; Dawson et al., 2018; Martin, 2017; Martin et al., 2018, 2016; Mollett and Kepe, 2018; Ram­ baree, 2020; Ramutsindela and Shabangu, 2018; Ruano-Chamorro et al., 2021; Sims et al., 2022; Wienhues, 2018), the ‘land sharing vs. land 1 See https://www.natureneedshalf.org and https://www.half-earthproject. sparing’ debate on what model of conservation is best suited for the org. preservation of biodiversity is vibrant, but not really framed in EJ terms 2 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 (Pearce, 2018). The main object of contention is the level of ‘protect­ conflicts worldwide (Martinez-Alier, 2021; Scheidel et al., 2020; Temper edness’, i.e. how strict access to PAs should be, in order to best protect et al., 2018, 2015). The data collection and validation process is based the world’s biodiversity. Büscher and Fletcher‘s (2020, 2019) mapping on collaboration between the EJAtlas editors and researchers, other of the various currents of thought within conservation debates tell us academic contributors and actors on the ground, including community- that most of the literature does not give enough space to critical views on based activists, journalists, non-governmental organizations, among protected areas and their implications for environmental justice. How­ others. The WDPA is a collaborative mapping project too. Jointly ever, the heated discussion that their analysis recently provoked shows established in 1981 by the UNEP and the IUCN, it is monthly updated that the debate is alive, positions are diverging, and trends are nuanced with information on marine and terrestrial PAs periodically provided by (Büscher and Fletcher, 2022). governments, NGOs, academia, and industry (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2021). When we downloaded the databases for analysis (May 2021), the 2.2. Environmental conflicts in protected areas EJAtlas contained information on 3,408 conflict cases, while the WDPA recorded about 266,000 PAs globally. Despite being promoted as instruments of conciliation between The EJAtlas draws on different secondary sources, i.e.: academic humans and their environments, PAs are not exempt from social conflict. papers, news articles, lawsuits, civil society reports, and others. Each A sizable body of literature deals with ‘conservation conflicts’, i.e. those type of source may produce reporting bias, such as selection bias (which originating from the clash between human activities and biodiversity cases are reported in these data sources?) and description bias (how are conservation objectives (Redpath et al., 2013; Young et al., 2010). the events depicted?) (Earl et al. 2004). The use of multiple sources Among reviews of the different framings of conservation conflicts enables to cross-check information and reduce, to some extent, such (Baynham-Herd et al., 2018; Redpath et al., 2015, 2013; Young et al., biases (Sundberg and Melander, 2013). The use of local and non- 2010), Soliku and Schraml (2018) focus on PA conflicts. They identify academic data sources also offers advantages as they provide a groun­ various types and causes and include those related to human-wildlife ded perspective on local conflict dynamics. However, the EJAtlas interactions, restricted access to resources, exclusion from participa­ coverage depends on a variety of factors, such as the availability of tion and information sharing, indigenous rights and beliefs, population contributors, access to public information and to local informants, and eviction, relocation and resettlement, park benefits and revenue distri­ capacity for data moderation (Temper et al. 2015; Scheidel et al. 2020; bution, law, legislation and policy and agriculture and land-use con­ Del Bene and Avila, 2023). If a region accounts for few cases or none, it flicts. On a similar line, Rechciński et al. (2019) provide a conceptual does not necessarily mean there are no environmental conflicts. Missing framework to understand PA conflicts. Other authors focus on park coverage is frequently the result of lack of reliable information, or authorities versus local people conflicts (de Pourcq et al., 2017; Mom­ limited access to information because of remoteness, data accessibility, beshora and le Bel, 2009; Vedeld et al., 2012), or on conflict manage­ contentious social and political contexts, or lack of local contacts. ment and resolution strategies and approaches (Castro and Nielsen, Consequently, there is little information available on certain regions 2003; Madden and McQuinn, 2014; Soliku and Schraml, 2020). such as parts of Russia and Mongolia, Central Asia, and Central Africa. The above literature considers many PAs as conflict drivers, or as Another limitation of the EJAtlas is its temporal coverage: more than spaces where social conflicts often occur. In the scope of the present half of the conflicts start dates are later than 2008 (Scheidel et al. 2020). research, we build on the work of these authors. We consider not only Regarding the WDPA, despite being the biggest existing PAs mapping conservation conflicts occurring because of PAs, but also look at different project, the database is not necessarily representative of all PAs world­ kinds of environmental conflicts occurring in PAs and focus on the wide either. Its completeness strongly depends on data submission by PA specific role that PAs play in such conflicts. The study of environmental managers and its subsequent digitalization (UNEP-WCMC, 2019). conflicts is useful to understand issues of social justice related to envi­ The geographical intersection of environmental conflict reported in ronmental change and governance (Martinez-Alier, 2018; Scheidel the EJAtlas and protected areas registered in the WDPA resulted in a et al., 2018). Building on both Temper et al. (2015) and Scheidel et al. total sample of 474 EJAtlas cases overlapping with 570 PAs.2 We pro­ (2020), we refer to environmental conflicts as social conflicts related to vide an overview in form of descriptive statistics of the specific types of the environment, where actors mobilize against activities and resource conflicts and the type of PA in which conflict occurs based on infor­ uses posing significant social and environmental threats to them. In this mation provided by the EJAtlas and WDPA, specifically including the article, we consider as causes of environmental conflict not only variables (i) conflict category (covering general sector first level classi­ conservation-related projects, but also “development” (Escobar, 2011; fication); and specific conflict causes (second level classifications), (ii) Sachs, 1992) and “extractivist” (Grosfoguel, 2016; Gudynas, 2018; conflict intensity, (iii) PA designation, (iv) IUCN category and (v) Svampa, 2012) projects, such as mining, plantations, mass tourism, governance type. For the analysis of the specific role that PAs play in the water management, waste disposal, and related infrastructure (roads, conflict, we conducted a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of ports, energy plants, etc.) that intersect with PAs. In summary, we the descriptive information available in the EJAtlas case datasheets (see include in our analysis diverse types of projects that may cause envi­ 3.2 Data analysis). As this information was not provided with sufficient ronmental conflicts, ranging from biodiversity conservation to resource detail for all identified cases, we selected a sub-sample of cases adequate and commodity extraction, use, management or disposal. for this analysis. An initial screening of the 474 EJAtlas datasheets led to the exclusion of 367 cases, for which the existence of a PA appeared to 3. Methodology be unexplained, irrelevant, or not reported in relation to the conflict description. We then used the resulting sub-sample of 107 cases to 3.1. Data sources and sample selection identify the specific roles that PAs play in environmental conflicts. To better understand the diverse ways through which environmental conflicts and PAs interplay, this study presents a qualitative and quan­ 2 The number of PAs is greater than the number of conflicts as a single titative analysis of environmental conflicts located within PAs. We conflict may overlap with more than one PA. Note that data on EJAtlas cases created our dataset by combining information from the two largest are stored as georeferenced points, while the WDPA stores information as two global databases available in the respective fields of inquiry: the Global geospatial feature classes: polygons (~95%) and points (~5%). These latter Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) and the World Database on Pro­ were buffered with a radius corresponding to the area of the PA at issue, in tected Areas (WDPA). order to transform them into polygons too. Thus, for a minor of cases (<5%) The EJAtlas is a participatory mapping project created in 2011 to this may have resulted in conflicts being located in proximity of the PA, rather collect, systematize, and geolocate information around environmental inside of it. 3 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Fig. 1 shows the geographical distribution of the whole database (n acknowledged instance where the PA plays either a role as a mobilizer or = 474) and of the sub-sample of cases where PAs are reported to play a as a tool that is mobilized by actors. The first is the case when actors role in the conflict (n = 107). A complete referenced list of cases is mobilize because of a PA-related event, e.g. to support or oppose the provided in the Appendix. Most of the analyzed cases are located in Latin designation or removal of a PA. The second refers to cases where the PA America (44%) and Europe (19%), while other regions are less repre­ is mobilized to promote a certain interest, e.g. when a specific actor uses sented. Historically, for those conflicts where a start date is noted, 17% a PA as leveraging discourse within an advocacy campaign, or as a policy began in the 1990s, 35% in the 2000s, and 23% in the 2010s. For those instrument, etc. Therefore, each event is distinguishable as a univocal PAs where a designation date is noted, 46% were established before combination of the sub-categories at play, namely, the type of actor 2000, 30% in the 2000s, and 14% in the 2010s. mobilizing, plus the object, purpose and form of mobilization. While our mapping is global in scope, its coverage is contingent on For each event, we also identified whether the actor’s mobilization the strengths and limitations of the databases of departure. Particularly, could improve specific issues relevant for EJ. To do so, we analyzed the the spatiotemporal distribution and types of the environmental conflicts descriptive information in the EJAtlas field ‘Do you consider this an and protected areas covered are not to be considered as statistically environmental justice success? Was environmental justice served?’. The in­ representative globally but reflect the distribution of cases within both formation provided in this field reflects the subjective views of the datasets. In other words, the sample analyzed in this article can be EJAtlas case contributor whether aspects of EJ could be enhanced, considered as a convenience sample that is based on secondary data, considering the case specific movements’ claims, impacts and conflict shaped by the sources and choices of those involved in the primary data dynamics at play. gathering process. Despite these limitations, it represents the largest Finally, we performed a quantitative analysis of the variables avail­ sample currently available on environmental conflicts occurring within able through the EJAtlas and WDPA datasets (i.e., conflict category, conservation areas and enables us to identify diverse ways through IUCN Category, PA designation, etc.), as well as of the categories iden­ which PAs intersect with environmental conflicts. tified through the content analysis for the sub-sample (i.e., events, ac­ tors, purpose, forms of mobilizations, and EJ implications). We use des criptive statistics to report the frequency of observations and thus 3.2. Data analysis characterize our convenience sample in the Results section. Data were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. First, we 4. Results performed an inductive qualitative content analysis (see Elo and Kyngäs, 2008) of the descriptive text fields provided by the EJAtlas cases. 4.1. Intersections of environmental conflicts and protected areas Inductive qualitative content analysis is used to process qualitative data where previous knowledge on the topic is insufficient or fragmented, as The overlapping of the EJAtlas and the WDPA results in a set of in our case. The process is divided into three phases: preparation, or­ environmental conflict cases that are not necessarily driven or caused by ganization, and reporting of data. Throughout the phases, data are conservation areas, and take place in a diverse range of PAs typologies. codified and progressively arranged into categories, until the overall Fig. 2 reports the occurrence of variables characterizing conflicts and picture is describable through a conceptual map. PAs across the sample (n = 474). In 89% of the EJAtlas cases, the In our analysis of actors mobilizing in relation to PAs, we focused on contributor classified the case under an EJAtlas category other than the following questions: what is being mobilized, who is mobilizing, ‘biodiversity conservation conflicts’. Within the 11% of cases under this why actors mobilize, how actors mobilize. The categories that emerged latter category, ‘PA designation’ was noted in about 60% of the cases as from the coding process were divided into Main and Sub-categories a relevant driver of conflict. This percentage decreases to 26% if we look (Table 1). The coding process was reiterated twice, until theoretical at the entire sample of the different conflict categories. In other words, saturation was observed. Within the sub-sample of 107 cases where PAs most of the analyzed conflicts develop around resources and commodity were described to play a role in the conflict dynamics, we identified 174 extraction, use, trade or disposal, or infrastructure and industrial-level ‘PA-related mobilization events’. A PA-related mobilization event is any Fig. 1. Geographical distribution of the sample of analyzed environmental conflicts located in protected areas (n = 474). Red cases indicate the sub-sample analyzed to identify the specific roles that protected areas play in environmental conflicts (n = 107). 4 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Table 1 Table 1 (continued ) Conceptual mapping of categories from the content analysis of environmental Dimension Main Description of Main and Sub-categories* conflicts occuring in PAs. Category Dimension Main Description of Main and Sub-categories* intends to block the developmental plans that the State Category had designed for The Almoraima” (EJAtlas, 2014c); What? Object Describes whether the actor mobilizes in favor or Protect IPLCs: to act in the interest of indigenous against a PA, or through the promotion of a PA/ people and local communities. PADDD Example: “As a head of the Sindicato dos Trabalhadores Pro-PA mobilization: when the actor is in favor of or Rurais (STR), he had dedicated his life to the support of directly mobilizes a PA designation (institution), expropriated families and had been an advocate for land protection (defense of), enforcement (use of a reforms and the establishment of protected areas and previously existing PA; or issues of how and by whom extractivist reserves in the Tucuruí area” (EJAtlas, the area should be best governed), upgrading 2019c); (increase in the level of protection), upsizing Other: other motives that do not fall into previous (increase in size) or management. categories. Pro-PADDD mobilization***: when the actor is in Example: “the government of Nepal introduced legal favor of or directly mobilizes a PA downgrading reforms to address conflicts between park management (decrease in protection level), downsizing (decrease and locals nationally, and introduced the policy of in size) or degazettement (removal of the PA from the managing the peripheral villages as buffer zones to be map). jointly managed by buffer zone residents and park Who? Actor The type of actor who is mobilizing in favor or administration” (EJAtlas, 2019d). against, or mobilizes the PA-related event How? Form The way in which the PA-related event is mobilized: Governmental: State actor holding legislative or Advocacy: when the PA or PADDD is used as an executive powers (national, regional or local advocacy tool to support the actor’s purpose; or governmental body or authority, or PA management similarly when the actor pleads in support of the PA body); or PADDD. Intergovernmental: intergovernmental Examples: “the NGO asks to cease all logging activity in organization (includes UNEP, UNESCO, IUCN, The wildlife sanctuaries” (EJAtlas, 2014d); “… actively World Bank); launched activities for raising awareness and conducted NGO: single or coalition of local, national or letter writing campaign, arguing that implementation of international non-governmental organizations; the project will set a dangerous precedent for demands IPLC: indigenous people and local communities, as for excisioning parts of National Parks” (EJAtlas, defined by IPBES (n.d.); 2019e); Corporate: national or transnational private Policy: when the PA or a PADDD event is enacted by companies, corporations or industrial groups; an actor through a policy. Other: other types of actors that do not fall into Example: “was designated as a National Park by previous categories. Example: “wildlife experts” ( Presidential Decree” (EJAtlas, 2021); EJAtlas, 2014a); “landowners” (EJAtlas, 2016a); Judicial: when the event entails the intervention of “environmental lawyer” (EJAtlas, 2014b); an administrator of justice (judicial authority). “mountaineers” (EJAtlas, 2016b), among others. Example “They filed two cases in the High Court of Why? Purpose** The main acknowledged reason behind the object of Kenya: first, to challenge the governm’nt’s decision to mobilization**: degazette the park without following due process of the Biodiversity Conservation: to preserve biodiversity law and, secondly, to set an injunction on the decision so or the environment, including specific flora or fauna that Amboseli would maintain National Park status” ( species. EJAtlas, 2019e); Example: “The park has been instituted mostly as a Financial: when the PA-related event is channeled project to protect the population of the endangered through the mobilization of funding. mountain gorilla” (EJAtlas, 2019a); Example: “The project would be financed by the share of Governance Control: to shift political power in the World Bank loan assigned to Croatia for favor of a type of actor to grant this latter control of establishment of the NATURA 2000 network of the territory and its resources. protected areas” (EJAtlas, 2016b); Examples: “Scholars have referred to this as a form of Other: other forms of mobilization that do not fall internal colonialism, and point to the nationalization of into previous categories. forest and grazing land with the imposition of protected Example: “Poachers […] removed signs that say ‘Park areas as a key strategy used by the state in the imposition Boundary. Hunting Prohibited’, and modify them so they of ecogovernmentality” (EJAtlas, 2019b); say only ‘Hunting’.” (EJAtlas, 2020a). Favor Extractivism Or Development: to enable * Each category contemplates N/A as a sub-category, which applies when the problematic, controversial or conflictive extractivism information is not available or sufficient to be categorized. or development projects. ** Example: “the declaration of the protected area is related The sub-categories should be considered as prevailing purposes at play, to the government’s interest in dispossessing them of their deductible from the frame of the case by the contributor. When multiple pur­ territories in order to provide the land to foreign poses are mentioned for a same action (e.g. protect livelihoods of IPLCs, plus companies and encourage private investment for opposing mining) separate events were considered. hydroelectric megaprojects” (EJAtlas, 2015a); *** For more information on PADDD, see Mascia and Pailler (2011) and Halt Extractivism Or Development: to block https://www.padddtracker.org/. problematic, controversial or conflictive extractivism or development projects. Example: “the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture […] has facilities construction, whereas PAs are not identified as playing a key designed a plan to build a luxury resort that includes the role as conflict cause. Conflicts are reported mainly as medium (street construction of a five star hotel, a private airfield, two protests, visible mobilization, etc.; 42%) and high intensity (widespread, golf courses and an industrial processing plant for cork. mass mobilization, violence, arrests, etc.; 30%). […] On the one hand, the Andalucian Regional Department of Environment plans to initiate immediately The sample suggests that a large variety of types of PAs overlap the expansion of the Alcorconales Natural Park, geographically with environmental conflicts. 137 different PA designa­ implying that 100% of the public property will be tions are counted, the most frequent ones are National Parks, Ramsar protected under the Natural Park label. This extension Sites, Biosphere Reserves, Sites of Community Importance within the Habitats Directive, and Special Protection Areas within the Birds Directive, each ranging between 6 and 12% of the whole set of PAs. If we 5 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Fig. 2. Characterization of the overlap between the EJAtlas and the WDPA (n = 474), in terms of occurrence of (a1) First level conflict category (EJAtlas); (a2) Second Level Conflict Category within ‘Biodiversity Conservation Conflicts’ (EJAtlas, n = 54); (b1) PA designation (WDPA); (b2) IUCN Categories (WDPA). look at the IUCN classification, in 56% of the sample the category is not up/downsizing are at the center of disputes too. On the list of actors reported, assigned or applicable. Categories II (National Parks), VI (PAs involved, the range includes individuals, organizations, and institutions with sustainable use of natural resources), and V (Protected landscape or of all kinds, mainly grouped under the categories governmental, inter­ seascape) make up most of the remaining part, with a similar share: governmental, NGOs, IPLCs, and corporate actors. They mobilize for, 14%, 11%, and 10%, respectively. Cases of conflict within formally against or through PAs for various reasons, which go beyond mere recognized Indigenous areas and territories are present in merely 3% of biodiversity conservation and encompass matters of extractivism, the PAs sample (17 cases), which is also reflected in the figures on development, governance, control, and peoples’ stewardship. Based on governance type. Besides the 26% where this latter information is not the content analysis, we categorized the forms through which they reported, 66% of PAs are managed by national, regional, or local mobilize under the following dimensions: advocacy, policy, judicial, governmental authorities, about 5% by NGOs, private landowners or financial, and others. labeled as co/joint-management, while only 3% by IPLCs. In 30% of the Fig. 3a shows how often we observe these different types of actors, PAs, information on governance is not available. the forms of mobilizations they employ, and the purposes that motivated their mobilizations across the 174 PA-related mobilization events. We 4.2. What role do protected areas play in environmental conflicts? often find ‘pro-PA’ mobilizations where actors are positive about and/or pursue the establishment of an PA, or employ it as a tool for mobiliza­ As explained in Section 3.2, a sub-sample of 107 cases provides in­ tion. However, also ‘pro-PADDD’ instances where actors promote a formation on the diverse roles that PAs play in the origin, dynamics, or downgrading, downsizing or degazettment of a PA are not missing. In outcomes of environmental conflicts. Within this sub-set, we find 174 most of the records governmental actors, NGOs and IPLCs are those distinct PA-related mobilization events, in which the PA plays either a mobilizing in relation to PAs, but we also count intergovernmental or­ role as a mobilizer or as a tool that is mobilized by actors. Table 1 provides ganizations and corporations, among others. PA(DDD)s are mobilized to an overview and description of the categories that resulted from the halt but sometimes also to favor controversial extractivist or content analysis and conceptually maps the variables at play: the object development-led projects. Actors mobilize in relation to PAs also for of the mobilization, the type of actor who mobilizes, the reported motive biodiversity conservation, control of territory and resources, or the of the mobilization, and the way in which the mobilization occurs. protection of IPLCs, among other purposes. Finally, actors mobilize The emerging picture is diverse in terms of objects, actors, purposes, because of or through PAs mainly by means of advocacy, policy, and forms of mobilization found to occur in relation to PAs. The object of financial or judicial instruments. None of these actions related to PAs are contention is not only limited to the establishment or removal of a PA. reported to involve the use of direct physical violence. Issues around PA management, defense, enforcement, up/downgrading, The picture is diverse when we look at the complex interplays 6 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Fig. 3. Overview of the sample of PA-related mobilizations (n = 174), in terms of (a) occurrence of sub-categories (number of registered events) and (b) the as­ sociation between sub-categories and implication for environmental justice (EJ) as percentage of the total number of corresponding events. ‘N/A’ means that no information available for this variable. between these variables, even within a single conflict case. The may mobilize PADDD events for enabling extractivism or controlling dendrogram in Fig. 4 shows how the sub-categories actors and object, resources (13 events), this is not always the case. In the case of Mudu­ form, purpose of mobilizations interplay across the sample of n = 174 malai Tiger Reserve in India, the Ministry of Environment and Forests events. We prioritized an actor-based view because it is useful to un­ took legal action against the State government because of a PA that derstand how and why different actors may take advantage of PAs to would have served as an elephant corridor and taken over local farmers’ pursue their own agendas. land (EJAtlas, 2019f). When governmental bodies promote a PA, the We find that governmental actors not only promote (observed in 36 panorama of motives reported in our dataset includes diverse reasons, events) but also attempt to downgrade, downsize or degazette existing such as aims to protect biodiversity and communities (17 events), but PAs (15 events). Interestingly, in four conflict cases, actors governing at also control over governance and resources (8). In three conflict cases, different levels (e.g. national vs. regional vs. local) clash by mobilizing we also find the PA to be mobilized by a governmental actor to favor differently for, against or through the same PA. The case of the Bears problematic extractivist or development projects (EJAtlas, 2016b, Ears National Monument (Utah, US) is illustrative: in December 2017, 2017a, 2019a). Here the EJAtlas contributor frames tourism develop­ former President Donald Trump reduced its size by 85% in favor of ment as an extractivist industry that is favored through the PA. A main mining industries, just one year after the PA was designated by his form of mobilization for governmental actors is through policy (42 predecessor Barack Obama (EJAtlas, 2020b). While governmental actors events). 7 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Fig. 4. Dendrogram of the actors involved in PA-related mobilizations, their aims and purposes, and the forms of mobilization used to achieve them (n = 174 events). The columns indicate the relationships between: type of actor; object of the mobilization; purpose of mobilization; form of mobilization. The color of the circle indicates the EJ implication of the mobilizations. The bigger the circle, the higher the number of observed events across the sample. 8 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 With regard to NGOs, our sample mostly includes cases where they EJ implications, for a single event. stand for PAs (42 events), to halt conflictive extractivist or development Not only pro-PA mobilizations are considered to work in favor of EJ, projects (29) or for biodiversity conservation reasons (7), mostly by like in the case of the Nairobi National Park, where a committee means of advocacy (26) and judicial forms (12). One event also shows composed of NGOs and intergovernmental organizations was formed to when coalitions of NGOs advocate against human rights violations oppose the decision to build a highly impacting highway across the PA because of the PA enforcement, in favor of Indigenous communities in (EJAtlas, 2019e). We also find cases where mobilizing pro-PA does not Nepal’s Bardia National Park (EJAtlas, 2019d). imply a favorable EJ outcome. We can cite here the case of Venezuela’s Our sample reports cases where IPLCs mobilize both in support of (36 governmental agencies imposing the Canaima National Park at the events) and against (4 events) PAs. They mobilize in relation to PAs to expense of local communities, whose ancestral use of controlled forest halt problematic extractivism and development projects (26 events), fires was subsequently restricted by the PA administrators (EJAtlas, gain control over the territorial governance (6 events) or to protect 2016d). We record cases of fortress or militarized conservation (e.g. themselves (4 events). All reported cases where IPLCs mobilize for EJAtlas, 2019f), or PADDD events aimed at making space for extractive advancing control over the territory, they struggle for the demarcation industries (e.g. EJAtlas, 2014e), but also cases where governments of land as Indigenous land or community conserved area, with the mobilize PAs in positive EJ terms. We can mention the example of exception of one case, where and Indigenous group opposed to a President Lula’s government, which in 2009 created the Cassuruba Biosphere Reserve that would limit their resource use rights (EJAtlas, Reserve in Brazil “as a result of popular pressure” to defend the land 2015a). Both advocacy (32) and judicial (4) actions appear as important from extractive industries (EJAtlas, 2014f). strategies for them. NGOs mobilize in favor of EJ (37 events), but also can support highly Out of the 8 recorded events associated with corporate actors, we controversial PAs. Illustrative is the case of the Wildlife Conservation find both mobilizations against as well as for PAs. In the first case, they Society supporting the designation of Myanmar’s Tanintharyi Nature mobilize against PAs to enable extractivist activities. One example is the Reserve. The reserve was funded by major gas companies as compen­ case where the Russian company Surgutneftegas allegedly commis­ sation for the construction of pipelines in the region and was reported to sioned a scientific report to legitimize the downgrading of the Numto displace Indigenous communities from their ancestral lands (EJAtlas, Nature Preserve and consequently allow for oil drilling on protected 2018b). wetlands (EJAtlas, 2019g). In those cases where corporate actors sup­ On the same line, biodiversity conservation as a purpose is linked to port PAs through funding or other means, the reported motive has been diverse EJ implications. Interestingly, 19 events having biodiversity biodiversity conservation as an offsetting or compensation measure conservation as aim appear as detrimental to EJ. In this sub-set, we find against the environmental impact of their activities (EJAtlas, 2020c, the above-mentioned cases of fortress/militarized conservation and 2019h, 2018a, 2018b). programs of environmental impact compensation through offsetting, Last but not least, PAs might not only act as drivers of conflict, or as including wildlife conservation areas like the highly contested Wayanad tools to be mobilized to promote diverse people’s interests. PAs can also Wildlife Sanctuary in India, meant to be upgraded to a Tiger Reserve but emerge as outcomes of environmental conflicts, as observed in 34 cases. failing recognition of IPLCs’ land rights (EJAtlas, 2019i). Governance Emblematic in this sense is the case of Jeanette Kawas National Park in control through PAs is a purpose that support (6 events) or threaten (11 Honduras, which was named after an environmentalist who was events) EJ, depending on who is striving for controlling what or whom. murdered because she defended the territory from the palm oil industry In our sample, the mobilization of PAs as advocacy tools is frequent (EJAtlas, 2017b). among IPLCs (32 events) and NGOs (27). This usually favors EJ (67), as a case in Nairobi illustrates, where people mobilized by wearing T-shirts 4.3. Environmental justice implications and carrying banners saying “don’t rape our National Park”, to protest against the construction of a railway line (EJAtlas, 2017d). However, The diverse forms of actors’ mobilization in relation to PAs has advocacy can also be detrimental for EJ, for instance, when the PA(DDD) important implications for EJ. For instance, the fact that local activists at dispute enables extractivism (4 events). It is not uncommon for PAs to managed to block large-scale mining by fighting for the designation of be ‘brought to court’ for the sake of EJ (see for example EJAtlas, 2016c, the Tost Mountain Nature Reserve in Mongolia was considered by the 2015b, 2014g). However, the use of the rule of law is not necessarily case contributor to have enhanced EJ (EJAtlas, 2020d). However, our reported as enhancing EJ: in the case of PAs in Brazil’s Raposa Serra do database also contains testimonies of serious human rights violations Sol, for instance, landowners appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting and violence of various kinds perpetuated in the name of conservation the demarcation of the territory for Indigenous governance (EJAtlas, programs. Cases of ‘green militarization’ like the Indian Kaziranga Na­ 2016a). Also the EJ implication of PA(DDD)s mobilized through policy tional Park show how PAs can be related with severe environmental instruments is found to be diverse, mainly depending on the purpose of injustices (Dutta, 2020; EJAtlas, 2017c; Fanari, 2022). the action or its consequences on IPLCs. PAs mobilized through financial Fig. 3b and 4 are colored according to how EJAtlas case contributors means from large institutions, like the World Bank-funded Tana River evaluated the case in relation to EJ concerns. Green and orange refer to Primate Reserves in Kenya (EJAtlas, 2014h), are often reported as car­ situations where the PA-related mobilizations were reported as carrying rying negative EJ implications (5 events). However, locally-sourced respectively positive and negative implications for EJ. When there was funding can also work in favor of EJ, as in the case of Puerto Rico’s insufficient information to attribute such a value, we coded the event as Las Cucharillas Marsh, where the Communities United Against ‘N/A’, in gray. Despite depicting events divided into those that favor and Contamination struggled to purchase about 500 ha of the region to those that are detrimental to EJ, we acknowledge the complex processes ensure its protection through fines to local polluting industries (EJAtlas, at play that are not captured by this classification. Specifically, this 2017e). attribute strongly depends on the case contributors’ subjective under­ Finally, all events mobilized by IPLCs against extractivist or devel­ standing of the conflict (see Section 3.1). opment projects, or aimed at protecting IPLCs are described to have Overall, the two Figures describe our dataset as composed of events enhanced EJ concerns. Oppositely, corporate actors and mobilizations in where the EJAtlas contributor depicts a context where the PA is mobi­ favor of extractivism or development-led projects are reported in all lizing or being mobilized either in favor of EJ (107 events) or against EJ events as detrimental to EJ. Corporations are found to promote highly (62 events). In a minor set of events, such a judgment is not straight­ controversial conservation-offsetting programs, meant to compensate forward. The same pattern is recognized when we look at a single sub- for environmental damage somewhere else, as is the case of land grab­ category: different types of objects, actors, purposes, and forms of bing through the registration of Legal Protection Reserves by agribusi­ mobilization count of positive, negative, and neutral judgments on the ness companies on community lands in Brazil’s Matopiba region 9 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 (EJAtlas, 2020c). In other cases, as mentioned before, they are in favor extractive industries, or cases where the establishment of a PA could of PADDDs designed to allow conflictive extractivism and development support EJ, are sources of inspiration. In this sense, it becomes important projects. to explore proposals of conservation theories that put equity and justice as core issues. For instance, ‘convivial conservation’ scholars and ini­ 5. Discussion tiatives offer many reflections in this direction (Buscher and Fletcher, 2019, 2020). The high number of environmental conflicts overlapping with PAs At the same time, the large number of pro-PA mobilizations detri­ discussed here illustrates various ways how conservation programs are mental to EJ produce severe concerns. It supports the thesis of conser­ also subject to social conflict. In this context, it is important to better vation critiques that PAs create geographies where injustice is understand the diverse kinds of conflict at stake. As the literature on PAs perpetuated, even by means of violence, to the benefit of powerful elites conflicts largely discusses conflicts caused by PAs, the results presented such as corporate and governmental actors at the expense of vulnerable here show that there are many cases where PAs are not among the main sectors of society such as local customary groups (Anaya and Espírito- drivers of conflicts but become the social, geographic, and political Santo, 2018; Brockington and Igoe, 2006; Dahlberg et al., 2010; Duffy arenas in which diverse forms of struggle against extractivism emerge et al., 2019; Fanari, 2022; RRI, 2018; SI, 2022). and unfold. Our empirical evidence builds on the body of research The fact that PAs can produce opposite outcomes for EJ - i.e. as documenting threats to PAs (Golden Kroner et al., 2019; Mascia et al., holding emancipatory potential for a just territorial stewardship vs. 2014; Mascia and Pailler, 2011; Thieme et al., 2020). In line with this provoking severe threats to people and their territories – is reflected in literature, our results illustrate how industrial-scale human activity is a the polarized debates about conservation, and may represent one among major menace to PAs as biodiversity conservation projects. These au­ a number of factors explaining why conservationists with different thors also call for a better understanding of the origins and enabling perspectives think differently about PAs. Those who report best prac­ conditions, trends, social mechanisms, and consequences of human ac­ tices in PAs tend to think of the green side of our Figures, while critical tivities touching ‘protected’ territories. Scholars from ecological eco­ conservation scholars speak loud about cases of injustice. nomics argue that an increasing, capitalism-driven social metabolism is However, as our sample shows, the reality on the ground of envi­ at the root of expanding extractive industries (e.g. Martinez-Alier et al., ronmental conflicts in PAs is complex and the roles that PAs play in 2010). According to this argument, more environmental conflicts are diverse contexts of environmental conflicts is multifaceted. Various likely to arise unless growth-oriented market forces are addressed. types of PAs, mobilized by diverse actors for different reasons and Our sample only offers limited information on how the type of PA is through different means will have different implications for EJ. linked to specific conflict dynamics. To better understand whether and how the types of PAs influence the characteristics of environmental 6. Conclusions conflicts, further research is needed. A qualitative analysis of smaller samples of similar conflict contexts, where different types of PAs are at Our global mapping of 474 cases of environmental conflicts located play, may deepen our understanding of the extent to which specific PA in PAs shows what type of disputes are at stake in many kinds of PAs. characteristics shape, and are being shaped by, environmental conflict This quantitative characterization was then followed by a qualitative dynamics. Furthermore, the low coverage of territories and areas analysis of a sample of 174 mobilization events across 107 conflicts formally conserved or entitled to Indigenous Peoples and Local Com­ where diverse actors mobilize for, against, or through PAs, which helped munities (e.g. ICCAs, Indigenous land) in our dataset skews our under­ us to nuance the role of PAs as players influencing the origin, evolution standing towards areas governed or managed by state actors. Similarly, and outcomes of environmental conflicts. The results provide enriching our approach is limited in exploring the role that time and space di­ insights into the global interplay between PAs and environmental con­ mensions play in relation to the designation of PAs. In this sense, future flicts, and the role PAs play for environmental justice. In addition, the research could focus on how conflicts develop over time and how they data interpretation opens up questions and paves avenues for future are linked to the specific moment when PAs have been established, or on research for the benefit of both political ecology of environmental specific geographical locations inside the PA - as many PAs are split into conflicts and conservation geography. zones with different protection levels (e.g. Biosphere Reserves are On one hand, the data confirm the thesis of critical scholars that PAs divided into buffer, transition, core). Finally, while this research has can be problematic in terms of EJ. The declaration of PAs can be a reason focused on environmental conflicts located within PAs, further research for disputes, ignite the clashes between actors, or be used to drive a could also look at conflicts located closeby, but outside their borders, as conflict in favor of elite interests. Motives behind the designation of a PA also in these cases the development of conflict and conservation may include control over the territory and its resources or the compensation have shaped each other. of negative environmental impact somewhere else. Similarly, alleged The qualitative analysis of descriptive information contained in the biodiversity conservation purposes do not necessarily work in favor of EJAtlas datasheets has helped us to better understand how PAs can act as EJ, as they might align with interests of extractive or development a conflict player. Although in our sample PAs are not necessarily industries. recognized as taking part in the conflict dynamics, we have seen the On the other hand, not all PAs appear to be harmful to environmental multifaceted ways in which PAs may play a role in the origins and dy­ justice. In many cases, environmental conflicts are related to problem­ namics of environmental conflicts. They can be the object of dispute or atic extractivism or development projects, and often the mobilization of an outcome of it. We consider the perspective of PAs as conflict players PAs is acknowledged as a tool working in favor of EJ. In cases where as a contribution to the nexus between political ecology of environ­ people are threatened by development or extractivist projects, PAs mental conflicts and conservation studies. We argue that it is both useful might become a useful tool for land stewardship. And this is happening and desirable to look at PAs as a relevant non-human player within not only in the Global North, but also in the Global South - i.e. where PAs conflicting socio-ecological environments, a politicized and politicizable are most problematized in conservation literature. Moreover, the list of actor equipped (or not) with the power to drive the situation toward PADDD events that are mobilized as a license for controversial extrac­ specific human interests. What interest they support is a main question tivism or development projects corroborates further the statement that at stake. PAs can constitute an obstacle to the advancement of detrimental The fact that in our sample many pro-PA mobilizations work posi­ extractivist or industrial activities. tively in EJ terms supports the idea that PAs hold the potential to be This research contributes to the debates on the desirability and useful tools for customary land users affected by conflictive develop­ usefulness of PAs as both concepts and institutions. While conservation ment and extractivism. Successful strategies that employ PAs against academics and practitioners tend to diverge on the desirability of more 10 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 PAs, our analysis comes in support of positions recognizing the nuances Mehta, P., Maron, M., Williams, B.A., Jones, K.R., Wintle, B.A., Reside, A.E., Watson, J.E.M., 2022. The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to of PAs role in conflicts within conservation debates. PAs are tools, safeguard biodiversity. Science 376 (6597), 1094–1101. https://doi.org/10.1126/ mobilized by different actors and interests. Thus, like every other tool, science.abl9127. they can be mobilized for a more or less (un)just transition towards Anaya, F.C., Espírito-Santo, M.M., 2018. Protected areas and territorial exclusion of sustainability. As conservation scholars and practitioners, we should traditional communities: analyzing the social impacts of environmental compensation strategies in Brazil. Ecol. Soc. 23. encourage intersectional understandings of conservation as a complex Apostolopoulou, E., Chatzimentor, A., Maestre-Andrés, S., Requena-i-Mora, M., network of actors and embedded interests at play. Even if it is insightful Pizarro, A., Bormpoudakis, D., 2021. Reviewing 15 years of research on neoliberal to look at PAs in quantitative terms, it is crucial to qualitatively discuss conservation: Towards a decolonial, interdisciplinary, intersectional and community-engaged research agenda. Geoforum 124, 236–256. https://doi.org/ their implications. Before asking how many PAs are needed, the ques­ 10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2021.05.006. tion of what conservation model should be promoted must be addressed. Baillie, J., Zhang, Y.-P., 2018. Space for nature. Science 361 (6407), 1051. https://doi. The importance of considering the socio-political context in which PAs org/10.1126/SCIENCE.AAU1397/ASSET/ED199CA4-04D5-4F25-98F3- C90C72A3D2B0/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/361_1051_F3.JPEG. are embedded as institutions is crucial within conservation debates. Baynham-Herd, Z., Redpath, S., Bunnefeld, N., Molony, T., Keane, A., 2018. Conservation Who gets to control access to territories and resources through PAs? conflicts: Behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations. Biol. What are the power relationships between the actors in play, and how do Conserv. 222, 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2018.04.012. Benetti, S., Langemeyer, J., 2021. Ecosystem services and justice of protected areas: the PAs shift their (im)balances? Political ecology, critical conservation case of Circeo National Park, Italy. Ecosyst. People 17, 411–431. https://doi.org/ geography and environmental justice scholarships can provide impor­ 10.1080/26395916.2021.1946155/SUPPL_FILE/TBSM_A_1946155_SM3139.PDF. tant contributions in this respect. Boillat, S., Gerber, J.D., Oberlack, C., Zaehringer, J.G., Speranza, C.I., Rist, S., 2018. Distant Interactions, power, and environmental justice in protected area governance: A telecoupling perspective. Sustainability 10, 3954. https://doi.org/10.3390/ CRediT authorship contribution statement SU10113954. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, B., Pathak Broome, N., Phillips, A., Sandwith, T., 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding Antonio Bontempi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal to Action. Gland, Switzerland. analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – Brockington, D., 2002. Fortress Conservation: the Preservation of the Mkomazi Game review & editing. Pietro Venturi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Reserve. James Currey Publishers, Tanzania. Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review Brockington, D., Duffy, R., Igoe, J., 2008. Nature Unbound. Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas, Earthscan. London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/ & editing. Daniela Del Bene: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal 9781849772075. analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & Brockington, D., Igoe, J., 2006. eviction for conservation : A global overview daniel editing. Arnim Scheidel: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal brockington and james igoe. Conserv. Soc. 4, 424–470. Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., 2022. Response to Panelists | Contribution to GTI Forum analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. Quim ¨Conservation at the Crossroads¨[WWW Document]. Great Transformation Initiative. Zaldo-Aubanell: Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing URL https://greattransition.org/gti-forum/conservation-response (accessed 8.2.22). – review & editing. Roser Maneja Zaragoza: Conceptualization. Büscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J., Brockington, D., 2012. Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capital. Nat. Social. 23, 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2012.674149. Declaration of Competing Interest Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., Brockington, D., Sandbrook, C., Adams, W.M., Campbell, L., Corson, C., Dressler, W., Duffy, R., Gray, N., Holmes, G., Kelly, A., Lunstrum, E., Ramutsindela, M., Shanker, K., 2017. Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for The authors declare that they have no known competing financial conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51, 407–410. https://doi.org/10.1017/ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence S0030605316001228. the work reported in this paper. Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., 2019. Towards convivial conservation. Conserv. Soc. 17, 283–296. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_75. Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., 2020. The Conservation Revolution: Radical Ideas for Saving Data availability Nature Beyond the Anthropocene. Verso. Castro, P., Nielsen, E., 2003. Natural resource conflict management case studies: an analysis of power, participation and protected areas. Rome. Data will be made available on request. CIHR, 2016. The Conservation Initiative on Human Rights. Available at http://www.the cihr.org/ (accessed 7.21.22). Acknowledgements Conservation International, 2022. Respecting human rights. Available at https://www.co nservation.org/priorities/human-rights (accessed 7.21.22). Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022. Cop15: Nations Adopt Four Goals, 23 Targets We thank all organizations and individuals who kindly collaborated For 2030 In Landmark Un Biodiversity Agreement. Press Release. Available at with the data gathering for the EJAtlas. Special thanks go to Mark Brady https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-19dec2022 (accessed 18.07.23). who helped with proofreading and language editing. Dahlberg, A., Rohde, R., Sandell, K., 2010. National parks and environmental justice: comparing access rights and ideological legacies in three countries. Conserv. Soc. 8, 209–224. Funding Dawson, N., Martin, A., Danielsen, F., 2018. Assessing equity in protected area governance: approaches to promote just and effective conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11 The EJAtlas has been developed through funding from the project (2), e12388. ‘EnvJustice’ (GA 695446), funded by the European Research Council Dawson, N., Carvalho, W.D., Bezerra, J.S., Todeschini, F., Tabarelli, M., Mustin, K., 2021. Protected areas and the neglected contribution of Indigenous Peoples and local (ERC). Antonio Bontempi acknowledges funding from the FI-SDUR 464 communities: Struggles for environmental justice in the Caatinga dry forest. People scholarship awarded by the Catalan AGAUR Agency. Daniela del Bene Nat. 00, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/PAN3.10288/SUPPINFO. acknowledges funding from the International Balzan Prize Foundation. De Pourcq, K., Thomas, E., Arts, B., Vranckx, A., Léon-Sicard, T., van Damme, P., 2017. Understanding and resolving conflict between local communities and conservation Arnim Scheidel acknowledges funding from a Ramón y Cajal research authorities in Colombia. World Dev. 93, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. grant, Spanish Ministry of Science (SRYC2000I029088XV0). WORLDDEV.2016.12.026. Del Bene, D., Ávila, S., 2023. Critical Mapping for Researching and Acting Upon Environmental Conflicts – The Case of the EJAtlas. In: Villamayor-Tomas, S., Appendix A. Supplementary material Muradian, R. (Eds.), The Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology. Studies in Ecological Economics, vol. 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. /10.1007/978-3-031-22566-6_17. Dinerstein, E., Olson, D., Joshi, A., Vynne, C., Burgess, N.D., Wikramanayake, E., org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102740. Hahn, N., Palminteri, S., Hedao, P., Noss, R., Hansen, M., Locke, H., Ellis, E.C., Jones, B., Barber, C.V., Hayes, R., Kormos, C., Martin, V., Crist, E., Sechrest, W., References Price, L., Baillie, J.E.M., Weeden, D., Suckling, K., Davis, C., Sizer, N., Moore, R., Thau, D., Birch, T., Potapov, P., Turubanova, S., Tyukavina, A., de Souza, N., Pintea, L., Brito, J.C., Llewellyn, O.A., Miller, A.G., Patzelt, A., Ghazanfar, S.A., Allan, J.R., Possingham, H.P., Atkinson, S.C., Waldron, A., Di Marco, M., Butchart, S.H., Timberlake, J., Klöser, H., Shennan-Farpón, Y., Kindt, R., Lillesø, J.P.B., van Adams, V.M., Kissling, W.D., Worsdell, T., Sandbrook, C., Gibbon, G., Kumar, K., 11 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Breugel, P., Graudal, L., Voge, M., Al-Shammari, K.F., Saleem, M., 2017. An EJAtlas, 2019c. Tucuruí hydroelectric dam, Pará, Brazil. Available at https://ejatlas.or ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, g/conflict/tucurui-hydroelectric-dam-and-the-assassination-of-dilma-ferreira-silva- 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/BIOSCI/BIX014. para-brazil (accessed 7.21.22). Dinerstein, E., Vynne, C., Sala, E., Joshi, A.R., Fernando, S., Lovejoy, T.E., Mayorga, J., EJAtlas, 2019d. Bardia National Park (BNP) and Sonaha indigenous minorities, Nepal. Olson, D., Asner, G.P., Baillie, J.E.M., Burgess, N.D., Burkart, K., Noss, R.F., Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/sonaha-indigenous-minorities-bardia-na Zhang, Y.P., Baccini, A., Birch, T., Hahn, N., Joppa, L.N., Wikramanayake, E., 2019. tional-park-bnp-management-nepal (accessed 5.12.22). A Global Deal for Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5 EJAtlas, 2019e. Nairobi National Park and Southern bypass, Kenya. Available at http https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIADV.AAW2869/SUPPL_FILE/AAW2869_TABLE_S1. s://ejatlas.org/print/nairobi-national-park-and-southern-bypass-kenya (accessed XLSX. 7.21.22). Domínguez, L., Luoma, C., 2020. Decolonising conservation policy: how colonial land EJAtlas, 2019f. Mudumalai Tiger Reserve and disputes over land, Tamil Nadu, India. and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate indigenous injustices at the Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/mudumalai-tiger-reserve-and-disputes-ove expense of the environment. Land 9, 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/LAND9030065. r-land-tamil-nadu-india (accessed 5.12.22). Dudley, N., Stolton, S., 2022. Best Practice in Delivering the 30x30 Target. EJAtlas, 2019g. Oil Extraction at Numto Nature Preserve, Russia. Available at https:// Duffy, R., Massé, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen, E., Büscher, B., Verweijen, J., Ramutsindela, M., www.ejatlas.org/conflict/oil-extraction-at-numto-nature-preserve (accessed Simlai, T., Joanny, L., Lunstrum, E., 2019. Why we must question the militarisation 5.12.22). of conservation. Biol. Conserv. 232, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. EJAtlas, 2019h. Vale’s giant S11D iron ore project and Railroad Carajás, Pará, Brazil. BIOCON.2019.01.013. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/vales-giant-s11d-iron-ore-project-in-caraja Dutta, A., 2020. Forest becomes frontline: Conservation and counter-insurgency in a s-para-brazil (accessed 5.12.22). space of violent conflict in Assam, Northeast India. Polit. Geography 77, 102117. EJAtlas, 2019i. Eviction in Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary and Muthanga Adivasi agitation, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POLGEO.2019.102117. Kerala, India. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/wayanand-kerala (accessed Earl, J., Martin, A., McCarthy, J.D., Soule, S.A., 2004. The use of newspaper data in the 7.21.22). study of collective action. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30 (1), 65–80. https://doi.org/ EJAtlas, 2020a. Poaching, illegal mining, and other crimes in Corcovado National Park, 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110603. Costa Rica. Available at https://www.ejatlas.org/print/poaching-illegal-mining- EJAtlas, 2014a. Amboseli National Park; downgrading to a game reserve, Kenya. and-other-crimes-in-corcovado-national-park-costa-rica (accessed 7.21.22). Available at https://www.ejatlas.org/conflict/amboseli-national-park-downgra EJAtlas, 2020b. Conflict over Bears Ears National Monument, Utah, USA. Available at htt ding-to-a-game-reserve-kenya (accessed 7.21.22). ps://ejatlas.org/conflict/conflict-over-bears-ears-national-monument (accessed EJAtlas, 2014b. Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Bonyic, Panamá. Available at https://ejatlas. 5.12.22). org/conflict/proyecto-hidroelectrico-bonyic-panama (accessed 7.21.22). EJAtlas, 2020c. Traditional and indigenous groups against agribusiness expansion in the EJAtlas, 2014c. Privatisation of the Almoraima, Cádiz, Spain. Available at https://ejatla Matopiba region, Brazil. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/communities-again s.org/conflict/privatisation-of-the-almoraima-cadiz-spain (accessed 7.21.22). st-soy-expansion-and-matopiba-agricultural-development-plan-brazil (accessed EJAtlas, 2014d. Try Pheap Co. Logging Operation in Cambodia. Available at https://ejat 5.12.22). las.org/conflict/try-pheap-co-logging-operation-in-cambodia (accessed 7.21.22). EJAtlas, 2020d. Large-scale Mining in South Gobi Desert, Mongolia. Available at https:// EJAtlas, 2014e. Sugarcane plantation in Mabira Forest Reserve, Uganda. Available at htt ejatlas.org/conflict/large-scale-mining-in-south-gobi-desert-mongolia (accessed ps://www.ejatlas.org/conflict/sugarcane-plantation-in-mabira-forest-reserve-ugan 5.12.22). da (accessed 7.21.22). EJAtlas, 2021. Área Natural Protegida y deforestación en el Nevado de Toluca, México. EJAtlas, 2014f. Cassuruba Reserve in Caravelas, Bahia, Brazil. Available at https://ejatl Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/cambio-de-categoria-del-area-natural-prot as.org/conflict/cassuruba-reserve-in-caravelas-bahia-brazil (accessed 7.21.22). egida-y-deforestacion-en-el-nevado-de-toluca-mexico (accessed 7.21.22). EJAtlas, 2014g. Mis Valley Hydropower plant, Italy. Available at https://www.ejatlas. Elo, S., Kyngäs, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62, org/conflict/mis-valley-hydropower-plant-italy (accessed 7.21.22). 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2648.2007.04569.X. EJAtlas, 2014h. Threats facing the Tana River Primate Reserve, Kenya. Available at Ens, E., Reyes-García, V., Asselin, H., Hsu, M., Reimerson, E., Reihana, K., Sithole, B., https://ejatlas.org/conflict/threats-facing-the-tana-river-primate-reserve-kenya Shen, X., Cavanagh, V., Adams, M., 2021. Recognition of Indigenous Ecological (accessed 7.21.22). Knowledge Systems in Conservation and Their Role to Narrow the Knowledge- EJAtlas, 2015a. Creación del Área Reserva de Biosfera Visis Cabá, Chajul, Guatemala. Implementation Gap 109–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81085-6_5. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/dams-in-guatemala-in-chajul-and-other-loc Escobar, A., 1998. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the ations-guatemala (accessed 7.21.22). political ecology of social movements. J. Polit. Ecol. 5, 53. https://doi.org/10.2458/ EJAtlas, 2015b. Referendum to end Bird Hunting in Spring, Malta. Available at https://ej v5i1.21397. atlas.org/conflict/referendum-to-end-bird-hunting-in-spring (accessed 7.21.22). Escobar, A., 2011. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third EJAtlas, 2016a. Recognition of Indigenous Lands in Raposa Serra do Sol, Brazil. world, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/recognition-of-indigenous-lands-raposa-serr Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034652. a-do-sol-brazil (accessed 7.21.22). Fanari, E., 2022. Struggles for just conservation: an analysis of India’s biodiversity EJAtlas, 2016b. National Park Sjeverni Velebit, Croatia. Available at https://www.ejat conservation conflicts. J. Polit. Ecol. 28 (1) https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5214. las.org/conflict/national-park-sjeverni-velebit-croatia (accessed 5.12.22). Farand, C., 2021. Conservationists back indigenous peoples’ call to protect 80% of the EJAtlas, 2016c. Amarakaeri communal reserve against Hunt Oil and Repsol, Peru. Amazon by 2025. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/amarakaeri-against-hunt-oil (accessed Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. 7.21.22). J., Watson, J.E.M., Zander, K.K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E.S., Collier, N.F., Duncan, T., EJAtlas, 2016d. The use of fire at the Canaima National Park, Venezuela. Available at Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M.V., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., https://ejatlas.org/conflict/conflict-over-the-se-of-fire-at-the-canaima-national-park Sivongxay, A., Leiper, I., 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of (Accessed 22.08.23). Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustainab. 1 (7), 369–374. https://doi.org/ EJAtlas, 2017a. Partial Fauna Reserve of Pama and the access to sacred sites, Burkina 10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6. Faso. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/revendications-of-the-gourmantche- GEF, 2022. Indigenous Peoples. Available at https://www.thegef.org/wh people-on-the-pama-reserve-burkina-faso (accessed 5.12.22). at-we-do/topics/indigenous-peoples#results (accessed 7.21.22). EJAtlas, 2017b. Oil palm and National Park Jeannette Kawas, Honduras. Available at Golden Kroner, R.E., Qin, S., Cook, C.N., Krithivasan, R., Pack, S.M., Bonilla, O.D., Cort- https://ejatlas.org/conflict/jeannette-kawas-fernandez-case-honduras (accessed Kansinally, K.A., Coutinho, B., Feng, M., Garcia, M.I.M., He, Y., Kennedy, C.J., 5.12.22). Lebreton, C., Ledezma, J.C., Lovejoy, T.E., Luther, D.A., Parmanand, Y., Ruíz- EJAtlas, 2017c. Kaziranga conflict: rhinos and poachers, Assam, India. Available at Agudelo, C.A., Yerena, E., Zambrano, V.M., Mascia, M.B., 2019. The uncertain future https://ejatlas.org/conflict/kaziranga-conflict-rhinos-and-poachers-assam-india# of protected lands and waters. Science 1979 (364), 881–886. https://doi.org/ (accessed 7.21.22). 10.1126/SCIENCE.AAU5525/SUPPL_FILE/AAU5525_GOLDENKRONER_SM.PDF. EJAtlas, 2017d. Standard Gauge Railway Project Phase 2A Nairobi-Naivasha, Kenya. Grosfoguel, R., 2016. From “economic extractivism” to “epistemical extractivism” and Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/protest-against-chinese-companies-to-build- “ontological extractivism”: a destructive way to know, be and behave in the world. elevated-railways-hinder-animal-migrationnairobi-kenya (accessed 7.21.22). Tabula Rasa 24, 123–143. EJAtlas, 2017e. Polluting industries in Cataño and Conservation of Las Cucharillas Gudynas, E., 2018. Extractivisms: Tendencies and consequences. In: Munck, R., Wise, R. Marsh, Puerto Rico. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/las-cucharillas-marsh D. (Eds.), Reframing Latin American Development. Routledge, pp. 61–76. (accessed 7.21.22). Igoe, J., Neves, K., Brockington, D., 2010. A spectacular eco-tour around the historic EJAtlas, 2018a. Guaraqueçaba Climate Action Project in traditional communities in bloc: Theorising the convergence of biodiversity conservation and capitalist Paraná, Brazil. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/carbon-offset-project-crea expansion. Antipode 42, 486–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- tes-pressure-on-indigenous-communities-in-parana-brazil (accessed 5.12.22). 8330.2010.00761.x. EJAtlas, 2018b. Tanintharyi Nature Reserve conservation area funded by gas pipeline IUCN, 2021a. Motion 101 - Setting area-based conservation targets based on evidence of developers, Myanmar. Available at https://ejatlas.org/conflict/tanintharyi-nature-r what nature and people need to thrive, in: IUCN World Conservation Congress 2020. eserve-tanintharyi-region-myanmar (accessed 5.12.22). 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.SR.01.EN. EJAtlas, 2019a. New Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. Available at https://e IUCN, 2021b. Motion 040 - Develop and implement a transformational and effective jatlas.org/conflict/new-bwindi-impenetrable-national-park-uganda (accessed post-2020 global biodiversity framework, in: IUCN World Conservation Congress 5.12.22). 2020. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.SR.01.EN. EJAtlas, 2019b. Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal. Available at https://ejatlas.org/ IUCN, 2021c. Indigenous peoples have been heard at World Conservation Congress | conflict/sagarmatha-national-park-nepal (accessed 7.21.22). IUCN. Available at https://www.iucn.org/news/forests/202109/indigenous-people s-have-been-heard-world-conservation-congress (accessed 5.12.22). 12 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Kopnina, H., 2016. Half the earth for people (or more)? Addressing ethical questions in Ruano-Chamorro, C., Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J.E., 2022. Advancing procedural justice in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 203, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. conservation. Conservat. Lett.. 15 (3), e12861. https://doi.org/10.1111/ BIOCON.2016.09.019. CONL.12861. MacDonald, K.I., 2010a. The devil is in the (bio)diversity: Private sector “engagement” Sachs, W., 1992. The Development Dictionary. A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Zed and the restructuring of biodiversity conservation. Antipode 42, 513–550. https:// Books, London. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00762.x. Scheidel, A., Temper, L., Demaria, F., Martínez-Alier, J., 2018. Ecological distribution MacDonald, K.I., 2010b. Business, biodiversity and new “fields” of conservation: The conflicts as forces for sustainability: an overview and conceptual framework. world conservation congress and the renegotiation of organisational order. Conserv. Sustain. Sci. 13, 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0519-0. Soc. 8, 256–275. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.78144. Scheidel, A., del Bene, D., Liu, J., Navas, G., Mingorría, S., Demaria, F., Avila, S., Roy, B., Madden, F., McQuinn, B., 2014. Conservation’s blind spot: The case for conflict Ertör, I., Temper, L., Martínez-Alier, J., 2020. Environmental conflicts and transformation in wildlife conservation. Biol. Conserv. 178, 97–106. https://doi.org/ defenders: A global overview. Glob. Environ. Chang. 63, 102104 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.BIOCON.2014.07.015. 10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2020.102104. Martin, A., 2017. Just Conservation : Biodiversity, Wellbeing and Sustainability. Schleicher, J., Zaehringer, J.G., Fastré, C., Vira, B., Visconti, P., Sandbrook, C., 2019. Routledge. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nat. Martin, A., McGuire, S., Sullivan, S., 2013. Global environmental justice and biodiversity Sustainab. 2 (12), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0423-y. conservation. Geogr. J. 179, 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12018. Shoreman-Ouimet, E., Kopnina, H., 2015. Reconciling ecological and social justice to Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N.M., Fraser, J.A., Lehman, I., promote biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 184, 320–326. https://doi.org/ Rodriguez, I., 2016. Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.030. Biol. Conserv. 197, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2016.03.021. Sims, K.R.E., Lee, L.G., Estrella-Luna, N., Lurie, M.R., Thompson, J.R., 2022. Martin, A., Myers, R., Dawson, N.M., 2018. The park is ruining our livelihoods. We Environmental justice criteria for new land protection can inform efforts to address support the park! unravelling the paradox of attitudes to protected areas. Hum. Ecol. disparities in access to nearby open space. Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (6), 064014. 46, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10745-017-9941-2/FIGURES/2. Soliku, O., Schraml, U., 2018. Making sense of protected area conflicts and management Martinez-Alier, J., 2018. Ecological distribution conflicts and the vocabulary of approaches: A review of causes, contexts and conflict management strategies. Biol. environmental justice. In: Dayal, V., Duraiappah, A., Nawn, N. (Eds.), Ecology, Conserv. 222, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2018.04.011. Economy and Society: Essays in Honour of Kanchan Chopra. Springer Singapore, Soliku, O., Schraml, U., 2020. From conflict to collaboration: the contribution of co- Singapore, pp. 187–204. management in mitigating conflicts in Mole National Park, Ghana. Oryx 54, Martinez-Alier, J., 2021. Mapping ecological distribution conflicts: The EJAtlas. 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318000285. Extractive Ind. Soc. 8 (4), 100883. Sundberg, R., Melander, E., 2013. Introducing the UCDP Georeferenced Event Dataset. Martinez-Alier, J., Kallis, G., Veuthey, S., Walter, M., Temper, L., 2010. Social J. Peace Res. 50 (4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313484347. metabolism, ecological distribution conflicts, and valuation languages. Ecol. Econ. Survival International, 2022a. Decolonize Conservation. Available at https://www.survi 70, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2010.09.024. valinternational.org/conservation (accessed 5.12.22). Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., 2011. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and Survival International, 2022b. A guide to decolonize language in conservation. Available degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv. Lett. 4, 9–20. at https://assets.survivalinternational.org/documents/2321/DecolonizeLanguage https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1755-263X.2010.00147.X. Guide.pdf (Accessed 5.3.23). Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Krithivasan, R., Roshchanka, V., Burns, D., Mlotha, M.J., Svampa, M., 2012. Resource Extractivism and Alternatives: Latin American Perspectives Murray, D.R., Peng, N., 2014. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and on Development. J. für Entwicklungspolitik XXVIII, 43–73. degazettement (PADDD) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C., Barrow, E., 2020. Cornered by PAs: 1900–2010. Biol. Conserv. 169, 355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate BIOCON.2013.11.021. action. World Dev. 130, 104923. Maxwell, S.L., Cazalis, V., Dudley, N., Hoffmann, M., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Stolton, S., Temper, L., del Bene, D., Martinez-Alier, J., 2015. Mapping the frontiers and front lines Visconti, P., Woodley, S., Kingston, N., Lewis, E., Maron, M., Strassburg, B.B.N., of global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. J. Polit. Ecol. 22, 254–278. https://doi. Wenger, A., Jonas, H.D., Venter, O., Watson, J.E.M., 2020. Area-based conservation org/10.2458/V22I1.21108. in the twenty-first century. Nature 586 (7828), 217–227. Temper, L., Demaria, F., Scheidel, A., del Bene, D., Martinez-Alier, J., 2018. The Global Minority Rights Group International, 2022. Fortress Conservation and International Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas): ecological distribution conflicts as forces for Accountability for Human Rights Violations against Batwa in Kahuzi-Biega National sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 13, 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-018- Park. 0563-4/FIGURES/2. Mollett, S., Kepe, T., 2018. Land Rights, Biodiversity Conservation and Justice : Thieme, M.L., Khrystenko, D., Qin, S., Golden Kroner, R.E., Lehner, B., Pack, S., Rethinking Parks and People. Routledge. Tockner, K., Zarfl, C., Shahbol, N., Mascia, M.B., 2020. Dams and protected areas: Mombeshora, S., le Bel, S., 2009. Parks-people conflicts: The case of Gonarezhou Quantifying the spatial and temporal extent of global dam construction within National Park and the Chitsa community in south-east zimbabwe. Biodivers. protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 13, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12719. Conserv. 18, 2601–2623. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10531-009-9676-5/TABLES/1. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2021. Protected Planet: The World. OLON, 2021. Protest | Our Land Our Nature. Available at https://www.ourlandournatur UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2023. Protected Planet Website. [WWW document] Available at e.org/protest (accessed 7.9.22). https://www.protectedplanet.net/en (accessed 5.3.23). Pearce, F., 2018. Sparing vs Sharing: The Great Debate Over How to Protect Nature. Yale UNESCO, 2021. Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme - Good Practices. Available at E360. https://en.unesco.org/mab/strategy/goodpractices#listbycountry (accessed Peluso, N.L., 1993. Coercing conservation?. The politics of state resource control. Glob. 7.21.22). Environ. Chang. 3, 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(93)90006-7. Vedeld, P., Jumane, A., Wapalila, G., Songorwa, A., 2012. Protected areas, poverty and Rainforest Foundation UK, 2022. Sustainable Conservation. Available at https://www. conflicts: A livelihood case study of Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. Forest Policy rainforestfoundationuk.org/campaigns/conservation (accessed 5.12.22). Econ. 21, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2012.01.008. Rambaree, K., 2020. Environmental justice in the case of the chagos marine protected Venter, O., Fuller, R.A., Segan, D.B., Carwardine, J., Brooks, T., Butchart, S.H.M., Di area: implications for international social work. Sustainability 12, 8349. https://doi. Marco, M., Iwamura, T., Joseph, L., O’Grady, D., Possingham, H.P., Rondinini, C., org/10.3390/SU12208349. Smith, R.J., Venter, M., Watson, J.E.M., Moritz, C., 2014. Targeting Global Protected Ramutsindela, M., Shabangu, M., 2018. The promise and limit of environmental justice Area Expansion for Imperiled Biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12 (6), e1001891. through land restitution in protected areas in South Africa. In: Mollett, S., Kepe, T. Venter, O., Magrach, A., Outram, N., Klein, C.J., Possingham, H.P., di Marco, M., (Eds.), Land Rights, Biodiversity Conservation and Justice: Rethinking Parks and Watson, J.E.M., 2018. Bias in protected-area location and its effects on long-term People. Routledge. aspirations of biodiversity conventions. Conserv. Biol. 32, 127–134. https://doi.org/ Rechciński, M., Tusznio, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., 2019. Protected area conflicts: a 10.1111/COBI.12970. state-of-the-art review and a proposed integrated conceptual framework for West, P., Igoe, J., Brockington, D., 2006. Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of reclaiming the role of geography. Biodivers. Conserv. 28, 2463–2498. https://doi. Protected Areas. 35, 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.0817 org/10.1007/S10531-019-01790-Z/FIGURES/1. 05.123308. Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W.M., Sutherland, W.J., Whitehouse, A., Wienhues, A., 2018. Situating the Half-Earth proposal in distributive justice: Conditions Amar, A., Lambert, R.A., Linnell, J.D.C., Watt, A., Gutiérrez, R.J., 2013. for just conservation. Biol. Conserv. 228, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, BIOCON.2018.10.009. 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2012.08.021. Wilson, E., 2016. Half-Earth: How to Save the Biosphere, Half-Earth. Our Planet’s Fight Redpath, S.M., Gutiérrez, R.J., Wood, K.A., Young, J.C., 2015. Conflicts in conservation: for Life. Liveright Publishing Corporation. Navigating towards solutions. In: Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards WWF, 2020. World Wildlife: For People, For Nature, Forever. World Wildlife Magazine - Solutions. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139084574. Special Edition. Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Öllerer, K., Young, Juliette C, Marzano, Mariella, White, Rehema M, David, Mccracken, I., Redpath, Wilson, S.J., Brondizio, E.S., 2019. The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local Steve M, Carss, D.N., Quine, C.P., Watt, A.D., Young, J C, Carss, Á.D.N., Watt, Á.A.D., communities to ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, 3–8. https://doi.org/ Marzano, M, Quine, Á.C.P., White, R.M., Mccracken, D.I., Redpath, S.M., 2010. The 10.1111/REC.12894. emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and Rights and Resources Initiative, 2018. Cornered by Protected Areas. Available at management strategies. Biodiversity Conservat. 19(14), 3973–3990. https://doi. https://www.corneredbypas.com/ (accessed 5.12.22). org/10.1007/S10531-010-9941-7. Rights and Resources Initiative, 2020. Rights-based conservation: The path to preserving Earth’s biological and cultural diversity?. 13 A. Bontempi et al. Global Environmental Change 82 (2023) 102740 Further reading Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [Dataset], June 2021, Cambridge, UK: UNEP- WCMC and IUCN. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net. IPBES, n.d. Indigenous peoples and local communities. Available at https://ipbes.net/glo Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods, 4th ed. Oxford University Press Inc., New ssary/indigenous-peoples-local-communities (accessed 5.12.22). York. 14