protected areas, archaeological heritage & local livelihoods ayşegülyılmaz, phd 15th...
TRANSCRIPT
PROTECTED AREAS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE & LOCAL LIVELIHOODS
AyşegülYılmaz, PhD
15th International Conference of National TrustsEntebbe, Uganda
October 1, 2013
THE CASE OF THE TURKISH VILLAGE OF KAPIKIRI
2
Outline
1. Research questions & Importance of study
2. Methods• Site description
• Lake Bafa Nature Park• Ancient city of Heracleia• The village of Kapıkırı
• Data collection
3. Findings4. Policy implications
3
What are impacts of top-down protected area governance on resident communities’ socioeconomic well-being?
1. Positive and negative impacts of top-down protected area designation
2. Distribution of impacts across community income groups & social groups
3. The role of tourism in the compensation for the loss of income as a result of conservation
4. What could be the most ideal long-term conservation and development strategy that would benefit both natural & cultural heritage and the local community?
4
Importance of study
1. Local communities receive little attention in conservation studies in general
2. Solutions that address archaeological heritage protection and community development need to be addressed more effectively
3. Insights on the impacts on different community groups and role of tourism
4. Applicability to other contexts5. Consequences of dual conservation
governance
5
Outline
1. Research questions & Importance of study
2. Methods• Site description –
Protected area boundaries, modern settlement, and location of ruins
• Village livelihoods• Data collection
3. Findings4. Policy implications
6
Site description - Protected area boundaries
Adapted from the Ministry of the Environment and Forestry’s long term development plan (2008)
Nature-protected area
designation (1994)
Locals’ socioeconomi
c development
needs
Culture-protected
area designation
(1989)
Local Context
Tourism
demand
Tourism demand
Livelihoods impact
Heracleia
Kapıkırı
14
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
• Participant observation• Informal interviews with farmers, pension owners, women, youth (24)• Semi-structured int., senior villagers (5, above age 51)
• Semi- structured interviews with:- Farmers (47)- Business owners (20)- Young gen. (12, age 16-30)- Village leader- Ticket booth official (MCT)• Informal int. with tourists
• Park manager (MEF)• Museum Director (MCT)• Official of Div. of Agriculture• Local NGO leader
• Leader of the RCC (MCT)• Senior archaeologist at the provincial office of the MCT• Professor of Archaeology, University of Muğla
Sub-provincial level:
Provincial level:
National level:• Planner, Nature Protection & National Parks (MEF)• Coordinator of SCC (MCT)• Planner, Tourism div. (MCT)• Legislative framework• Long-term Management Plan for Lake Bafa Nature Park• Other relevant official resources
• Household questionnaire posed to farmer households (22)• Household questionnaire posed to business owners (3)
Village level
Village level
Village level
Governance levelsGovernance levels
Phase 2 Phase 2
Data collection
15
Outline
1. Research questions & Importance of study
2. Methods• Site description –
Protected area boundaries
• The village of Kapikiri• Data collection
3. Findings4. Policy implications
16
What are impacts of top-down protected area governance on resident communities’ socioeconomic well-being?
1. Positive and negative impacts of top-down protected area designation
2. Distribution of impacts across community income groups & social groups
3. The role of tourism in the compensation for the loss of income as a result of conservation
4. What could be the most ideal long-term conservation and development strategy that would benefit both natural & cultural heritage and the local community?
17
The younger generation had tendency to out-migrate, calling into question the future of the village
Socioeconomic well-being
“The past was a period of abundance... Today, making a living has become a daily struggle.” Senior villagers & farmers
”We can not build new homes for our sons. They can't get married.”Farmers
18
What are impacts of top-down protected area governance on resident communities’ socioeconomic well-being?
1. Positive and negative impacts of top-down protected area designation
2. Distribution of impacts across community income groups & social groups
3. The role of tourism in the compensation for the loss of income as a result of conservation
4. What could be the most ideal long-term conservation and development strategy that would benefit both natural & cultural heritage and the local community?
19
Positive 1. Nature-protected area
status around lake a major factor of continued tourism.
2. Tourism benefits to business owners and farmers
Positive and negative impacts and distribution across community groups
Negative1. Noregard for villagers’
socioeconomic development needs resulting in illegal activity
2. Distribution of tourism benefits very unequal
4. Farmers lacking financial resources to cover costs of fines were not able to provide housing for next generations
5. Threats to the integrity of both ancient and modern settlement"Pension owners eat the
cream of conservation.” - Farmer
20
What are impacts of top-down protected area governance on resident communities’ socioeconomic well-being?
1. Positive and negative impacts of top-down protected area designation
2. Distribution of impacts across community income groups & social groups
3. The role of tourism in the compensation for the loss of income as a result of conservation
4. What could be the most ideal long-term conservation and development strategy that would benefit both natural & cultural heritage and the local community?
21
• Contribution of tourism to farmers’ income small
• Tourism replaced some of the traditional livelihoods activities
• No employment opportunities for younger generation
• Extensive outmigration of the younger generation, calling into question the future of the village
• Pollution a major threat to tourism
The role of tourism
25
• Both farmers’ and business owners’ perceptions negative
• Powerless but believed conservation happened because of their presence
• Local officials not attentive to their needs
• Pessimism regarding the village’s future
Villagers’ perceptionsNature of governance
• Top-down decision-making power concentrated at higher (national and provincial) levels
• Local level more progressive and pluralistic regarding conservation
• No fixed set of criteria for designation of culture-protected areas
• All governance levels critical about dual power structure
26
• Strict and top-down conservation combined with weak management not successful, also causing unequal distribution of benefits from conservation
• More powerful groups benefitted more from conservation
• Villagersaware about conservation, but ask for a strategy that regards their socioeconomic needs
• Governance not addressing local needs• Majority of younger generation likely to out-migrate• Future of village looked rather bleak
Summary
27
• Local level - better equipped and empowered
• A comprehensive (values-based, participative, adaptive, ) approach to protected area management planning for areas that combine both natural and cultural heritage resources
• Values-based approach to designation• Adherence to a specific set of criteria
for quality protected area governance and management (legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, connectivity and resilience)
• A single conservation agency (or umbrella organization)
What conservation and development strategy?