Prepare To Be Impressed Huntsman Scholars!!

During our discussion on Wednesday, I started to think about the concept of incentives in relation to conservation of ecosystem services. While I was considering this concept, an instance in our very own state of Utah in the heart of Emmigration Canyon came to me. Long story short: a few years back the people of Emmigration Canyon were being required to adhere to certain building codes that had been implemented in the area in effort to more readily prevent wildfires. These codes included: a clearing of all flammable foliage of at least 30 feet around the property of your home, changing roofing materials (if they were at all combustible), removing all plants species that are foreign to the climate of Emmigration Canyon, etc. Under required circumstances we usually see grievances (or at least a lot of whining) among the "requirees", but what is peculiar in the case found in Emmigration canyon is: the people recognized the intangible incentive in adhering to these codes. Meaning: not only did the majority of them obey and implement the majority of the codes, they rallied themselves together for the cause; starting councils and committees that informed community members about the advantages of this implementation. You may be wondering how this at all applies to the eradication of poverty and the conservation of biodiversity. My point is this (and it's not one we haven't already gone over): the education of people about the benefits they'll receive from a newly imposed lifestyle is an incentive we often times employ in the private sector but often don't consider in the political realm. It's not unlike the concept of soft power--though intangible and highly unquantifiable, it is when we can dangle a carrot as opposed to threaten with a stick that we start to see positive result like: community recognition of the benefits and organization around the positive cause.

This concept can be applied to the Review by William M. Adams and company. The review states "if local people do not support protected areas, the protected areas cannot last". While that is essentially inarguable, I would add to that claim that: if the local people do not support and hold genuine stake in protected areas, then protected areas cannot last. I see the mere support of something as too passive in this context, and becoming a genuine stakeholder with real sentiments for the land as you understand how it affects your livelihood, rather than the rhetoric of another's agenda, is when you are in true support of something.

How this concept is to be instituted into a country is complex, but I do like Ann Laudati's anecdote in relation to the NGOs in Tanzania. Thus, the people may not learn any one specific thing from an NGO, but they do learn to organize themselves and rally around one another, which, to me, is incentive enough to take part in such organizations.