The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples
Abstract
How native people—from the Miwoks of Yosemite to the Maasai of eastern Africa—have been displaced from their lands in the name of conservation. Since 1900, more than 108,000 officially protected conservation areas have been established worldwide, largely at the urging of five international conservation organizations. About half of these areas were occupied or regularly used by indigenous peoples. Millions who had been living sustainably on their land for generations were displaced in the interests of conservation. In Conservation Refugees, Mark Dowie tells this story. This is a “good guy vs. good guy” story, Dowie writes; the indigenous peoples' movement and conservation organizations have a vital common goal—to protect biological diversity—and could work effectively and powerfully together to protect the planet and preserve biological diversity. Yet for more than a hundred years, these two forces have been at odds. The result: thousands of unmanageable protected areas and native peoples reduced to poaching and trespassing on their ancestral lands or “assimilated” but permanently indentured on the lowest rungs of the money economy. Dowie begins with the story of Yosemite National Park, which by the turn of the twentieth century established a template for bitter encounters between native peoples and conservation. He then describes the experiences of other groups, ranging from the Ogiek and Maasai of eastern Africa and the Pygmies of Central Africa to the Karen of Thailand and the Adevasis of India. He also discusses such issues as differing definitions of “nature” and “wilderness,” the influence of the “BINGOs” (Big International NGOs, including the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy), the need for Western scientists to respect and honor traditional lifeways, and the need for native peoples to blend their traditional knowledge with the knowledge of modern ecology. When conservationists and native peoples acknowledge the interdependence of biodiversity conservation and cultural survival, Dowie writes, they can together create a new and much more effective paradigm for conservation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Towards a Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation
Büscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2012) · Capitalism Nature Socialism · doi:10.1080/10455752.2012.674149 · Cited by 607
Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5 · Cited by 566
From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative
DRESSLER, W., BÜSCHER, B., SCHOON, M., BROCKINGTON, D., HAYES, T., KULL, C. A., MCCARTHY, J., & SHRESTHA, K. (2010) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892910000044 · Cited by 513
Conservation, green/blue grabbing and accumulation by dispossession in Tanzania
Benjaminsen, T. A., & Bryceson, I. (2012) · Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.667405 · Cited by 359
Domínguez, L., & Luoma, C. (2020) · Land · doi:10.3390/land9030065 · Cited by 357
Metadata
- Authors
- Dowie, M.
- Venue
- The MIT Press eBooks
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 2009-03-27
- OpenAlex
- W4254758554
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.59
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7551/mitpress/7532.001.0001
- The paper
- Dowie, M. (2009). Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. The MIT Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7532.001.0001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.