1) Approximately 51% of households in Cusuco National Park in Honduras are multidimensionally poor, deprived in nearly 45% of basic indicators like electricity, safe water, and assets. Poverty in the park is comparable to rural Honduras. 2) Perceptions of ecosystem services differ between communities in the park, likely due to differences in enforcement of rules and activities. Water provision and climate regulation are highly valued. Agriculture is also important for livelihoods. 3) Community-based management could help address poverty by targeting deprivations, linking conservation to development goals, and providing alternatives to unsustainable land uses and resources like firewood. However, restrictions may reinforce poverty if sustainable alternatives are not

1. PROJECT REPORT
1
POVERTY AND CONSERVATION IN CUCUSO NATIONAL PARK:
OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS TO COMMUNITY-BASED MANAGEMENT
Guillaume Demare, Oxford University, School of Geography and the Environment
BACKGROUND
The Earth’s land surface is now largely dominated by human activity, with more than three quarters of the terrestrial
biosphere modified by anthropogenic influence. Land cover change resulting from agricultural expansion is a major
driver of deforestation in the tropics (Chichilnisky, 1994; Ellis, 2013). Considering that a major proportion of the
global biodiversity is located in tropical regions, mitigating the impact of deforestation has become one of the top
priorities in contemporary conservation (Pimm and Raven, 2000; Bradshaw et al., 2009; Gibson et al., 2011; Laurance
et al., 2012).
The establishment and maintenance of a network of protected areas has been the primary management strategy
for protecting tropical biodiversity and reducing rates of forest clearance (Brooks et al., 2004; Rodrigues et al., 2004).
However, some concerns have been raised regarding the fact that protected areas, and conservation initiatives more
broadly, may have important socioeconomic impacts, including the reinforcement of social injustice and global
poverty. Some authors even argue that failure to reconcile human development with biodiversity conservation can
directly compromise the success of protected areas (reviewed in West et al., 2006). Community-based conservation
has emerged as an alternative that can potentially improve human welfare at a local level, while simultaneously
reducing negative environmental impacts (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2002; Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006). While
this approach to conservation can be successful at reducing forest cover loss (e.g. community managed forest in
Tanzania; Lund and Treue, 2008), success may be constrained by a variety of factors (e.g. socioeconomic situation,
capacity and resources) that need to be explored (Oates, 1995; Spinage, 1998; Brockington, 2004; Porter-Bolland et
al., 2012).
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Cusuco National Park is a protected area in Honduras where community-based conservation has been proposed as
an alternative for reducing the impact of agricultural expansion on forest cover. The purpose of the present research
is to examine the conditions that can either facilitate or place barriers to community-based initiatives in Cusuco.
I set the following research objectives:
1. Measure the prevalence of poverty in Cusuco and identify key areas of deprivation;
2. Evaluate the link between livelihood and land-use at a local scale;
3. Assess the perception of ecosystem services by local communities;
4. Assess the way in which local communities perceive the protected area (including the buffer zone);
5. Explore the socio-political attributes of the communities in the buffer zone that may either facilitate or hinder
community-based initiatives.
While this research does not comprise an exhaustive assessment of the factors influencing the success of
community-based forest management (i.e. other important aspects are not covered), it is my hope that the results
will inform future management strategies in Cusuco.

2. PROJECT REPORT
2
CUSUCO NATIONAL PARK
Cusuco National Park (hereafter referred to as Cusuco) is a 23,400 ha protected area located in northwest Honduras
(15.520635°N 88.259449°W). It consists of a core protected area (7,700 ha) surrounded by a buffer zone (15,700)
where local communities have settled and use part of the land for agriculture and cattle ranching (e.g. coffee
plantations; Figure 1). Elevation ranges from just above sea level to approximately 2,425 m (Lenkh, 2005).
The park comprises a variety of habitat types, including semi-arid pine forest, moist pine forest, broadleaf forest and
the globally rare dwarf forest habitat (Green et al., 2012; IUCN and UNEP, 2014). Cusuco is part of the Mesoamerica
biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al., 2000). Due to its relatively rich diversity of species, the existence of a number of
endemic species, and the overlapping range of several globally threatened species, the park is regarded as a key
biodiversity area (Eken et al., 2004; Field and Long, 2007). The main threats to Cusuco’s biodiversity include land-
cover change from tropical forest to arable land and grazing areas, overexploitation of large mammals (the Baird’s
tapir in particular), the amphibian disease chytridiomycosis, and climate change (Green et al., 2012).
The park is legally protected under the following legislative elements (Córdova et al., 2003):
1. The Merendón Reserve (decree 46/90), which includes the eastern part of the buffer, and part of the core zone;
2. Cusuco National Park (decrees 87/87, 210/85 and 53) was designated in 1987 and originally covered 1,100 ha
of protected area;
3. The Protected Forest Zone, which extends to the Valley of Cuyamel.
However, deforestation remains a major issue in the Merendón cordillera and is an ongoing threat to the integrity
of Cusuco. Driving factors of land cover change include, but are not limited to: immigration of populations from other
parts of the country and from neighbouring countries (e.g. El Salvador), commercial logging, and agriculture (e.g.
coffee). Today, the buffer zone of Cusuco is inhabited by more than 30,000 people living in 35 communities (Córdova
et al, 2003; Lenkh, 2005). Patterns of forest cover loss and location of local communities are depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 1. Coffee plantation in the buffer zone of Cusuco
(photo: Guillaume Demare).
Figure 2. Map of Cusuco showing forest cover in 2000,
forest loss between 2000 and 2012, park boundaries, and
local settlements. Source: Hansen et al., 2013.

3. PROJECT REPORT
3
SUMMARY OF METHODS
A questionnaire survey was conducted in 83 households of four communities within the buffer zone of Cusuco
between June and August 2014. Two communities were chosen in the eastern part of the buffer zone (collectively
referred to as “eastern communities”), where enforcement happens to a greater extent (Rodolfo Bueso, pers.
comm., August 2014) and where there is relatively less forest cover loss. Two communities were chosen in the
northwest portion of the park (collectively referred to as “northern communities”), where most deforestation has
occurred. The final selection is summarized in Table 1 and the geographical location of communities visited is shown
in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Map showing the location
of the communities (green) where
household questionnaires were
conducted: Santo Tomas (STO),
Nueva Esperanza (NES), Nuevo Eden
(NED) and Guadalupe de Bañaderos
(GUA). Other communities are
shown in black. The map also shows
an elevation gradient, park
boundaries, and tree loss between
2000 and 2012.
Source: Hansen et al., 2013.
Table 1. List of communities where household questionnaires were conducted. The sample size and community
size (i.e. total number of households) are given for each location.
Community Code Sample size Community size Deforestation GPS (N) GPS (W)
Nuevo Eden NED 24 78 - 15.52623 88.19163
Guadalupe GUA 19 70 - 15.51207 88.17374
Santo Tomas STO 20 33 + 15.55080 88.24358
Nueva Esperanza NES 20 64 + 15.55966 88.30148

4. PROJECT REPORT
4
The household questionnaire comprised various elements for assessing specific socioeconomic attributes in the
communities. Poverty was measured based on the multidimensional poverty index (MPI) developed by the Oxford
Poverty and Human Development Initiative (Alkire and Santos, 2010). This index1
reflects deprivation in basic human
functioning and fundamental services: health, education and living standards. The primary advantage of measuring
multidimensional poverty is that it acknowledges the complexity in which poverty exists (Sen, 2000). In the context
of community-based management, initiatives can potentially be more effective through targeting specific areas of
deprivation and linking conservation goals with those of human development. The questionnaire was also used to
estimate the proportion of the population for which livelihood is predominantly dependent on agriculture and cattle
ranching, and inequality was measured based on land ownership (the total amount of land owned by individual
households) and Gini index (Gini, 1912; Litchfield, 1999).
Respondents were asked about their perception of ecosystem
services (ES) (scores: null, low, medium, high), in order to
evaluate the relative importance2
of specific ES in the local area.
A set of services was selected based on presumed relevance to
the study area, and selection was refined through a pilot study.
The final selection comprises ten different ES (see on the right)
that fall under the provisioning and regulating categories of the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Some services
(shown in red) have the potential of being exploited
unsustainably by contributing to forest cover loss in the local
area.
One section of the questionnaire was aimed at assessing the perception of the protected area by communities found
in the buffer zone. Respondents indicated the types of benefits (e.g. ecosystem services, economic) and costs (e.g.
permits for wood extraction and land use) associated with the protected area, and who they thought benefited from
the protected area.
Finally, the governance network underlying forest management in Cusuco was explored through a series of
interviews (N=14) with local farmers, community leaders, park rangers and heads of management bodies (ICF,
DIMA). Questions were aimed at investigating the level of coordination between actors, the relationship amongst
actors, and the issues of deforestation and poverty in Cusuco.
1
For a detailed description of the MPI, please refer to Alkire and Santos (2010). The index includes three dimensions
of poverty (health, education, standards of living) and is based on ten indicators of deprivation.
2
Note that level of importance was not disaggregated between level of use and potential contribution to human
well-being. Thus, a service potentially providing high benefits may be perceived as less important when access to
the service is limited.

5. PROJECT REPORT
5
MULTIDIMENSIONAL POVERTY IN CUSUCO
Approximately 51% of households in Cusuco were determined to be multidimensionally poor. On average, those
households were found to be deprived in almost 45% of all weighted poverty indicators. The overall value of the MPI
reached a value of 0.2269 (Table 2), and is therefore higher than the national average (0.159). However,
multidimensional poverty in Cusuco is comparable to that of rural areas in Honduras (0.20-0.25) (OPHI, 2013). This
may indicate that the protected area, at least in its current form, is not having a significant socioeconomic impact
on communities living in the buffer.
Table 2. Multidimensional poverty index for Cusuco National Park (CNP). The MPI is the product of two measures:
the incidence of poverty (H) and the average intensity of poverty across the poor (A).
Location Sample size Incidence (H) Intensity (A) MPI
CNP 83 0.5060 0.4484 0.2269
To reduce poverty effectively, management should aim at targeting those areas of deprivation that contribute the
most towards multidimensional poverty in Cusuco. More than a third of MPI poor households do not have electricity,
and approximately half do not have access to safe drinking water3
or adequate cooking fuel, and do not own basic
assets (e.g. car, refrigerator) (Figure 4A). Overall, living standard is the dimension that contributed the most towards
the intensity of poverty, and nutrition is the indicator that had the most impact (Figure 4B).
Figure 4. A. Percentage of MPI poor households deprived in each dimension. B. Average contribution (%) of indicators
towards the intensity of poverty.
A B
3
The definition follows that of the Millennium Development Goals (see WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, 2014)
16%
5%
17%
30%
49%
8%
46%
35%
19%
48%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Schooling
Child enrolment
Infant mortality
Nutrition
Cooking fuel
Sanitation
Drinking water
Electricity
Flooring
Assets
12% 4%
12%
22%
12%2%
11%
9%
5%
12%
Schooling
Child enrolment
Infant mortality
Nutrition
Cooking fuel
Sanitation
Drinking water
Electricity
Flooring

6. PROJECT REPORT
6
The MPI holds a lot of potential for tracking the impact of forest management on local human development.
However, it is important to note that the design of any particular poverty measure is arbitrary and should be treated
with caution (Nussbaum, 2003; Sen, 2004; Alkire and Santos, 2010). While the present study was limited to three
dimensions, other important dimensions should be considered (e.g. work, empowerment) (Alkire and Santos, 2010).
If a different management regime were to be adopted in the future, it would be important to assess its potential
effect on human welfare (Mascia et al., 2010). Depending on the trajectory that local management takes, poverty
could either be reinforced or reduced. In turn, consequences on forest cover and biodiversity should be examined.
PERCEPTION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
The perception of particular ecosystem services (ES) differed between northern and eastern communities (Figure 5).
The provision of pasture is perceived as less important on the East side, which is expected since cattle ranching is an
activity largely restricted to the north-eastern lowlands of the buffer zone. There were also marginal differences in
the perception of water provision and water quality, which may be due in part to the fact that a higher proportion
of households in northern communities have access to safe drinking water. Eastern communities also considered
the provision of wood (both construction and fuel) as less important, which may reflect the higher level of
enforcement on this side of park. If more enforcement in eastern communities prevents people from using local
resources (e.g. permit requirements for wood extraction), the benefits associated with the provision of ES would not
be perceived because of restricted access. The potential effect of policy on the perception of important ES should
be further investigated, especially if greater enforcement is to be applied in Cusuco.
The relative importance between services was determined based on the frequency at which services were scored as
“high” by respondents. As depicted in Table 3, the highest ranking ES are not directly related to land use or other
activities that are potentially unsustainable. Instead, communities place a high value on services like water provision
and climate regulation. While this does not indicate that other services are not important in the local area, as
absolute importance was not measured, it shows that local people do recognise some of the benefits that arise from
the forest in Cusuco. This finding is meaningful with regards to community-based management because local values
can be aligned with the conservation targets of the protected area (e.g. the protection of watersheds). Willingness
to participate in management is generally an important condition for the successful implementation of community-
based conservation (Bulte et al., 2008), and therefore should not be an issue in the context of Cusuco. However,
participation may remain low if management actions are incompatible with local development. Land-use remains
the principal source of income in the local area so restrictions may reinforce poverty. In order to avoid conflict,
agriculture must become more profitable and sustainable, or alternatives should be put in place.
In fact, the MPI provides a useful analytical lens for linking ecosystem services with human welfare. For example,
providing alternative cooking fuel (e.g. gas, electricity) in the local area would reduce the importance of fire wood,
which is possibly exploited unsustainably, while improving standards of living. Similarly, providing safe drinking water
would increase the positive perception of water provision in the local area, therefore promoting higher community
participation in forest management while reducing poverty in Cusuco. Finally, the provision of agricultural land,
which is arguably the only ES with direct economic benefits in the local area, would contribute to both poverty
alleviation and conservation by becoming more effective and sustainable. It is also important to take into account
the dynamic and multi-layered relationships that exists between ES. For instance, agricultural expansion resulting in
forest cover loss can potentially affect a number of ecological processes (e.g. climate regulation, erosion control and
water provision) (Sampaio et al., 2007; Bennett et al., 2009), which in turn could be linked with human well-being.

7. PROJECT REPORT
7
Figure 5. Frequency at which respondents scored the importance
of ES as “high”. A red star indicates a statistical difference in the
distribution of scores between eastern and northern communities
(confidence level: 0.95).
Table 3. Services were assigned a rank of
importance based on responses. When the
distribution of responses is statistically
identical, services share the same rank
(confidence level: 0.95).
East North
Construction wood 3 2
Fuel wood 2 1
Water provision 1 1
Water quality 2 1
Agriculture 2 3
Pasture 4 3
Climate regulation 1 1
Erosion control 2 2
Fruits and honey 3 4
Medicinal plants 3 4
PERCEPTION OF THE PROTECTED AREA
Local communities do not generally have a negative perception of the protected area: 81% of respondents show
either positive (36%) or neutral (45%) attitudes, and only a small portion of the population (19%) considers the
protected area as merely imposing costs (i.e. permit requirements). Northern communities express more positive
attitudes (46% of respondents), in comparison to eastern communities (28% of respondents), where the majority of
respondents have a neutral perception of the protected area (51%). This is consistent with the fact that a higher
proportion of respondents from the northern side of the park consider the protected area as benefiting their own
community, compared to the eastern side (69% and 40%, respectively). It is unlikely that this overall difference in
attitudes regarding Cusuco is caused by a difference in enforcement level because relatively fewer respondents from
eastern communities (i.e. where enforcement is supposedly higher) listed any sort of costs imposed by the protected
area. One possible reason for a higher level of neutral attitudes is that people feel more disconnected from the
protected area on the eastern side of the park, and therefore do not see the potential benefits that the park provides.
It is also possible, however, that the proportion of negative attitudes was underestimated if respondents were
reluctant to list the costs associated with the protected area (i.e. a bias towards neutral attitudes). That being said,
the present data does not provide enough information to test these possible hypotheses.
In terms of the benefits that people derive from the existence of the protected area, ecosystem services (excluding
agriculture) were cited most often (84%). While this shows that people generally express a positive attitude towards
the protected area for the natural resources it secures (e.g. water), it also shows that Cusuco currently provides few
direct economic benefits to local communities.
In sum, the general lack of negative attitudes is a condition that can facilitate community-based initiatives, but is not
sufficient in itself because of a lack of economic incentives. Moreover, some questions remain unanswered, including
the potential effect that enforcement may have in shifting attitudes.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Frequency
East North
* * * * *

8. PROJECT REPORT
8
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
A lack of government support and enforcement capacity makes it difficult to impose conservation on local
communities (Brockington, 2004). Although more enforcement could potentially reduce forest cover loss, social
impacts may be considerable and the long-term consequences on the forest are uncertain. Thus, the principal of
local support, which states that protected areas cannot be perpetuated without taking into account local livelihoods
(Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2002), appears to hold in the case of Cusuco. Community-based management may
therefore offer a viable alternative. However, the nature and mechanisms under which community-based initiatives
should operate remain to be explored. The previous sections demonstrate that local perceptions of ecosystem
services and the protected area by communities are two aspects that can facilitate the implementation of
community-based initiatives. This section presents potential barriers and provides a number of management
recommendations based on socioeconomic and institutional attributes characterising Cusuco National Park.
Achieving sustainable land use
Agriculture is virtually the only source of income for most of the households living within the protected area, with
an average of 98% of households deriving the majority of their income from land use. Completely shifting the
economic activity in the local area seems therefore unfeasible, at least in the short term. As a result, achieving
sustainable agricultural practices should be a priority. There is a large body of literature concerned with the best
way to reconcile biodiversity conservation with human development. Agriculture could become sustainable either
through the intensification of production (i.e. land sparing) or through the design of an agroforestry landscape (i.e.
land sharing) (Fischer et al., 2008; Ewers et al., 2009; Phalan et al., 2011). Different approaches are characterized by
different trade-offs (e.g. between forest cover and income; Steffan-Dewenter et al., 2007), so interventions should
be critically evaluated based on clear targets in biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction.
Land is not shared equally in the buffer zone of Cusuco, with an average Gini index4
of 0.639. This pattern was
consistent across communities (Gini > 0.5), which indicates that most of the land is owned by only few people. Thus,
a first step in the transition towards sustainable and efficient agriculture could target those people that own the
most land. While this may not reduce inequality in the park, livelihood would be improved on average. Moreover, a
considerable portion of the average income is derived from work as labour (35%) so improving practices would
potentially bring benefits reaching beyond the actual land owner. Another important aspect of improving agriculture
in the local area is to provide better access to the market and reduce the number of intermediaries between local
producers and traders. Interviewees mentioned this issue, and the creation of one cooperative in Nueva Esperanza
successfully led to more profitable coffee production (Don Majin Sorto, pers. comm., June 2014). Mechanisms for
improving agricultural practices and achieving sustainable land use should be examined further.
However, making local agriculture more profitable would essentially increase opportunity costs of avoided
deforestation and stimulate further encroachment as a result (Angelsen, 2010; Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2006). This
problem has been referred to as a Jevons paradox, whereby more intensification of agriculture results in more
deforestation (Ceddia et al., 2013). In addition, patterns of inequality in Cusuco show that even if agriculture
becomes more profitable, the benefits will not necessarily reach every individual in the population and unsustainable
agriculture could persist as a result. Thus, it is paramount that improved local agriculture is achieved in conjunction
with an adequate level of enforcement. Bruner et al. (2001) found that the effectiveness of protected areas was
generally not improved by increasing actual enforcement capacity, such as training, equipment and salary, with the
4
The Gini index ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality).

9. PROJECT REPORT
9
most determinant factor being the overall density of guards. An adequate form of enforcement in Cusuco could
therefore involve residents of the buffer zone with potentially low costs overall.
Financing community-based conservation
Perhaps the greatest barrier to any sort of community-based initiative in Cusuco is the current lack of financial
resources. Based on interviews, this problem is limiting management initiatives not only at the community level, but
also at the level of local governments and state organisations (ICF, DIMA). Between 1999 and 2002, annual financial
resources in Cusuco dropped from $132,000 to $40,000 (Field and Long, 2007; Lenkh, 2005). Today, the park
generates less than $5,000 annually, a revenue that cannot sustain the management required for an area of its size
(Alejandro Vallejo, pers. comm., August 2014). Moving towards better agricultural practice and implementing
adequate enforcement will necessarily require financial back-up.
Market-based instruments have emerged as a promising tool for biodiversity conservation (e.g. payments for
ecosystem services; Morse-Jones et al., 2011; Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation;
Burgess et al., 2011). Payments for ecosystem services (PES) can sometimes successfully contribute to poverty
reduction, while financing conservation. However, the success of implementation in poor areas depends on a variety
of factors, including willingness to participate, capacity, and collective action (Bulte et al., 2008).
As discussed above, participation is unlikely to be a major issue in Cusuco, as management targets can be aligned
with local values. However, interviews revealed that coordination was very limited between actors, between
communities and between governmental institutions. Cusuco overlaps with three different municipalities (Omoa,
San Pedro Sula and Quimistán), which appears to produce a considerably divided institutional environment. This,
together with a lack of resources and government support, could represent a real challenge for building capacity. If
market-based initiatives successfully generate financial resources for supporting community-based management, it
is unclear how funding would reach the level of the community where management would occur. It is also unclear
how benefits would be shared between local communities and state organisations. These issues are often mentioned
when implementing market-based instruments in developing countries (e.g. Bulte et al., 2008; Burgess et al., 2011)
and should be thoroughly examined.
Future directions
 Institutions and governance regime are found to be key determinants of success for community-based
conservation (Hayes, 2006). These aspects were only partially explored here and should be further investigated.
 Better understanding the socioeconomic and physical drivers of deforestation in Cusuco would allow the
identification of areas in the park that are most vulnerable to land cover change. For example, the high elevation
and remoteness of particular areas may confer some level of protection (Joppa and Pfaff, 2009). Understanding
these patterns would effectively inform conservation planning (e.g. Etter et al., 2006).
 The management of Cusuco should take into account the wider landscape. Even in places where protected areas
successfully reduce land cover change, habitat loss occurring beyond the protected boundaries may result in a
degree of isolation that can impact biodiversity overall (Sánchez-Azofeifa et al., 2003).
 Generally, management initiatives should be evaluated with clear conservation targets in mind. It would be
important to identify the trade-offs associated with particular practices.

10. PROJECT REPORT
10
CONCLUSION
The apparent lack of enforcement in Cusuco National Park suggests that engaging with local communities might be
necessary for achieving long term conservation targets. The present research study explored some of the conditions
that may either facilitate or hinder community-based conservation in Cusuco.
A multidimensional poverty index is a useful analytical lens for understanding the link between poverty and the
perception of the local ecosystem by communities. It also offers the potential for targeting specific areas of
deprivation while addressing issues in biodiversity conservation, as well as better understanding how the issue of
unsustainable resource-use could be tackled through community-based management.
Local communities in Cusuco place a high value on the provision of particular ecosystem services, such as water
provision and climate regulation. As a result, the communities of Cusuco offer the opportunity of aligning
conservation targets with local values.
The main challenge for conservation in the park is to reduce the impact of agriculture on forest cover. While this
issue could potentially be addressed through community-based initiatives, the quality of the governance regime and
strength of local institutions remain uncertain.
Ultimately, the successful implementation of community-based management will also largely depend on the
production of financial resources. Without effective enforcement in the protected area, potential barriers to
community-based management must be overcome in order to secure the future of Cusuco National Park and the
biodiversity it harbours.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Paul Jepson, Peter Long, Merlijn Jocque, Kathy Slater, Eimear Rooney and Krisztina Szalai for
useful comments in the development of this project. I would especially like to thank Steve Green, who helped in the
creation of this project and provided invaluable support. I am grateful to Don Majin Sorto and the Alvarenga family
for their hospitality, Arturo ZR for the translation of the final household questionnaire, and Mia Schatz for comments.
I would also like to thank ESAC, DIMA and the ICF for their cooperation and support. I am especially thankful to
Marcial Erazo, Rodolpho Bueso and Aleejandro Vallejo.
This research was funded by St Anne’s College (Oxford University) and the Oxford School of Geography and the
Environment.

11. PROJECT REPORT
11
REFERENCES
Alkire, S. and Santos, M.E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty:
A new index for developing countries.
Angelsen, A. (2010). Policies for reduced deforestation and their
impact on agricultural production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
107, 19639–19644.
Bennett, E.M., et al. (2009). Understanding relationships among
multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12, 1394–1404.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G.T., et al. (2002). Indigenous and Local
Communities and Protected Areas: Rethinking the
relationship. Parks, 12, 5-15.
Bradshaw, C.J.A., et al. (2009). Tropical turmoil—a biodiversity
tragedy in progress. Front. Ecol. Environ 7, 79–87.
Brockington, D. (2004). Community conservation, inequality and
injustice: Myths of power in protected area
management. Conservation and Society 2, 411-432.
Brooks, T.M., et al. (2004). Coverage provided by the global
protected-area system: is it enough? Bioscience 54, 1081–
1091.
Bruner, A.G., et al. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in protecting
tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125-128.
Bulte, E.H., et al. (2008). Payments for ecosystem services and
poverty reduction: concepts issues and empirical perspectives.
Environment and Development Economics 13 (3), 245–254.
Burgess, N. D., et al. (2010). Getting ready for REDD+ in Tanzania: a
case study of progress and challenges. Oryx, 44(03), 339-351.
Ceddia, M. G., et al. (2013). Sustainable agricultural intensification
or Jevons paradox? The role of public governance in tropical
South America. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1052-
1063.
Cernea, M.M. and Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty risks and
national parks: Policy issues in conservation and resettlement.
World Development 34: 1808-1830.
Chichilnisky, G. (1994). North-South trade and the global
environment. Am. Econ. Rev. 84, 851–874.
Córdova, F.F., et al. (2003). El Parque Nacional Cusuco, 1992-2002.
Fundación Ecologista Héctor Rodrigo Pastor Fasquelle.
Eken, G., et al. (2004) Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation
Targets. BioScience 54(12):1110-1118.
Ellis, E. C. (2013). Sustaining biodiversity and people in the world's
anthropogenic biomes. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 5(3), 368-372.
Etter A, et al. (2006). Regional patterns of agricultural land use and
deforestation in Colombia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 114: 369–386.
Ewers, R. M., et al. (2009). Do increases in agricultural yield spare
land for nature? Global Change Biology, 15(7), 1716-1726.
Field R. and Long P. (2007). Cusuco National Park, Honduras: 2007
Field Report (available from http://opwall.com – last accessed
August 28, 2014).
Fischer, J., et al. (2008). Should agricultural policies encourage land
sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front. Ecol. Environ. 6,
380–385.
Gibson, L., et al. (2011). Primary forest are irreplaceable for
sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381.
Gini, C. (1912). Variabilita e Mutabilita, Bologna.
Green, S., et al. (2012) Cusuco National Park, Honduras: 2012
Status Report (available from http://opwall.com – last
accessed August 28, 2014)
Hansen, M.C., et al. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-
century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160), 850-853.
Hayes, T.M. (2006). Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An
Institutional Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected
Areas. World Development, 34(12), 2064-75.
IUCN and UNEP. (2014). The World Database on Protected Areas
(WDPA). UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge, UK. (available from
www.protectedplanet.net – last accessed August 28, 2014).
Joppa, L. N. and Pfaff, A. (2009). High and far: biases in the locations
of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4, e8273.
Laurance, W.F., et al. (2012). Averting biodiversity collapse in
tropical forest protected areas. Nature, 489, 290–294.
Lenkh, C. (2005) Cusuco forest management report (available from
http://opwall.com – last accessed August 22, 2014).
Litchfield, J.A. (1999). Inequality: Methods and Tools. World Bank
Website on Inequality, Poverty, and Socioeconomic
Performance (available from http://www.worldbank.org/
poverty/inequality/index.htm, accessed August 21, 2014).
Lund, J.F., and Treue, T. (2008). Are we getting there? Evidence of
decentralized forest management from the Tanzanian
Miombo woodlands. World Development, 36(12), 2780-2800.
Mascia, M.B., et al. (2010). Impacts of marine protected areas on
fishing communities. Conservation Biology, 24(5), 1424-1429.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human
well-being. Vol. 5. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Morse‐Jones, S., et al. (2011). Ecosystem valuation: some principles
and a partial application. Environmetrics, 22(5), 675-685.
Myers, N., et al. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation
priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858.
Naidoo, R. and Adamowicz, W.L. (2006) Modeling opportunity costs
of conservation in transitional landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 20,
490–500.
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements:
Sen and Social Justice, Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 33-59.
Oates, J.F. (1995). The Dangers of Conservation by Rural
Development: A Case Study from the Forests of Nigeria. Oryx,
29, 115.22.
OPHI (2013) Country Briefing 2013: Honduras (available from
www.ophi.org.uk – last accessed August 20, 2014).
Phalan, B., et al. (2011). Reconciling food production and
biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing
compared. Science 333, 1289–1291.
Pimm, S. L. and Raven, P. R. (2000). Biodiversity: extinction by
numbers. Nature 403, 843–845.

12. PROJECT REPORT
12
Porter-Bolland, L. et al. (2012). Community managed forests and
forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation
effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and
Management 268, 6-17.
Rodrigues, A.S.L., et al. (2004) Global gap analysis: priority regions
for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience
54, 1092–1100.
Sampaio G, (2007). Regional climate change over eastern Amazonia
caused by pasture and soybean cropland expansion. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 34, L17709.
Sanchez-Azofeifa G.A. (2003). Integrity and isolation of Costa Rica’s
national ´parks and biological reserves: examining the
dynamics of land-cover change. Biol. Conserv. 109, 123–35.
Sen, A. (2000). A Decade of Human Development. Journal of Human
Development, 1(1), 17-23.
Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason: Continuing the
Conversation, Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77-80.
Spinage, C. (1998). Social Change and Conservation
Misrepresentation in Africa., Oryx, 32, 265.76.
Steffan-Dewenter, I., et al. (2007). Tradeoffs between income,
biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical
rainforest conversion and agroforestry
intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,104(12), 4973-4978.
West P., et al. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of
protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251–77.