Type of study:
Type of publication:
Peer-review published journal paper
Mechanism by which biodiversity affects poverty:
Biodiversity component details:
Morne Trois Pitons World Heritage Site, specifically Warmmae Letang.
Creation of tourism jobs.
Intervention employed other:
Community based tourism project designed to aid development of the local communities through the use of the aesthetic beauty of the heritage site to attract tourists.
Measure of poverty impact used:
Income generated, skills learnt, businesses set up.
Assessment of impact on poverty:
Evidence assesses the scale of impact:
Scale of impact details:
In terms of human development, the project can claim some success with ten tour guides becoming qualified for certification by the NDC. The women who operated the kitchen and dining facilities have significantly improved their skills and are now capable of offering professional-level catering services. Managing director indicated that he has learned a great deal. The financial benefits of the project appear to have been minimal, just enough to keep the project afloat for 3 years, during the better days benefits were received by both the tour guides and the local community through the sale of goods to tourists, and the sale of food items to the catering company established.
Sustainability of biodiversity use:
Attribute of biodiversity affecting poverty:
Does the evidence relate to a specific intervention?:
How does the mechanism affect poverty?:
It generates income/tradeable surplus
Mechanism affects poverty precisely how:
The tourism would require tour guides, catering staff etc which would in turn would generate income.
Evidence provides measure of poverty impact:
Evidence is site-specific:
Research method details:
Interviews with team members, and an examination of the financial records kept throughout the project.
Unit of analysis and sample size:
Does the evidence mention the general biodiversity status of the country/region?:
General biodiversity status described:
The morne Trois pitons national park...has been described by UNESCO as comprising the best remaining examples of volcanic island eco-systems remaining in the Caribbean.
Does the evidence describe the biodiversity status of the site?:
Site biodiversity status described:
Strictly protected resulting in limited use of natural resources by the local communities.
Does the evidence mention the general poverty status of the country/region?:
Site poverty status described:
The level of poverty and indigence in the area is about average for Dominica at 12% and 11% respectively.
Does the evidence discuss the governance regime at the site?:
Does the evidence describe the poverty/socioeconomic status of the site?:
The author goes into quite a lot of depth about how the community had a "up hill battle" to get the tourism department of the government to grant them permission to use the lake for tourism purposes and that "permission was reluctantly granted". Community based decision making, with regards to this project a council made up of willing members of the community was formed to democratically voted in.
What is the resource rights regime?:
Resource rights regime details:
Permission granted for tourism usage, but with strict restrictions for example park must be closed by 5pm.
What is the land tenure regime?:
Land tenure regime details:
State owned and controlled due to it being a world heritage site.
Does the evidence mention the power relations?:
Power relations details:
The paper goes into considerable detail, explaining how this project was at first a community effort, but how the group leader was more committed to the project and so came to feel that he owned it, causing many members of the group to leave when they felt their opinions weren't being considered.
Does the evidence consider possible trade-offs/costs as well as benefits?:
Costs and benefits details:
The cost of breaking up the community is considered. Due to the actions of the project leader, many of the members of the community feel resentment towards him due to his over control of the project and its subsequent failure.
Measure of poverty impact tag:
Distribution impacts considered:
Duration of impact considered:
Duration of impact details:
3 years, after that the project failed, though the infrastructure is now in place and a investment could make use of this to reduce initial set up costs.
Outcome replicable elsewhere considered:
Thresholds/boundary limits/tipping points of achieving the outcome considered:
How costs and benefits/impacts might vary across different spatial scales considered:
Presence of possible confounding factors acknowledged:
How mechanism affects poverty other:
Provides training and a chance to acquire new skills.