The roles of local, national and international designations in conserving biocultural diversity on a landscape scale

In proposing this special issue of the International Journal of Heritage Studies (IJHS), we drew attention to an emerging global awareness that the continued coevolution of biological and cultural diversity (‘biocultural diversity’) in diverse landscapes is under threat (Pretty et al. 2009). We further noted the wide recognition of the inestimable importance of this loss to both local communities and humanity in general. International bureaucracies (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Global Environmental Facility, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), among others) have been responding to these concerns by expanding existing frameworks and creating new designations for landscape conservation. Additional denominations are emerging within frameworks of regional programmes, national legislation and local customs. This trend promises to intensify further as parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity seek to expand protected area coverage to include 17% of the world’s terrestrial surface by 2020. The definition of protected areas has been evolving ever since the initial national park model was established in the United States some 140 years ago. Many novel designations have emerged, embracing both human inhabited landscapes – which incorporate the dwelt-in perspectives of peoples engaged with their environments – as well as areas dedicated to strict nature preservation that exclude people. In general, the new designations place greater emphasis on human involvement in the evolution of landscapes and the biodiversity and ecosystem processes they encompass (Berkes 2009). These diverse approaches to conservation have provided an alluring focus for researchers from a diverse range of disciplines who critique the social dynamics and power relations at play in conservation designations and the planned landscapes they engender. The accelerated pace of conservation has led to concerns that an expansion of protected areas could compromise the ability of indigenous peoples and local communities to control the fate of their own environments. The biodiversity conservation community has been seriously challenged by fundamental critiques of conservation activities that effectively exclude local communities and undermine