Many scholars and managers now question the traditional top-down, and often hegemonic, approaches of excluding local participation and ignoring local interests in the management of biodiversity both within and outside formally protected areas (Johnston, 1995; Kiss, 1990). Greater participatory planning is believed to enhance local support for biodiversity conservation goals and decrease conflicts between local people and conservation authorities (Happold, 1995; Heinen, 1996; Manfredo et al., 2004). Efforts worldwide to integrate biodiversity conservation and rural development objectives have had mixed results, indicating that synergies between the two are not inherent, and they are not a panacea (Alpert, 1996; Barrett et al., 2005; Hughes & Flintan, 2001; Newmark & Hough, 2000). We argue here that they must more fully incorporate local worldviews in their design and implementation if they ever hope to succeed. For institutions responsible for conservation, detailed knowledge of the people whose lives are affected by conservation policies can be as important as information about the biodiversity to be conserved (Anthony & Bellinger, 2007; Brechin et al., 2002; Veech, 2003). Moreover, it has been noted that in addition to playing a key role in human-environment interactions (Nietschmann, 1992; Smith, 2001), cultural elements of nature protection can be a resource providing insight into the development of conservation plans (Kuriyan, 2002; Stevens, 1997) while also reinforcing community identity and, promoting community cohesion and adaptability (Goodland, 1991; Kleymeyer, 1992; Robinson & Redford, 1994). Thus, recognition and understanding of different local cultural systems permit a broader, more appropriate overall policy toward natural resource use (Maffi, 2004).
