Positioning human heritage at the center of conservation practice

Conservation projects subscribing to a community-based paradigm have predominated in the 21st century. We examined the context in which the phrase was coined and traced its growth over time. Community-based conservation first appeared in the literature in the early 1990s; but grew little until after the 5th World Parks Congress in 2003. Thereafter, publications describing community-based conservation approaches increased exponentially. The conference theme was Benefits Beyond Boundaries, and its goal was to provide an economic model based on revenue accrued from conservation fundraising and ecotourism to support ecosystems, wildlife, and people, particularly in the Global South. Such models tended not to incorporate, as a core principle, the heritage of local human communities. Human heritage varies substantially over time and space making generalization of conservation principles across scales challenging. Pitfalls that have grown out of the community-based conservation approaches in the Global South include fortress conservation, conservation militarism, consumptive and nonconsumptive ecotourism, and whiz-bang solutions. We propose 10 tenets in a human heritage-centered conservation framework (e.g., engage in conservation practices using local languages, thoughtfully propose and apply solutions consistent with human heritage, provide clear professional development pathways for individuals from local communities, and promote alternative revenue-generating programs centered in local communities, among others). Progressive philosophies can derive from authentic and ethical integration of local communities in conservation practice.     

Total versus inhalable sampler comparison study for the determination of asphalt fume exposures within the road paving industry

Exposure to asphalt fumes has a threshold limit value (TLV of 0.5 mg m(-3) (benzene extractable inhalable particulate) as recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). This reflects a recent change (2000) whereby two variables are different from the previous recommendation. First is a 10-fold reduction in quantity from 5 mg m(-3) to 0.5 mg m(-3). Secondly, the new TLV specifies the "inhalable" fraction as compared to what is presumed to be total particulate. To assess the impact of these changes, this study compares the differences between measurements of paving asphalt fume exposure in the field using an "inhalable" instrument versus the historically used 'total' sampler. Particle size is also examined to assist in the understanding of the aerodynamic collection differences as related to asphalt fumes and confounders. Results show that when exposures are limited to asphalt fumes, a 1:1 relationship exists between samplers, showing no statistically significant differences in benzene soluble matter (BSM). This means that for the asphalt fume ACGIH TLV, the 'total' 37-mm sampler is an equivalent method to the "inhalable" method, referred to as IOM (Institute of Occupational Medicine), and should be acceptable for use against the TLV. However, the study found that when confounders (dust or old asphalt millings) are present in the workplace, there can be significant differences between the two samplers' reported exposure. The ratio of IOM/Total was 1.37 for milling asphalt sites, 1.41 for asphalt paving over granular base, and 1.02 for asphalt over asphalt pavements.