No, the poor living around protected areas should not disproportionately bear the burden of wildlife conservation. I believe that all people should have a role in protecting wildlife and their habitats, and the burden should be shared fairly. I think that Governments should ensure that the rights of local communities are respected and that they are involved in decision-making related to conservation. Financial assistance, compensation, and alternative livelihoods should be provided to local people when needed. In addition, more effort should be made to reduce human-wildlife conflict, which disproportionately affects poor people living near protected areas.

Yes, unfortunately they should, because greater care is required by those who live adjacent to protected areas. I'm in the same situation with my land being adjacent to protected natural areas. On the plus side, those people can enjoy the presence of beautiful species that others cannot :)

It will not be ineffective. But in order to reduce the negative effects, it is necessary to get help from local people in the protection of the area, so that both the protection is successful and the local people benefit in improving life and creating employment.

Living near protected areas has its advantages and disadvantages;

Disadvantages: Conflict with the region and wildlife (@Peter Donkor), Indiscriminate hunting, Attacks of predatory animals on livestock and people, etc.

Advantages: Creating jobs, Using wildlife meat during the hunting season, Benefiting from the beauty of wildlife(@Dr. Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman), etc.

I would rather say, whether the community has a poor or rich living or it is located far away or around protected areas, it is the responsibility for every individual, community, organization or nation to consider the wildlife conservation. Globalization, industrial revolution and urbanization are the pillars of economic development but unfortunately unsustainable development which are also drivers of wildlife degradation. wildlife conservation should not be only community based but is mandatory to be integrated based.

No, the poor should be given the benefit of any tourist revenue or jobs that accrue from running the protected area. If their standard of living drops as a result of having the protected area, they will become resentful and actively undermine the protected area. Wealthier people, on the other hand, who live adjacent to protected areas should contribute to it's upkeep. It's all related to the hierarchy of needs. If someone has an empty stomach, having a protected area next to them does not measurably improve their lives, whilst a person who is better off is not worrying about hunger pangs and can enjoy the beauty and peace associated with living adjacent to the protected area.

No, the poor living around protected areas should not disproportionately bear the burden of wildlife conservation. In many cases, these communities have lived in close proximity to wildlife for generations and have developed traditional practices for coexisting with wildlife. However, conservation efforts can often result in restrictions on land use and access to natural resources, which can negatively impact the livelihoods and well-being of these communities.

It is important to ensure that conservation efforts are implemented in a way that takes into account the needs and rights of local communities, and that they benefit from conservation activities. This can be done through a variety of approaches, including:

By ensuring that conservation efforts are equitable and benefit local communities, it is possible to build support for conservation and reduce conflicts between wildlife and people. This will not only help protect wildlife and ecosystems, but also promote sustainable development and improve the well-being of local communities.