Warning - might be a rant
It seems the effect of overpopulation on the environment inevitably causes depletion of natural resources in that area, as well as gradual or rapid destruction of the environment as a whole - leading to worse issues than simply loss of natural resources (pollution, disease epidemics, and sanitation issues for example).
I think that government sanctions limiting development could be sustainable, however the benefits may be easily out weighed by the costs. First, there are serious ethical implications that need to be considered, especially when limiting people's freedom to use their land or property as they see fit - or how they absolutely need to use it. It goes without saying that some (esp. public health) issues do need regulation and sanctions from a government - building codes, health codes, and pollution laws as an example (indeed, even these come with time as a nation develops). But there is also the consideration of the needs of the people in that particular region. For example, if the primary means by which people in a given area put food on the table is by subsistence farming - before a switch to industrial farming can take place the people need to receive education and an industry that they can make money with. In other cultures this may not even be a possibility for a long, long time. I think the major issue is forcing people to do one thing or another is not good - as we saw in the Karatu case with the Ujama policy.
As a real life example aside from our Karatu case, I think of Burma and the Karen people I worked with, deep in the jungle growing rice for themselves, and only just enough to feed their families. It is simply not possible for most of them to make a rapid transition to something new. They would have no food, no work, no life. But they are attempting to move forward also. Maybe 15-20 years ago, the primary means of large vehicular transportation was by elephant (they still use them). But more recently they have acquired large tractors and build seasonal roads (the roads get destroyed in the rainy season). Goods are smuggled across the Salween river and they use primarily Thai currency - shops are opening, some "restaurants" are open in the bigger villages. They are beginning to have solar electricity available, and some even have internet and wifi available by satellite dish. So they are moving forward in their own time. It is possible that over time some areas there will become overcrowded due to new industry - but they almost need to address this by themselves in order to develop into a more established region of the world. What I see as the major concerns are primarily health issues - malnutrition is common due to inability to produce enough food (or only eating rice and little else). As they gradually transition to a more developed region, there are certainly dietary concerns that arise (importation of soda, junk food, etc. and a dimunition of a traditional - generally healthy -diet). Sanitation is poor at best. Endemic diseases like malaria are quite common. And most Karen people do not have access to real healthcare other than a village healthcare worker who received a month or two of training (like seeing an EMT-B with no bandages or medicine for all of your needs).
Anyway, my point is that there are going to be growing pains in the process of development. But limiting development - I don't think that limiting development is especially helpful, in particular when we take into consideration the needs of individual people and families. I think the government made this mistake in our Karatu case; they saw the emergence of land less laborers, and redistributed the land to meet the supposed needs of those without land. But in doing so they cut the ability of the land to produce surplus food, and the farming switched back to subsistence farming. So they ended up basically taking a step backwards, and introducing local land conflicts in the process. Had the Iraqw and others never been forced to do anything, they would have eventually developed on their own (with growing pains).
So I don't think that limiting development is good. It doesn't allow families to make the appropriate adjustments to meet their needs as society changes - which it will regardless of the government's involvement. But a family that is afforded the opportunity - the freedom - to adjust and change to "rise to the occasion" is a family that will survive and thrive (in my opinion).
In the case of Burma, for me - I don't know that there is any clear cut solution. But I do know that from an external perspective we must follow the old adage from Hippocrates: "first, do no harm". I think we can help bring medicine, provide comprehensive medical training, provide good health care when able, provide easy (and cheap) solutions for sanitation issues and public health issues (mosquito nets are absolutely critical in the fight against Malaria). We can help them get access to information and education - which will allow them to educate themselves and develop at their own pace. We can advocate for their rights as a oppressed minority group. But we can't force them to do anything. This would be very counter productive and probably detrimental to the region. They have their own culture and their own ways. And for the life of me, I don't want to change it a bit. They are the kindest, gentlest, nicest people I have met, and love strangers like their own family (they are also quite fierce warriors, oddly). They will be just fine adapting to the modern world at their own pace.