Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 60, Issue 6, pp 1022–1041 | Cite as

Exploring Institutional Mechanisms for Scientific Input into the Management Cycle of the National Protected Area Network of Peru: Gaps and Opportunities

  • M. D. López-Rodríguez
  • H. Castro
  • M. Arenas
  • J. M. Requena-Mullor
  • A. Cano
  • E. Valenzuela
  • J. Cabello
Article

Abstract

Understanding how to improve decision makers’ use of scientific information across their different scales of management is a core challenge for narrowing the gap between science and conservation practice. Here, we present a study conducted in collaboration with decision makers that aims to explore the functionality of the mechanisms for scientific input within the institutional setting of the National Protected Area Network of Peru. First, we analyzed institutional mechanisms to assess the scientific information recorded by decision makers. Second, we developed two workshops involving scientists, decision makers and social actors to identify barriers to evidence-based conservation practice. Third, we administered 482 questionnaires to stakeholders to explore social perceptions of the role of science and the willingness to collaborate in the governance of protected areas. The results revealed that (1) the institutional mechanisms did not effectively promote the compilation and application of scientific knowledge for conservation practice; (2) six important barriers hindered scientific input in management decisions; and (3) stakeholders showed positive perceptions about the involvement of scientists in protected areas and expressed their willingness to collaborate in conservation practice. This collaborative research helped to (1) identify gaps and opportunities that should be addressed for increasing the effectiveness of the institutional mechanisms and (2) support institutional changes integrating science-based strategies for strengthening scientific input in decision-making. These insights provide a useful contextual orientation for scholars and decision makers interested in conducting empirical research to connect scientific inputs with operational aspects of the management cycle in other institutional settings around the world.

Keywords

Decision making Evidence-based conservation Science-policy gaps Protected Area Research Transdisciplinary research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Spanish Agency of International Cooperation for Development for a grant to MDLR (Becas MAEC-AECID de Cooperación Universitaria y Científica para el Desarrollo) and the financial support of the International Campus of Excellence for Environment, Biodiversity and Global Change (CEICambio), the Mountain Institute, and the National University Santiago Antunez de Mayolo. We thank the National Service of Natural Protected Areas in Peru (SERNANP) and the National University of San Marcos, through the Natural History Museum, for providing support for the research activities. The authors are very grateful to all of the scientists, decision makers and social actors who were involved in this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. AIDER (Asociación para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Integral, Nature consulting) (2010) Estudio de La Demanda de Investigación Científica Para La Reserva Nacional Tambopata. Informe Final.Google Scholar
  2. Amano T, González-Varo JP, Sutherland WJ (2016) Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS Biol 14(12):e2000933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, Braunisch V (2010) From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60(10):835–842. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armitage D, de Loë RC, Morris M, Edwards TWD, Gerlak AK, Hall RI, Huitema D, Ison R, Livingstone D, MacDonald G, Mirumachi N, Plummer R, Wolfe BB (2015) Science-policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio 44(5):353–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradburn N, Sudman S, Wansink B (2004) Asking questions: a practical guide to questionnaire design. Comput Environ Urban Syst 14(1):72, http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/019897159090052U Google Scholar
  6. Canhos DAL, Sousa-Baena MS, de Souza S, Maia LC, Stehmann JR, Canhos VP, De Giovanni R, Bonacelli MBM, Los W, Peterson AT (2015) The importance of biodiversity e-infrastructures for megadiverse countries. PLoS Biol 13(7):e1002204, http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14): 8086–8091Google Scholar
  8. Catorci A, Cesaretti S, Velasquez JL, Zeballos H (2011) Plant–plant spatial interactions in the dry puna (Southern Peruvian Andes). Alp Bot 121(2):113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) United Nations convention on biological diversity. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
  10. Chapple RS, Ramp D, Bradstock RA, Kingsford RT, Merson JA, Auld TD, Fleming PJS, Mulley RC (2011) Integrating science into management of ecosystems in the greater blue mountains. Environ Manage 48(4):659–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9721-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conservation International Tambopata Reserve Society (CITRS) (1995) Agraria La Molina National University abstracts of investigations around Explorer’s Inn. https://explorersinnblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/reporte-tambopata-explores-inn-005.pdf
  12. Cook CN, Hockings M, Carter RW (2010) Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Front Ecol Environ 8(4):181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto IM, Petersen A, Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costello MJ, Wieczorek J (2014) Best practice for biodiversity data management and publication. Biol Conserv 173:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Bradley EH (2009) Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation 119(10):1442–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cvitanovic C, Cunningham R, Dowd A-M, Howden, SM, van Putten EI (2017) Using social network analysis to monitor and assess the effectiveness of knowledge brokers at connecting scientists and decision-makers: an Australian case study. Environ Policy Gov. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/eet.1752
  17. Dedeurwaerdere T, Admiraal J, Beringer A, Bonaiuto F, Cicero L, Fernandez-Wulff P, Hagens J, Hiedanp J, Knights P, Molinario E, Melindi-Ghidi P, Popa F, Silc U, Soethe N, Soininen T, Luis Vivero J (2016) Combining internal and external motivations in multi-actor governance arrangements for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy 58:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeFries RSD, Erle CE, Stuart Chapin III F, Matson PA, BL Turner L, Agrawal A, Crutzen PJ, Field C, Gleick P, Kareiva PM, Lambin E, Liverman D, Ostrom E, Sanchez PA, Syvitski J (2012) Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience 62(6):603–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Marco M, Chapman S, Althor G, Kearney S, Besancon C, Butt N, Maina JM, Possingham HP, Rogalla von Bieberstein K, Venter O, Watson JEM (2017) Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Glob Ecol Conserv 10:32–42. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2351989417300148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dreiss LM, Hessenauer, JM Nathan, LR, O’Connor KM, Liberati, MR, Kloster DP, Barclay JR, Vokoun JC and Morzillo AT (2016) Adaptive management as an effective strategy: interdisciplinary perceptions for natural resources management. Environ Manage 1–12. doi:  10.1007/s00267-016-0785-0
  21. Fazey I, Mcquie A (2005) Applying conservation theory in natural areas management. Ecol Manage Restor 6(2):147–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groenendijk J, Tovar A, Wust WH (eds) (2013) Reporte Manu 2013: Pasión Por La Investigación En La Amazonía Peruana. San Diego Zoo Global Peru y SERNANP. p 466. ISBN:978-612-46493-0-1Google Scholar
  23. Hegger D, Lamers M, Van Zeijl-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2012) Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environ Sci Policy 18:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hering JG (2016) Do we need ‘more research’ or better implementation through knowledge brokering? Sustain Sci 11(2):363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herweg K, Schäfer N, Zimmermann A (2012) Guidelines for integrative training in inter- and transdisciplinary research settings: hints and tools for trainers of trainers. Geographica Bernensia, Bern, Switzerland, p 12–13Google Scholar
  26. Holmgren M, Schnitzer SA (2004) Science on the rise in developing countries. PLoS Biol 2(1):10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA) (2006) Resolucion de Intendencia 051-2006 para el reconocimiento y funcionamiento de los Comités de Gestión en Áreas Protegidas. Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales, PerúGoogle Scholar
  28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, p 1535. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Frontmatter_FINAL.pdf
  29. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Josse C, Cuesta F, Navarro G, Barrena V, Cabrera E, Chacón-Moreno E, Ferreira W, Peralvo M, Saito J, Tovar A (2009) Ecosistemas de Los Andes Del Norte Y Centro. Lima - Perú: Secretaría General de la Comunidad Andina, Programa Regional ECOBONA-Intercooperation, CONDESAN-Proyecto Páramo Andino, Programa BioAndes, EcoCiencia, NatureServe, IAvH, LTA-UNALM, ICAE-ULA, CDC-UNALM, RUMBOL SRL.Google Scholar
  31. Kirchhoff CJ, Lemos MC, Dessai S (2013) Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Ann Rev Environ Resour 38(1):393–414. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84887439250&partnerID=tZOtx3y1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22(3):610–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. León B, Pitman N, Roque J (2013) Introducción a Las Plantas Endémicas Del Perú. Rev Peru Biol 13(2):9–22. http://revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/rpb/article/view/1782 Google Scholar
  34. López-Rodríguez MD, Castro AJ, Castro H, Jorreto S, Cabello J (2015) Science-policy interface for addressing environmental problems in Arid Spain. Environ Sci Policy 50:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marshall N, Adger N, Attwood S, Brown K, Crissman C, Cvitanovic C, De Young C, Gooch M, James C, Jessen S, Johnson D, Marshall P, Park S, Wachenfeld D, Wrigley D (2017) Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy. PLoS One 12(3):e0171950. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matzek V, Covino J, Funk JL, Saunders M (2014) Closing the knowing-doing gap in invasive plant management: accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research. Conserv Lett 7(3):208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mehring M, Bernard B, Hummel D, Liehr S, Lux A (2017) Halting biodiversity loss: how social–ecological biodiversity research makes a difference. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 13(1):172–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1289246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM) (2014a) Estrategia Nacional de Cambio Climático. http://www.minam.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Estrategia-Nacional-ante-el-Cambio-Climatico_ENCC.pdf
  40. Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM) (2014b) Estrategia Nacional de Diversidad Biologica: Al 2021 al Plan de acción 2014-2018. http://sinia.minam.gob.pe/documentos/estrategia-nacional-diversidad-biologica-2021-plan-accion-2014-2018
  41. Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM) (2015) Decreto Supremo para promover el desarrollo de investigación en Áreas Protegidas. Perú: El Peruano, Ministerio del Ambiente, 27 setiembre de 2015Google Scholar
  42. Pacheco V, Cadenillas R, Salas E, Tello C, Zeballos H (2009) Diversidad Y Endemismo de Los Mamíferos Del Perú. Rev Peru Biol 16(1):5–32Google Scholar
  43. PSI-connect (2012) Collaborative Tools and Processes for Connecting Policy and Science. Hand on approach. Final Report, 1-24. http://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/226/226915/final1-226915-1136603-15194-a4-20p-brochure-aug-12lowres.pdf
  44. Pullin AS, Knight TM (2001) Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and public health. Conserv Biol 15(1):50–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99499.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pullin AS, Knight TM (2003) Nature conservation support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. J Nat Conserv 90:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone DA, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol Conserv 119(2):245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  48. Reid WV (2004) Bridging the science-policy divide. PLoS Biol 2(2):169–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roux D, Rogers KH, Biggs HC, Ashton PJ, Sergeant A (2006) Bridging the Science – Management Divide: Moving from Unidirectional Knowledge Transfer to Knowledge Interfacing and Sharing. Ecol and Soc 11(1):4–23.Google Scholar
  50. Rudd MA (2011) How Research-Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for. Conserv Biol 25(5):860–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sarukhán J, Jiménez R (2016) Generating intelligence for decision making and sustainable use of natural capital in Mexico. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:153–159. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877343516300069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas por el Estado del Peru (2010) Resolución presidencial No25-2010-SERNANP para promover la investigación dentro de las Áreas Protegidas. Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas por el Estado, Ministerio d el Ambiente, PerúGoogle Scholar
  53. Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas por el Estado del Peru (SERNANP) (2013) Los Impactos Del Cambio Global En Las Áreas Naturales Protegidas Y Sus Zonas de Influencia: El Caso Del Parque Nacional Huascarán Y La Cuenca Del Río Santa. Sertvicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas por el Estado, Ministerio del Ambiente, Lima - PerúGoogle Scholar
  54. Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The Need for Evidence-Based Conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19(6):305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sutherland WJ, Fleishman E, Mascia MB, Pretty J, Rudd MA (2011) Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods Ecol Evol 2(3):238–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Toomey AH, Knight AT, Barlow J (2016) Navigating the Space between Research and Implementation in Conservation. Conservation Letters, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12315
  57. van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39(7):807–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Kerkhoff L, Pilbeam V (2017) Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: a knowledge governance approach. Environ Sci Policy 73:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vuille M, Francou B, Wagnon P, Juen I, Kaser G, Mark BG, Bradley RS (2008) Climate change and tropical andean glaciers: past, present and future. Earth-Science Rev 89(3–4):79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wyborn C (2015) Connectivity conservation: boundary objects, science narratives and the co-production of science and practice. Environ Sci Policy 51:292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Young JC, Waylen KA, Sarkki S, Albon S, Bainbridge I, Balian E, Davidson J, Edwards D, Fairley R, Margerison C, McCracken D, Owen R, Quine CP, Stewart-Roper C, Thompson D, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23(2):387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Young JC, Searle K, Butler A, Simmons P, Watt AD, Jordan A (2016) The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biol Conserv 195:196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Geology, Andalusian Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of Global ChangeUniversity of AlmeriaAlmeriaSpain
  2. 2.National Service of Natural Protected Areas in PeruLimaPeru
  3. 3.National University of San Marcos, Natural History MuseumLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations