Advertisement

Ambio

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 608–621 | Cite as

Toward successful implementation of conservation research: A case study from Vietnam

  • Huong Do Thi
  • Max Krott
  • Michael Böcher
  • Nataly Juerges
Research Article
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

A number of different approaches have been used to explain the successes and failures of biodiversity conservation strategies in developing countries. However, to date, little attention has been paid toward assessing the influence of knowledge transfer between science, policy, and conservation practices in the implementation of these strategies. Vietnam’s Pu Luong Cuc Phuong Conservation Area is a globally important ecosystem, situated within a limestone landscape and inhabited by hundreds of local communities. Biodiversity conservation has become an important part of sustainable development in this area. This study analyzes three conservation strategies employed in the Pu Luong Cuc Phuong Conservation Area by applying the Research–Integration–Utilization (RIU) model of scientific knowledge transfer. Our analyses reveal weaknesses in scientific knowledge transfer arising from low-quality research and poor integration strategies. Based on our results, we developed recommendations to improve research and integration in an effort to enhance science-based policy support.

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation ICDP Poverty alleviation Pu Luong Cuc Phuong RIU model Scientific knowledge transfer 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate the financial support of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Vietnamese Government Fund (911 Scholarship). This research was supported by the Chair Group of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, George-August University of Göttingen, Germany, and Vietnam National University of Forestry. We thank all of the experts and officials involved in the study, particularly those from Fauna and Flora International Vietnam, PLNR, NSNLNR, and CPNP for providing valuable data. We owe a debt of gratitude to local people in PLNR and NSNLNR who gave their time to participate in interviews, provide much practical information and share their knowledge, experiences, and opinions with us. Finally, we would like to thank four anonymous referees for their very helpful comments on this article.

Supplementary material

13280_2017_999_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 55 kb)

References

  1. Adams, W.M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington, B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, B. Vira, et al. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306: 1146–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adrianzén, M.A. 2013. Improved cooking stoves and firewood consumption: Quasi-experimental evidence from the Northern Peruvian Andes. Ecological Economics 89: 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal, A., and A. Chhatre. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Development 34: 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apel, U., O.C. Maxwell, T.N. Nguyen, M. Nurse, R.K. Puri, and V.C. Trieu. 2002. Collaborative management and conservation: A strategy for community based natural resource management of special use forest in Vietnam—Case studies from Pu Luong Nature Reserve. Cambridge, UK: Thanh Hoa Province. Fauna & Flora International/World Bank.Google Scholar
  5. Arcese, P., J. Hando, and K. Campbell. 1995. Historical and present-day anti-poaching efforts in Serengeti. In Serengeti II: Dynamics, management, and conservation of an ecosystem, ed. A.R.E. Sinclair, and P. Arcese, 506–533. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, M. 2002. Clarifying the links between forests and poverty reduction. The International Forestry Review 4: 231–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balint, P.J. 2006. Improving community-based conservation near protected areas: The importance of development variables. Environmental Management 38: 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett, C.B., D.R. Lee, and J.G. McPeak. 2005. Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resource conservation. World Development 33: 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beck, S. 2011. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change 11: 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bene, J.G., H.W. Beall, and A. Coote. 1977. Trees, food and people: Land management in the tropics. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Center.Google Scholar
  11. Bensch, G., and J. Peters. 2015. The intensive margin of technology adoption–Experimental evidence on improved cooking stoves in rural Senegal. Journal of health economics 42: 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 15188–15193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhagwat, S.A., K.J. Willis, H.J.B. Birks, and R.J. Whittaker. 2008. Agroforestry: A refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology Evolution 23: 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biermann, F., and P.H. Pattberg. 2012. Global environmental governance reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Böcher, M. 2012. A theoretical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. Forest Policy and Economics 16: 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Böcher, M. 2016. How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer. Forest Policy and Economics 68: 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Böcher, M., and M. Krott. 2014. The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: The case of the “decision support system forest” and climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 3641–3656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Böcher, M., and M. Krott. 2016. Science makes the world go round: Successful scientific knowledge transfer for the environment. Basel: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brooks, J.S., M.A. Franzen, C.M. Holmes, M.N. Grote, and M.B. Mulder. 2006. Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 20: 1528–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brooks, J.S., K.A. Waylen, and M.B. Mulder. 2012. How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 21265–21270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brown, K. 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal 168: 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chapason, L., and S. van den Hove. 2009. The debate on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES): Exploring gaps and needs. Idées pour le débat 1.Google Scholar
  23. Christensen, J. 2004. Win-win illusions. Conservation 5: 12–19.Google Scholar
  24. Dharmawan, B., M. Böcher, and M. Krott. 2016. The failure of the mangrove conservation plan in Indonesia: Weak research and an ignorance of grassroots politics. Ocean and Coastal Management 130: 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dharmawan, B., M. Böcher, and M. Krott. 2017. Failure of science-based win-win solution in fishery management: Learnings from Segara Anakan Waters, Central Java, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 141: 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dietz, T., and P.C. Stern. 1998. Science, values, and biodiversity. BioScience Policy Forum 48: 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Do Thi, H., M. Krott, and M. Böcher. 2017. The success of scientific support for biodiversity conservation policy: The case of Ngoc Son Ngo Luong Nature Reserve in Vietnam. Journal for Nature Conservation 38: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dresen, E., B. DeVries, M. Herold, L. Verchot, and R. Müller. 2014. Fuelwood savings and carbon emission reductions by the use of improved cooking stoves in an Afromontane Forest, Ethiopia. Land 3: 1137–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferraro, P.J., and A. Kiss. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298: 1718–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2002a. Detailed proposal for development of the Pu Luong-Cuc Phuong Limestone Landscape Conservation Project. Hanoi: Vietnam Country Program.Google Scholar
  31. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2002b. Baseline survey report: Survey of communes in Mai Chau. FFI Vietnam, Hanoi: Tan Lac and Lac Son Districts of Hoa Binh Province.Google Scholar
  32. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2002c. Preliminary village survey: Surveys of villager in Thanh Son, Ha Trung and Lung Cao Communes, Ba Thuoc District. FFI Vietnam, Hanoi: Thanh Hoa Province.Google Scholar
  33. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2003a. A survey of hunting status and collection of non-timber forest products in Pu Luong Nature Reserve and its surrounding forests. Hanoi: FFI Vietnam.Google Scholar
  34. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2003b. Options for gun control program. Discussion paper for presentation to hunting workshop. Hoa Binh, Vietnam.Google Scholar
  35. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2005. Report on development initiatives in the buffer zone in Hoa Binh. Pu Luong Cuc Phuong limestone landscape conservation project. Hanoi: FFI Vietnam.Google Scholar
  36. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2006. Implementation completion report phase 1: Pu Luong—Cuc Phuong Limestone Landscape Conservation Project. Hanoi: Vietnam Country Program.Google Scholar
  37. FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2009. Implementation completion report phase 2: Pu Luong-Cuc Phuong Limestone Landscape Conservation Project. Hanoi: Vietnam Country Program.Google Scholar
  38. Garnett, S.T., J. Sayer, and J. du Toit. 2007. Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and development: A conceptual framework. Ecology and Society 12: 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guston, D.H. 2001. Toward a “best practice” of constructing “serviceable truths”. In Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis, ed. M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn, and J.R. Ravetz, 97–118. Policy Studies Review Annual No. 12. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Heim, J., and M. Böcher. 2016. CITES and science: Using the RIU model to analyze institutionalized scientific policy advice in Germany for the case of ivory trade. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 19: 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hughes, R., and F. Flintan. 2001. Integrating conservation and development experience: A review and bibliography of the ICDP literature. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  42. Hulme, M. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hussein, A. 2015. The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work 4: 1–12.Google Scholar
  44. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002. Energy and poverty. World energy outlook. Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  45. Kanagawa, M., and T. Nakata. 2007. Analysis of the energy access improvement and its socio-economic impacts in rural areas of developing countries. Ecological Economics 62: 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koetz, T., P. Bridgewater, S. van den Hove, and B. Siebenhüner. 2008. The role of the subsidiary body of scientific, technical and technological advice to the convention on biological diversity as science-policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy 11: 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koetz, T., P. Bridgewater, C. Miller, R. Norgaard, and R.A. Pielke. 2009. Science-policy interfaces for more effective governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services: Institutional mismatches, shifting paradigms, obstructions, and opportunities. Concept note for IPBES. Retrieved 17 July 2017, from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2783-2009.40.pdf.
  48. Krott, M. 2005. Forest policy analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Krott, M. 2012. Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics 16: 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liu, Y., J. Wang, and X. Deng. 2008. Rocky land desertification and its driving forces in the karst areas of rural Guangxi, Southwest China. Journal of Mountain Science 5: 350–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lovett, J.C., and D.G. Ockwell. 2010. A handbook of environmental management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lu, J.B. 2006. Energy balance and economic benefits of two agroforestry systems in northern and southern China. Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment 116: 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Manibog, F.R. 1984. Improved cooking stoves in developing countries: Problems and opportunities. Annual Review of Energy 9: 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McShane, T.O. 2003. Protected areas and poverty. Policy Matters 12: 52–53.Google Scholar
  55. Miller, N. 2009. Environmental politics: Stakeholders, interests, and policymaking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Milner-Gulland, E.J., and N. Leader-Williams. 1992. A model of incentives for the illegal exploitation of black rhinos and elephants: Poaching pays in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 388–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nadler, T., F. Momberg, N.X. Dang, and N. Lormee. 2003. Vietnam primate conservation status review 2002. Part II: Leaf monkeys, 145–164. Hanoi: Frankfurt Zoological Society and Fauna and Flora International.Google Scholar
  58. Nagasaka, K., M. Böcher, and M. Krott. 2016. Science-policy interaction: The case of the forest and forestry revitalization plan in Japan. Land Use Policy 58: 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nesshöver, C., R. Müssner, K. Henle, and I. Sousa Pinto. 2008. Linking biodiversity research and policy in Europe. Ambio 37: 138–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nesshöver, C., J. Timaeus, H. Wittmer, A. Krieg, N. Geamana, S. van den Hove, J. Young, and A. Watt. 2013. Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 22: 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nesshöver, C., M. Vandewalle, H. Wittmer, E.V. Balian, E. Carmen, I.R. Geijzendorffer, and S. Schindler. 2016. The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation 25: 1215–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Neuman, W.L. 2005. Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, 6th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  63. Oates, J.F. 1995. The dangers of conservation by rural development—a case-study from the forests of Nigeria. Oryx 29: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pereira, H.M., P.W. Leadley, V. Proença, R. Alkemade, J.P. Scharlemann, J.F. Fernandez-Manjarrés, M.B. Araujo, P. Balvanera, et al. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330: 1496–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Perrings, C., A. Duraiappah, A. Larigauderie, and H. Mooney. 2011. The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 331: 1139–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. PLNR (Pu Luong Nature Reserve). 2010. Report on investment project for Pu Luong Nature Reserve 2006–2010. Pu Luong Nature Reserve.Google Scholar
  67. Pregernig, M. 2014. Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: Examples from conservation and environmental policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 3615–3639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pregernig, M., and M. Böcher. 2012. Normative and analytical perspectives on the role of science and expertise in environmental governance. In Environmental governance: The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness, ed. K. Hogl, E. Kvarda, R. Nordbeck, and M. Pregernig, 199–219. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  69. Quang Tuan, B., and H. Huy Ngoc. 2016. Exploitation and use of bioenergy during the Implementation of Vietnam’s green growth strategy: Status and policy recommendations. Vietnam Social Sciences 2: 13–27.Google Scholar
  70. RIGMR (Research Institute on Geology and Mineral Resources). 2003. Geological characteristics of the Pu Luong Nature Reserve and surrounding areas. Hanoi, Vietnam: RIGMR.Google Scholar
  71. Salafsky, N., and E. Wollenberg. 2000. Linking livelihoods and conservation: A conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Development 28: 1421–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Salafsky, N., H. Cauley, G. Balachander, B. Cordes, J. Parks, C. Margoluis, S. Bhatt, C. Encarnacion, et al. 2001. A systematic test of an enterprise strategy for community-based biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 15: 1585–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Saterson, K.A., N.L. Christensen, R.B. Jackson, R.A. Kramer, S.L. Pimm, M.D. Smith, and J.B. Wiener. 2004. Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 18: 597–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schirmer, M. 2014. Biomass and waste as a renewable and sustainable energy source in Vietnam. Journal of Vietnamese Environment 6: 4–12.Google Scholar
  75. Schroth, G., G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L. Vasconcelos, and A.M.N. Izac (eds.). 2004. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  76. Scott, J.M., J.L. Rachlow, and R.T. Lackey. 2008. The science-policy interface: What is an appropriate role for professional societies. AIBS Bulletin 58: 865–869.Google Scholar
  77. Sesan, T. 2012. Navigating the limitations of energy poverty: Lessons from the promotion of improved cooking technologies in Kenya. Energy Policy 47: 202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long, and D.C. Wege. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world: Priorities for biodiversity conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.Google Scholar
  79. Stevanov, M., M. Böcher, M. Krott, S. Krajter, D. Vuletic, and S. Orlovic. 2013. The research, integration and utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research institutes in Serbia and Croatia. Forest Policy and Economics 37: 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sunderland, T.C.H., C. Ehringhaus, and B.M. Campbell. 2007. Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: a time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation 34: 276–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tu, D.T., O. Saito, Y. Yamamoto, and A. Tokai. 2010. Scenarios for sustainable biomass use in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment 1: 137–148.Google Scholar
  82. Urmee, T., and S. Gyamfi. 2014. A review of improved Cook stove technologies and programs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 33: 625–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wallmo, K., and S.K. Jacobson. 1998. A social and environmental evaluation of fuel-efficient cook-stoves and conservation in Uganda. Environmental Conservation 25: 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Watson, R.T. 2005. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 360: 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wells, M.P., and T.O. McShane. 2004. Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. Ambio 33: 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Winkler, R. 2011. Why do ICDPs fail? The relationship between agriculture, hunting and ecotourism in wildlife conservation. Resource and Energy Economics 33: 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wood, A., P. Stedman-Edwards, and J. Mang. 2000. The root causes of biodiversity loss. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  88. WWF, and IUCN. 1994. Centres of plant diversity: A guide and strategy for their conservation, vol. 3. Cambridge: IUCN Publications.Google Scholar
  89. Young, J.C., K.A. Waylen, S. Sarkki, S. Albon, I. Bainbridge, E. Balian, and D. McCracken. 2014. Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: Having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zingerli, C. 2005. Colliding understandings of biodiversity conservation in Vietnam: Global claims, national interests, and local struggles. Society and Natural Resources 18: 733–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huong Do Thi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Max Krott
    • 1
  • Michael Böcher
    • 3
  • Nataly Juerges
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair Group of Forest and Nature Conservation PolicyGeorge-August University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.College of Land Management and Rural DevelopmentVietnam National University of ForestryHanoiVietnam
  3. 3.Chair of Political Science and Sustainable DevelopmentOtto von Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations