Skip to main content

Afterword: Seen Through the Eyes of Researchers, Are Practitioners Partners, Research Objects or Hurdles?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
From Urban National Parks to Natured Cities in the Global South

Abstract

The cycle of BiodiverCities conferences has been an interesting tool contributing to exchanges between researchers and practitioners, and between practitioners themselves. However, it was not enough to build long-lasting links or bring out common projects. Practitioners have often been considered as objects of research, or even perceived as hindering research, which is the argument of the second section of this chapter. Why this—if not total, at least dominant—failure? To what extent are researchers responsible? Why did practitioners not show more interest in collaboration? Was it the format or the temporality of the research that did not manage to interest managers? Or are the human and social sciences still not recognised as sufficiently important in the management of national parks with their primary biodiversity conservation objectives, and where human presence is still taboo? All these questions are dealt with in the third section.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.
    • BiodiverCities Paris 2010: “Enjeux and stratégies de gestion durable des aires protégées urbaines and périurbaines au Nord and au Sud”, in partnership with Sciences Po-Paris and ONF Agence Fontainebleau.

    • BiodiverCities Rio de Janeiro 2012: “Les aires protégées urbaines: enjeux, acteurs, espaces”, in partnership with the Tijuca National Park, the City of Rio de Janeiro and the Pontifical University of Rio.

    • BiodiverCities Le Cap 2014: “Rescaling Natural Parks and the City”, in partnership with the Table Mountain National Park, the City of Cape Town and the French Institute of South Africa.

    • BiodiverCities Marseille 2015: “Parks naturels: construire une nature urbaine?”, in partnership with the National Park of Port-Cros, the National Park of Calanques and the cities of Hyères and Marseille.

  2. 2.

    The National Park of Réunion Island (France), seeking to exchange experiences on urban issues, learnt in 2016 from Cape Town practitioners that they could engage with their French counterparts from Calanques and Port-Cros, who had taken part in the fourth BiodiverCities encounter in Marseille.

  3. 3.

    The Director of the Nairobi National Park, UNPEC BiodiverCities Conference, Cape Town, April 7, 2014.

  4. 4.

    The Head of Environmental Management, City of Cape Town, at UNPEC BiodiverCities Conference, Cape Town, April 7, 2014.

  5. 5.

    The total budget of the UNPEC project was €250,000 and was to be divided over four and a half years between 25 people.

References

  • Bourdieu, P. (1980). Questions de sociologie. Paris: Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., Van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M., et al. (2016). Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. PNAS, 113(17), 4615–4622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, R. S., Kaelo, D., Nkedianye, D. K., Kristjanson, P., Said, M. Y., Galvin, K. A., & Gambill, I. (2014). The Mara-Serengeti ecosystem and greater Maasailand: Building the role of local leaders, Institutions, and Communities. In J. N. Levitt (Ed.) Conservation catalysts. The academy as nature’s agent. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spierenburg, M. (2012). Getting the message across. Biodiversity science and policy interfaces—A review. Gaia, 21(2), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiss Academy of Sciences. (2014). A guide for transboundary research partnerships (2nd ed.). Bern: KFPE, online.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glen Hyman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hyman, G., Landy, F., Bruno-Lézy, L. (2018). Afterword: Seen Through the Eyes of Researchers, Are Practitioners Partners, Research Objects or Hurdles?. In: Landy, F. (eds) From Urban National Parks to Natured Cities in the Global South. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8462-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8462-1_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8461-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8462-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics