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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Amano T, González-Varo JP, Sutherland WJ (2016) Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS Biol 14(12):e2000933
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
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):353–366
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
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
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): 8086–8091
Catorci A, Cesaretti S, Velasquez JL, Zeballos H (2011) Plant–plant spatial interactions in the dry puna (Southern Peruvian Andes). Alp Bot 121(2):113–121
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992) United Nations convention on biological diversity. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
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
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
Cook CN, Hockings M, Carter RW (2010) Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Front Ecol Environ 8(4):181–188
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 28:60–70
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
Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Bradley EH (2009) Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation 119(10):1442–1452
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
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 58:1–10
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):603–606
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
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
Fazey I, Mcquie A (2005) Applying conservation theory in natural areas management. Ecol Manage Restor 6(2):147–149
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:978-612-46493-0-1
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 18:52–65
Hering JG (2016) Do we need ‘more research’ or better implementation through knowledge brokering? Sustain Sci 11(2):363–369
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 12–13
Holmgren M, Schnitzer SA (2004) Science on the rise in developing countries. PLoS Biol 2(1):10–13
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, Perú
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
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
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.
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
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):610–617
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
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 50:1–14
Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497
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
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):208–215
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
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
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
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 2015
Pacheco V, Cadenillas R, Salas E, Tello C, Zeballos H (2009) Diversidad Y Endemismo de Los Mamíferos Del Perú. Rev Peru Biol 16(1):5–32
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
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
Pullin AS, Knight TM (2003) Nature conservation support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. J Nat Conserv 90:83–90
Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone DA, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol Conserv 119(2):245–252
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/
Reid WV (2004) Bridging the science-policy divide. PLoS Biol 2(2):169–171
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.
Rudd MA (2011) How Research-Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for. Conserv Biol 25(5):860–866
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
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, Perú
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 - Perú
Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The Need for Evidence-Based Conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19(6):305–308
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):238–247
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
van den Hove S (2007) A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39(7):807–826
van Kerkhoff L, Pilbeam V (2017) Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: a knowledge governance approach. Environ Sci Policy 73:29–37
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):79–96
Wyborn C (2015) Connectivity conservation: boundary objects, science narratives and the co-production of science and practice. Environ Sci Policy 51:292–303
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):387–404
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 195:196–202
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Workshop participants
Table 4
Appendix 2: Topics of the research activities provided by the institutional mechanisms in the NPANP context
Table 5
Appendix 3: Outcomes from workshops
Network model used to define the major barriers to scientific input in conservation practice in the NPANP identified by scientists, decision makers and social actors in workshop 1 and 2. Gray boxes reflect the major barriers to address, while green and blue boxes include the barriers identified in workshop 1 and 2 respectively. This network model was rebuilt with the software CMAP Tools version 5.05.01 based on card-writing systems and workshops minutes
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
López-Rodríguez, M.D., Castro, H., Arenas, M. et al. Exploring Institutional Mechanisms for Scientific Input into the Management Cycle of the National Protected Area Network of Peru: Gaps and Opportunities. Environmental Management 60, 1022–1041 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0929-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0929-x