Literature DB >> 28887588

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

M D López-Rodríguez1, H Castro2, M Arenas3, J M Requena-Mullor2, A Cano4, E Valenzuela3, J Cabello2.   

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; Protected Area; Research; Science-policy gaps; Transdisciplinary research

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28887588     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-017-0929-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  13 in total

1.  The need for evidence-based conservation.

Authors:  William J Sutherland; Andrew S Pullin; Paul M Dolman; Teri M Knight
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 2.  Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research.

Authors:  Leslie A Curry; Ingrid M Nembhard; Elizabeth H Bradley
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy.

Authors:  Murray A Rudd
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2011-07-25       Impact factor: 6.560

4.  Integrating science into management of ecosystems in the Greater Blue Mountains.

Authors:  Rosalie S Chapple; Daniel Ramp; Ross A Bradstock; Richard T Kingsford; John A Merson; Tony D Auld; Peter J S Fleming; Robert C Mulley
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 5.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development.

Authors:  David W Cash; William C Clark; Frank Alcock; Nancy M Dickson; Noelle Eckley; David H Guston; Jill Jäger; Ronald B Mitchell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-05-30       Impact factor: 12.779

6.  The Importance of Biodiversity E-infrastructures for Megadiverse Countries.

Authors:  Dora A L Canhos; Mariane S Sousa-Baena; Sidnei de Souza; Leonor C Maia; João R Stehmann; Vanderlei P Canhos; Renato De Giovanni; Maria B M Bonacelli; Wouter Los; A Townsend Peterson
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 8.029

7.  Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science.

Authors:  Tatsuya Amano; Juan P González-Varo; William J Sutherland
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 8.029

8.  Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy.

Authors:  Nadine Marshall; Neil Adger; Simon Attwood; Katrina Brown; Charles Crissman; Christopher Cvitanovic; Cassandra De Young; Margaret Gooch; Craig James; Sabine Jessen; Dave Johnson; Paul Marshall; Sarah Park; Dave Wachenfeld; Damian Wrigley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Bridging the science-policy divide.

Authors:  Walter V Reid
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  Science on the rise in developing countries.

Authors:  Milena Holmgren; Stefan A Schnitzer
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2004-01-20       Impact factor: 8.029

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.