Literature DB >> 34905158

Reviewing the participatory management of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: What do we miss by ignoring local academic knowledge in Mexico?

Ludger Brenner1, Hubert Job2.   

Abstract

This review article addresses challenges in the management of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves (BRs) by analyzing the value of research published in journals, chapters, and books that are not indexed by Web of Science or Scopus. This widely ignored body of grounded knowledge allows deeper insights when assessing participatory management of BRs, an imperative reflected in guiding principles such as Aichi Target 11. The scoping literature review conducted found 120 publications that address stakeholder participation in decision-making and the economic benefits generated in Mexican BRs. Only 65 of those studies were published in indexed journals, while national outlets accounted for the other 55, most of them also peer-reviewed publications. International papers differ from national ones regarding spatial coverage, research foci, and the methods applied. Though both bodies of publications identified similar challenges, each sheds a distinct light on social-environmental contexts and regions. However, there is a consensus that genuine stakeholder participation has not yet been achieved.
© 2021. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biosphere reserves; Governance; Mexico; Participation; Scientific knowledge

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34905158      PMCID: PMC9110588          DOI: 10.1007/s13280-021-01672-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ambio        ISSN: 0044-7447            Impact factor:   6.943


  6 in total

1.  Role of forest conservation in lessening land degradation in a temperate region: the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Mexico.

Authors:  Lilia Manzo-Delgado; José López-García; Irasema Alcántara-Ayala
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 6.789

2.  Local understandings of conservation in southeastern Mexico and their implications for community-based conservation as an alternative paradigm.

Authors:  Victoria Reyes-Garcia; Isabel Ruiz-Mallen; Luciana Porter-Bolland; Eduardo Garcia-Frapolli; Edward A Ellis; Maria-Elena Mendez; Diana J Pritchard; María-Consuelo Sanchez-Gonzalez
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2013-05-08       Impact factor: 6.560

3.  Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

Authors:  Neal R Haddaway; Alison Bethel; Lynn V Dicks; Julia Koricheva; Biljana Macura; Gillian Petrokofsky; Andrew S Pullin; Sini Savilaakso; Gavin B Stewart
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 15.460

Review 4.  A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency.

Authors:  Mai T Pham; Andrijana Rajić; Judy D Greig; Jan M Sargeant; Andrew Papadopoulos; Scott A McEwen
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 5.273

5.  Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses.

Authors:  Ko Konno; Munemitsu Akasaka; Chieko Koshida; Naoki Katayama; Noriyuki Osada; Rebecca Spake; Tatsuya Amano
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.

Authors:  Zachary Munn; Micah D J Peters; Cindy Stern; Catalin Tufanaru; Alexa McArthur; Edoardo Aromataris
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.