Towards an inclusive nature conservation initiative: Preliminary assessment of stakeholders' representations about the Makay region, Madagascar.

The existence of multiple perspectives and representations of different stakeholders poses critical challenges to conservation initiatives worldwide. Thus, to foster more just and sustainable agendas in protected areas (PAs), this diversity of perspectives must be better understood, acknowledged, and tackled. In this article, we aimed to initiate this understanding for the Makay region in Madagascar, a poorly-known region where a 'New Protected Area' has been gazetted. In combining mental models and social representation theory, we explored different stakeholders' perspectives about the Makay social-ecological system, and how differences in stakeholders' viewpoints could challenge the success of an inclusive, just, and sustainable conservation program. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 respondents having different expertise on the Makay. During interviews, respondents were guided towards the elicitation of their individual cognitive map (ICM) of the Makay social-ecological system. ICMs were then analyzed in combining quantitative and qualitative. Respondents described the Makay through a total of 162 components, including 51 components that constituted the central zone of the Makay's representation. In particular, respondents pointed to insecurity issues caused by zebu thieves, as well as to environmental challenges relative to anthropogenic fires and hunting. On the contrary, they considered mining activities and timber harvesting as more peripheral problems. Through a multivariate clustering analysis, we discriminated two clusters of respondents with contrasting visions about the Makay, ecocentric vs. social-ecological, which was largely influenced by respondents' background. In comparing the two clusters' representations, we found that they had dissimilar diagnoses about key socio-environmental challenges in the Makay and how to address them. This ambiguity in respondents' viewpoints stresses the need to increase research efforts in the Makay region to fill current knowledge gaps about this poorly known social-ecological system, and to foster social learning between stakeholders concerned by the Makay new PA.

1. Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) are the main tool for promoting nature conservation worldwide, and are increasingly understood as complex social-ecological systems (SESs) that must tackle both biodiversity and local development issues [1, 2]. For instance, in Madagascar, ‘New Protected Areas’ aim at tackling the joint challenge of reconciling human development and nature conservation but were shown to have limited effectiveness in reducing deforestation and other threats on biodiversity, mainly because of their rapid establishment processes and the difficulty to meet multiple objectives in a context of financial and human resource scarcity [3, 4]. Another critical challenge to the social and ecological success of PAs stands in the innumerable and sometimes diverging knowledge, beliefs and values of the many actors who either inhabit them, beneficiate from them, and/or manage them. This diversity does not only generate different ways of understanding, formulating and addressing nature conservation problems, but also underpins tensions and conflicts between people, undermining their ability to reach a consensus on PA management strategies and solve related collective problems [5-9].

The existence of multiple possible interpretations of a situation relates to one kind of uncertainty that has been referred to as ‘ambiguity’ [10-12]. Contrary to ‘epistemic uncertainty’, ambiguity is not strictly caused by a lack of knowledge on a situation but rather by the fact that there are different sensible, valid and legitimate ways of understanding the situation among people. In other words, ambiguity is a key feature of wicked problems that, by definition, have no definitive formulation and a plethora of plausible solutions [13]. As part of such wicked problems, nature conservation challenges therefore require to pay careful attention to viewpoint diversity, and to engage with ambiguity instead of seeking to reduce it [14-17]. In this perspective, a first key step is to characterize viewpoint diversity, in which might help reveal what could undermine people’s ability to sustain collective actions towards more effective nature conservation strategies [18, 19].

This study aimed at this objective in the Makay region in Madagascar, where the creation of a terrestrial PA is currently an on-going process. The Makay region is a particularly isolated mountainous area that has been officially ‘discovered’ in 2001 by the Western world [20]. As a consequence, scientific research in this region is scarce: the Scopus database counts 10 documents on the Makay, most of which reporting findings about new species (S1 Table). Notwithstanding the poor understanding of this region–its unique ecosystems but also its local people and their relationships with nature–it is already promoted as a unique place for its outstanding biodiversity and preserved ecosystems. This promotion has led to a nurturing nature conservation project which took shape in 2017 with the creation of a New Protected Area through a temporary decree. While this new PA aims to promote the sustainable management of the region through both development and conservation actions, one might assume that this general objective could be jeopardized by (i) the lack of scientific basis to orient management choices and strategies, which is a fertile ground for the emergence of (ii) tensions and conflicts between different stakeholders’ representations, values and knowledge.

In this context, the aim of this paper is to provide a first general understanding of the Makay SES in a multi-stakeholder perspective, and to clarify the different points of view that coexist among stakeholders, especially about nature and people interactions. To do so, we relied on the combination of two complementary theories and tools: mental models on the one hand, and social representations on the other hand. The former allowed us to assess how stakeholders perceived the functioning of this SES as a complex system where multiple biophysical components interact with multiple social components. While this approach was shown promising to help integrate different sources of knowledge [21], co-construct a shared vision of an SES [22], or characterize ambiguity between different actors [23], it remains poorly used in the field of conservation biology [24]. The latter was used to discriminate the elements that were central in the Makay representations from more peripheral elements, which ultimately allowed us to identify different types of ambiguity between people’s viewpoints. On the basis of our results, we draw three key recommendations that could help foster a just and sustainable conservation program for the Makay region.

2. Study site

2.1. Presentation of the Makay region

The Makay mountain range is located in the southwestern part of Madagascar in a particularly isolated area (Fig 1). It is a vast detritic massif (4000 km2) characterized by long, deep canyons created by the erosion of an ancient mountain range [25]. Its unique geomorphology allows a great diversity of micro-habitats, ecosystems and vegetation types to coexist in the same geographical area. Indeed, we found specific herbaceous habitats on the arid top of the plateaus and woody forests in the humid bottom of the canyons, whose diversity of width and orientation provides varied conditions of humidity and temperature specific to each canyon. This diversity of micro-habitats is occupied by very contrasting series of vegetation, typical of both the dry forests of the east of the island and the humid forests of the west, in the same geographical location: gallery forests at the bottom of the canyons, very marked vegetation gradient on the cliffs, xerophilous vegetation and patches of dry forests on the plateaus. Thus, scientific expeditions have shown that the Makay massif is home to a remarkable biodiversity, and have led to the discovery of a hundred endemic species of Makay, the region or the country. Archaeological remains, including the first rock paintings in Madagascar discovered in the Makay, prove that the region has long been inhabited. Nowadays, there are no permanent settlements within the Makay itself, but numerous villages of less than 500 inhabitants, sparsely populated and dispersed, are established around the area [20]. The extreme isolation of Makay complicates the economic exchanges of these people with the rest of the country. Local people are farmers and zebu raisers, and use and manage the resources of the Makay, especially for access to pasture, fresh water, and the harvesting of tubers or medicinal plants.

Fig 1

Location of the Makay region, Madagascar.

The map was built by Auréa Pottier (engineer at IRD), under QGIS, using OpenStreetMap data.

2.2. Challenges and potential threats

With a particularly high concentration of endemic species associated with high rates of deforestation, Madagascar is one of the world’s hottest hotspots [26-28]. At the same time, Madagascar faces major and urgent economic and social development challenges [28, 29]. The country is ranked 164 in the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI) [30], and did not meet any of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) between 2000 and 2015 [31]. In rural areas, most people depend on the collection of natural resources in forest areas [28]. Coupled with state instability and weakness, the country’s socioeconomic situation is partly responsible for the manifold causes of deforestation, which include slash-and-burn agriculture, illegal logging of precious woods, uncontrolled fires and mining [29, 32]. This socioeconomic situation is particularly noteworthy in remote rural areas, like the Makay region, where state development policies have little effect. Thus, expeditions to the Makay have revealed, but not scientifically substantiated, that the Makay is subject to threats of varying degrees, such as destruction of the forest cover by bush fires, logging, erosion, destructive honey harvesting, and poaching, which poses a direct threat to the species. Thus, the study of these potential threats to the remarkable biodiversity of the Makay, and of the interdependence between the massif and the local populations, appears to be a determining factor in reconciling conservation and development in this region. To face these challenges, NGOs work on the creation of a new protected area to preserve this region.

3. Material and methods

3.1 Conceptual background

In order to explore the multiple representations of the Makay SES at individual and collective levels, we combined in this article two complementary theories and associated methods.

Firstly, we mobilized a mental-model approach for its capacity to allow both qualitative and quantitative analyses of people’s representations while being suited to situations where data are scarce and poorly reliable [33]. Mental models has been defined as internal, cognitive models that underlie how people perceive and understand the cause and effect relationships that drive their environment [34]. As internal representations, people’s mental models are not accessible to researchers and can only be approximated through diverse, direct or indirect, elicitation procedures [35]. Among these, cognitive mapping refers to a widespread family of elicitation procedures that consists in representing people’s mental models as diagrams called cognitive, or causal, maps composed with nodes–the elements that respondents used to describe their reality–and edges–the relations between these elements as viewed by respondents [33, 36]. Cognitive maps offer a systemic representation of people’s representations, and are acclaimed from their ability to allow in-depth qualitative analyses [37, 38] as well as quantitative analyses based on graph theory [33, 39]. However, cognitive maps are insufficient to explore how an individual acquires a given mental model [6]. Furthermore, the consequences of differences in people’s cognitive maps are difficult to grasp with the sole mental-model theory.

To address these shortcomings, we secondly mobilized the social representation theory and, more precisely, the structural approach of social representations (for a review, see [40]. Social representations are both a cognitive system at the social level that allows individuals and groups to construct a coherent vision of reality, and the outcome of mental activity modulated by the social context and interactions with other people [41]. According to the structural approach, the content of a social representation of an object or a situation is composed with a nucleus and a peripheral zone: the former structures and stabilizes the representation, containing elements that are shared within a social group; the latter allows for adaptation, flexibility and individual variation, containing less shared elements [42]. These are the peripheral elements that are likely to reflect differences in people’s viewpoints regarding a social object, i.e. ambiguity sensu [10]. More precisely, researchers generally identify four zones of the representation (i.e. central core zone, contrasting elements’ zone, first periphery, and second periphery) on the basis of the frequency of citation of each element and of the importance respondents assign to it [43, 44]. Each of these zones having specific functions and meanings, this approach ultimately allows to understand the causes and consequences of the coexistence of a plurality of visions of a given social object within a human society.

3.2. Inclusivity in global research

The French national research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) does not deliver ethics approval for research involving human participants. We followed the recommendations of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In particular, before interviews, respondents were informed of the purpose and aim of the research and of the envisioned use of the data collected (i.e. for research purpose only), which allowed us to obtain their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). FPIC were collected orally as most interviews were conducted remotely. During interviews, we only collected personal data that was strictly necessary to the research, i.e., respondents’ name and professional activity. Finally, respondents’ anonymity was ensured by pseudo-anonymizing data (e.g. transcripts and mental models) and by deleting audio records. Only the first author, who was responsible for data analyses, had access to the data de-anonymization key. Because this study did not involve local people, it did not fall into the scope of ethical codes or legislations of Nagoya protocol that aim to protect traditional knowledge. Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1 Checklist).

3.3. Data collection

The overall method we followed is summarized in Fig 2 and further details in Supporting Information. In order to obtain a comprehensive view of the Makay region and context-specific social-ecological challenges, we targeted stakeholders who were prone to participate in–and/or influence–the management of the Makay’s protected area, either because they worked in the region or had a level of expertise about it (either scientific or experiential), and who have been to the Makay at least once. Yet, because of logistical constraints, we were not able to go to the Makay itself, which prevented us from including local people in this study, which we yet consider as a priority research perspective.

Fig 2

Overview of the four-step method: (i) elicitation of individual cognitive maps (ICMs), (ii) ICM condensation, (iii) analysis of the social representation and production of a social cognitive map (SCM) of the SES, and (iv) analysis of ambiguity at individual and group level through multivariate analyses and production of group cognitive maps.

As a result, we interviewed a total of 32 respondents, including (i) 12 researchers with different academic backgrounds and fields of expertise, (ii) 9 members of local environmental organizations working in the Makay, including members of the NGO carrying the project of creation of the protected area and expected to be the future manager of this protected area (iii) 6 researchers involved in an interdisciplinary research program evaluating Makay socio-economic and environmental factors, and (iv) 5 representatives of Makay tour operators. Respondents were identified through a purposive sampling strategy: each interview contained questions to identify additional relevant people to meet. Sample size was determined by a data saturation technique: we stopped interviewing more people when no new information or additional respondents was added (S1 Fig in S1 Appendix).

To elicitate respondents’ mental models of the Makay SES, we developed a semi-structured interview procedure that was inspired from the ARDI procedure, a well-known method that aims to untap the Actors, Resources, Dynamics, and Interactions of an SES as a cognitive map [22]. Each interview was conducted as follow. First, we introduced the concept of cognitive maps to the respondent and, with the help of an example not related to the Makay, we familiarized them with the Mental Modeler software that allows to create cognitive maps thanks to a user-friendly interface and that we chose to use to facilitate the direct elicitation of respondents’ cognitive map [45]. We then reminded the respondent of the study area (the Makay massif and the eastern villages), and explained the purpose and organization of the direct elicitation procedure. Second, through successive inductive questions, the respondent was asked to freely cite the different elements they associated with the Makay SES, including its (i) biophysical characteristics (e.g. living and non-living entities, natural and human-modified landscape features) and associated ecosystem services, (ii) main stakeholders, i.e. individuals or groups of people who play a major role in or benefit from the SES, and (iii) main dynamics, processes and drivers affecting the SES. All these items were considered ‘components’ of the SES, i.e. as nodes in the cognitive maps. Finally, the respondent was asked to identify, if relevant to them, positive (+1) and negative causal links (-1) between components, which were considered ‘interactions’ within the SES, i.e. as edges in the cognitive maps. In order to limit framing bias (i.e. when the researcher unintentionally leads respondents to add a component or an interaction from his/her own beliefs), the researcher strictly followed the indications provided by the respondent to draw the map on Mental Modeler, fostering continuous feedbacks between the map under progress and the conversation with respondents. All respondents were eventually asked to confirm that the resulting map satisfactorily depicted their vision of the Makay (see S2 Fig in S1 Appendix for an example). Interviews were conducted face to face or by videoconference, lasting from one to four hours.

3.4. Data analysis

Prior to formal analyses, we followed a qualitative condensing procedure that aimed at making individual cognitive maps (ICMs) comparable without substantially changing their meaning (Fig 2, S1 Appendix). A first level of standardization led to the identification of 162 unique components, which is considered too high for the interpretation of cognitive maps [33], so we further grouped them into 32 types (S1 Table) and six larger categories (i.e. biophysical and social components and processes, positive and negative human interventions, and ecosystem services and disservices).We then imported condensed ICMs as adjacency matrices into R statistical software [46]. Matrix additions first allowed us to aggregate all the 32 ICMs into a social cognitive map (SCM), offering a synthetic vision of the Makay SES as held by our respondents. Second, matrix additions allowed us to focus on certain environmental challenges (such as fires) and to highlight in a comprehensive way how these challenges were perceived by our different respondents.

To analyze the diversity of representations among the respondents about the Makay SES, we mixed quantitative and qualitative approaches. First, to discriminate the four zones of the Makay’s social representation from ICMs, we elaborated a centrality-frequency method that took into account (i) component’s frequency of citation, as an indicator of the level of agreement between respondents on each SES component, and (ii) component’s median centrality rank, as an indicator of the perceived importance of each component to the SES functioning by respondents (Fig 2, S1 Appendix). The combination of these two metrics was used to classify SES components into the four zones of the representation as defined by [47]: core zone, first periphery, contrasting elements’ zone, and second periphery (see S1 Appendix for further details on the four zones). Second, in order to explore the level of ambiguity in individual representations and between groups of respondents, we relied on a quantitative comparison of ICMs based on a set of metrics characterizing ICM structure and content. In particular, we carried out a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with 9 ICM metrics as active variables (i.e. number of components, number of links, map density, component categories) and with respondent type (i.e. researcher, association member, tour operator, project member) as a supplementary variable (S3 Table in S1 Appendix). The PCA was followed by a Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components (HCPC) that allowed us to identify respondent clusters based on their representation of the Makay (Fig 2). Both PCA and HCPC were performed with the FactoMineR R package [48]. Third, in order to further explore how ambiguity between people’s points of view is very concretely impacting how people understand environmental problems and possible solutions, we focused on two issues related to (i) anthropogenic fires and (ii) provisioning ecosystem services, highlighting how both were differently perceived by different clusters of respondents.

4. Results

4.1. The social representation of the Makay SES

The 32 respondents we interviewed described the Makay SES through a total of 162 components that we regrouped into 32 types and six categories for the sake of interpretability and classified into the four zones of social representations (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Content and structure of the Makay social representation held by the respondents.

The four zones of the representation were named following [47], and the classification of elements was done based on centrality-frequency criteria (see S1 Appendix). Boxes correspond to component types, which regroup the components cited by respondents, and the color indicates the category. Only components cited by >10% of the respondents are represented. See S2 Table in S1 Appendix for detail.

In the core zone of the Makay representation, we found 31 components that were both frequently cited by respondents and with the highest centrality scores (Fig 3; S2 Table). In particular, for most respondents, the Makay was characterized by its unique geomorphology marked by deep canyons created by erosion and crossed by numerous rivers (Fig 4A). As a consequence, the region was considered particularly difficult to access for people, making it a well-preserved area in terms of natural habitats (forests, overall landscapes) and biodiversity (including, in particular, several endemic and flagship species). Notwithstanding this enclosure, local people were acknowledged as central to the Makay SES. Respondents especially emphasized the importance of zebu raising as the main livelihood of local people (Fig 4B), warning about zebu thieves (dahalo in Malagasy language) who were considered responsible for an atmosphere of insecurity. In addition, respondents highlighted the intangible connection between local people and their environment that manifest itself through the presence of burial areas. Yet, according to respondents, local people mostly benefited from the concrete, tangible benefits they derive from the Makay SES, in particular the provisioning services associated with hunting, picking, and water provisioning. On the contrary, most of the intangible benefits and cultural ecosystem services–including scenic value, recreation, and scientific interactions–were seen to be enjoyed by other types of stakeholders such as local NGOs, researchers and students, and tourism-related stakeholders. These ‘new’, external stakeholders were associated with conservation and development actions, contributing to the creation of the new protected area while offering new sources of income for local people through the activities they develop in the area (e.g. touristic tours, beekeeping). In this global and consensual understanding of the Makay SES, the main threats to nature conservation appeared to be related to local people’ activities: hunting was highlighted as a threat to all endemic and flagship species indistinctively, whereas anthropogenic fires used for agricultural and pastoral activities were considered a threat to Makay’s landscapes and habitats (Fig 4A).

Fig 4

Photographs of the Makay region (author: S. M. Carrière, date: 2019).

(a) The Makay mountainous massif appears in the background, and an anthropogenic fire is visible at its vicinity. (b) A zebu herd crossing a road.

A total of 20 components were located in the contrasting elements’ zone of the Makay representation, which contained infrequently-cited yet central components (Fig 3; S2 Table). These components were mainly precisions or generalizations of the central core zone’s components. For example, some of them detailed forest types (e.g. dry and wet), specific species (e.g. lemurs), or geomorphological structures (e.g. anthropogenic locks, cliffs and uplands, waterborne sediments). On the contrary, others were more generic and designated ‘new stakeholders’ or ‘cultural ecosystem services’ without unpacking these general boxes. As a consequence, these components partly reflected differences in expertise among respondents about the different dimensions of the Makay SES. By corollary, they also reflected components and problems that were considered central but yet unknown by most of the respondents such as human migrations within the Makay region, local social conflicts and sociopolitical issues, or food security problems.

In the first and second peripheries of the representation, we found 49 components that had the lowest centrality scores (Fig 3; S2 Table). They included specific plant species such as edible plants, terrestrial common species, Canarium spp. (commercial timber), medicinal plants, and wild bees. Contrary to the species perceived as central, these appeared to contribute to food provisioning but without being threatened by local people. These components also detailed certain aspect of agropastoral activities relative to pasture management, rice cultivation, and small-scale breeding. Interestingly, regulating ecosystem services such as erosion control, seed dispersal and pollination, and water quality regulation were part of the peripheral zones, as well as several provisioning services benefiting to local people relative to fishing, honey harvesting, and medicinal plant gathering. Many social processes were also in the periphery of the representation, including local demographic processes (increasing land pressure, in-migration) and local security forces and authorities (decentralized administrations, local and traditional authorities). Finally, the external extraction of natural resources through mining activities was seen as a peripheral problem.

In sum, in order to provide a synthetic vision of the Makay as highlighted by the 32 respondents, we pooled ICMs into a SCM that allowed to emphasize the Makay’s multiple components and their interactions (Fig 5).

Fig 5

Social cognitive map of the Makay SES based on the aggregation of the 32 individual cognitive maps and represented at the level of component types for the sake of visibility.

The central component zone contains components with high centrality scores, while the peripheral component zone contains components with low centrality scores (see S1 Appendix). Lightly colored component types contain only components that were cited by less than 26.6% of respondents (median value of the centrality score, see Fig 3). Edges correspond to the positive (in green) and negative (in red) interactions between component types, and their width is proportional to their occurrence in individual cognitive maps (only interactions cited by >10 respondents are represented).

4.2. Variability in representations at individual and group level

Out of the 162 components cited by all respondents to describe the Makay SES, each respondent mentioned between 20 and 97 components (i.e. between 12% and 60% of all cited components), with an average of 41.5 components ± 15.2 (SD) per respondent. This result testified of the different visions that the respondents had about the Makay SES, which might either come from differences in expertise or in personal sensibility for certain topics. In order to further understand this heterogeneity, we first quantitatively analyzed variability in individual representations through a PCA and an HCPC based on the structure and content of the ICMs (Fig 6).

Fig 6

Variability in individual cognitive maps explored with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components (HCPC).

(a) Projection of the 32 ICMs in the first two axes of the PCA and delineation of the two clusters identified with the HCPC; Cluster 1: ecocentric, Cluster 2: social-ecological. (b) Correlation circle of the quantitative active variables (colored according to their contribution) with the two first axes of the PCA.

The first axis of the PCA (explaining 30.2% of the total variance) was mainly structured by the number of components (i.e. nodes) in an ICM, and by the total number of interactions between components (i.e. edges). The second axis (22.5% of the variance) was mainly structured by the density of the ICMs and by the proportion of ecosystem services. Thus, the two first axes of the PCA explained 52.5% of the total inertia and discriminated ICMs with a large number of components that also contained a large proportion of social components (which varied from 25.0% to 57.9%, with an average of 39.4% ± 8.3) from ICMs with a smaller number of components that gave more room to biophysical components (that represented between 15.8% to 50.0% of ICMs’ components, with an average of 29.5% ± 7.4).

In line with this result, two clusters were identified by the HCPC (Fig 6A), highlighting a difference between respondents having an ecocentric vision or a social-ecological vision of the Makay SES (Table 1). On average, respondents in the social-ecological cluster (mainly local NGO members and researchers from the Makay interdisciplinary research program) produced ICMs with more components and interactions than respondents in the ecocentric cluster (mainly composed of the other researchers and tour operators). Furthermore, while giving more emphasis to social components, respondents in the social-ecological cluster reported less negative human actions than respondents in the ecocentric cluster, who gave more emphasis to biophysical ones.

Table 1

Characteristics of the ecocentric vs. social-ecological clusters identified in respondents’ individual cognitive maps (ICMs).

Cluster characteristics	The ecocentric cluster (N = 16)	The social-ecological cluster (N = 16)	Student test (p-values)
Stakeholders	9 researchers	3 researchers
	4 tour operators	1 tour operator
	2 local NGO members	7 local NGO members
	1 NPA project member*	5 NPA project members*
Network metrics
No. of components	29.1 ± 7.6	45.8 ± 10.1	<0.001***
No. of interactions	41.8 ± 13.9	81.2 ± 36.4	<0.001***
Density	0.054 ± 0.018	0.040 ± 0.012	0.019*
Component categories (in proportion)
Biophysical components	0.33 ± 0.07	0.26 ± 0.06	0.009**
Social components	0.36 ± 0.06	0.43 ± 0.09	0.008**
Ecosystem services	0.21 ± 0.05	0.20 ± 0.04	0.85
Ecosystem disservices	-	0.01 ± 0.02	-
Positive human actions	0.03 ± 0.03	0.04 ± 0.03	0.51
Negative human actions	0.08 ± 0.03	0.05 ± 0.02	0.002**

The two clusters are characterized by a set of nine descriptors (mean values ± standard deviation), and compared with a Student’s t test.

* refers to the interdisciplinary research project evaluating the new protected area

This difference between the ecocentric and the social-ecological visions was reflected in the associated group cognitive maps (S1 Fig), but also in the content and structure of the representation held by the two groups (S2 Fig). In particular, 26 components were common to the two core zones of each group representation, representing 79% and 57% of the core zone elements of the ecocentric cluster’s representations and of the social-ecological cluster’s representations, respectively. Respondents within the social-ecological cluster gave more emphasis to the plurality of actors of the Makay SES, as well as to local social issues and conflicts (e.g. insecurity, food security problems, and demographic processes). The comparison of the two representations also highlighted differences between the two clusters in their understanding of environmental degradation issues: while respondents in the ecocentric cluster perceived them as resulting from local activities (e.g. trampling and overgrazing, loss of aquatic habitats), respondents in the social-ecological cluster rather pointed to external threats (e.g. mining, illegal trade in wildlife).

4.3. Complementary perspectives about Makay’s conservation challenges

To complement quantitative analyses, we undertook a comprehensive analysis focusing on two key conservation challenges that were consensually identified by respondents and the two abovementioned clusters, namely fires and provisioning ecosystem services for local people (S2 Fig). More precisely, fires appeared to be the primary direct perceived threat to Makay’s landscapes and habitats while local people, through their subsistence activities (agriculture, husbandry, hunting, gathering) were seen as the main threat to Makay’s species. Besides, the issue of fires is well known in Madagascar [49-51], as is the importance of natural resources for the subsistence activities of local people [28]. However, a more detailed look at how these challenges were seen by the two clusters highlighted two contrasting ways of conceiving these challenges and, ultimately, of addressing them.

There was a consensus between respondents about the threat that fires represent to Makay’s biodiversity and ecosystems but also on the cause of fires, mainly local people who use fires for their agropastoral activities (Fig 7). However, respondents in the socio-ecological cluster described the causes and consequences of fires with much more details than respondents in the ecocentric cluster. Furthermore, the two clusters had diverging views on (i) fire causes, (ii) the way to regulate them, and (iii) the role of new stakeholders in fire dynamics. While the ecocentric cluster only cited local people activities as a cause of fires, the social-ecological cluster pointed to alternative emerging or increasing social factors that accentuate fire dynamics, such as increasing land pressure as well as changes in the organization of zebus’ thieves who use fires as an escape strategy. Respondents in this cluster also considered that the arrival of new actors in the Makay had an impact on fire dynamics: on the one hand, tourists and ecovolunteers might be a cause of unintentional fire outbreaks, and on the other hand, fires may be set by local people to protest against the arrival of new stakeholders. Consistently with these different viewpoints about fires between the two clusters, the fire regulation factors they identified differ: for the ecocentric cluster, environmental education actions and integration of local people in the PA project should help regulate fires, whereas for the social-ecological cluster, local authorities were the key leverage to act against fires.

Fig 7

Group cognitive maps centered on fires in the Makay SES for each of the two clusters of respondents.

Maps are based on the aggregation of the individual cognitive maps for each cluster and represented at the level of components. Only components linked with fires are represented. Edges correspond to the positive (in green) and negative (in red) interactions between components, and their width is proportional to their occurrence in individual cognitive maps (only interactions cited by >2 respondents are represented).

Regarding subsistence activities and provisioning ecosystem services management, both clusters emphasized the importance of rice and other crop cultivation activities for local people, as well as the centrality of zebu raising (Fig 8), which were part of the core zone of both clusters’ representations (S2 Fig). These activities directly depended on several key ecosystem services, including water supply and the sheltering of zebu herds that both relied on the unique Makay’s geomorphology. Many provisioning services were also acknowledged by the two clusters of respondents, such as water provisioning, fishing, hunting, picking and honey collect. For both clusters, hunting was perceived as a direct threat to many Makay’s species. Besides these commonalities, the visions of two clusters were yet diverging on several aspects. First, the social-ecological cluster mentioned medicinal plants as key provisioning services for local people, contrary to the ecocentric cluster (S2 Fig). Second, the ecocentric cluster incriminated zebu raising as a cause of fires, trampling and overgrazing, which was not part of the social-ecological cluster’s representations (Figs 7 and 8). Third, the social-ecological cluster pointed to threats that concern local people themselves, highlighting for example the negative impact of silting, linked to soil erosion and caused by fire and deforestation, on rice cultivation (Fig 7). Finally, the social-ecological cluster identified several linkages between ecological and social factors to explain current biodiversity challenges. In particular, respondents highlighted the existence of a lean season that local people cope with in establishing temporary camps in the Makay to hunt and pick. This cluster also mentioned people who were not living in the region and come from other parts of the country to hunt in the Makay.

Fig 8

Group cognitive maps centered on provisioning ecosystem services and agricultural and pastoral activities in the Makay SES for each of the two clusters of respondents.

Maps are based on the aggregation of the individual cognitive maps for each cluster and represented at the level of components. Only components linked with components belonging to the types ‘Agriculture and husbandry’, ‘Food production issues’, ‘Food security issues’ and ‘Provisioning ecosystem services’ are represented. Edges correspond to the positive (in green) and negative (in red) interactions between component types, and their width is proportional to their occurrence in individual cognitive maps (only interactions cited by >2 respondents are represented).

5. Discussion

Promoting synergies between nature conservation initiatives and local development remains a key challenge to improve the social-ecological success of terrestrial PAs [51-54]. Inclusive PA management designs that take into consideration the different people’s viewpoints about how to address this complex challenge are increasingly advocated as a sound strategy towards this end [55]. In combining mental-model and social representation approaches, we provided in this study a first assessment of the different viewpoints that coexist among some key stakeholders about the Makay region and its on-going social-ecological dynamics. In particular, we showed that this combination of approaches was promising to explore people’s multiple perspectives about a given social object or situation, even though some limitations must be pointed. Furthermore, and as in other studies in Madagascar [4, 56], we emphasized two types of representations, one ecocentric and one social-ecological, that might lead to contrasting recommendations for the management of the Makay PA. In highlighting commonalities and divergences in people’s views, we argue that this preliminary study offers a unique basis to foster a more inclusive conservation agenda for the Makay region, which we will further discuss below.

5.1. Synergies between mental-model and social representation approaches

Several scholars have emphasized that the social representation theory brings valuable insights to the understanding of sustainability and nature conservation problems, either by its own [57-61] or when combined to other theories such as the framing theory [7] or the place theory [62]. While few studies have suggested that combining social representation and mental models could be a valuable attempt [44, 63], our work provides a way to operationalize this combination, allowing us to bring new insights on the understanding of ambiguity issues in the field of conservation biology.

On the one hand, we argue that the social representation theory provides interpretative tools to better understand (i) how an individual may acquire a mental model [6], and (ii) how to deal with ambiguity depending on whether it concerns the core or the peripheral system of a representation. On the other hand, we argue that mental models, in particular through cognitive mapping, provide a systemic understanding of people’s representations of an SES that is not emphasized by conventional social representation approaches. Furthermore, graph theory metrics derived from cognitive maps can help take the structural approach of social representations a step further. We will here illustrate these arguments in focusing on some of our key results that revealed (i) the existence of consensual views between different people’s representations about the Makay SES and the challenges that the new PA will have to tackle, (ii) the presence of differences in the peripheral system of the Makay representation, and (iii) the presence of differences in the core zone of the representation between two subgroups of respondents.

First, the core zone of the Makay representation highlighted a consensus among respondents on, for instance, the tensions between people livelihoods and nature conservation. In particular, fires and deforestation caused by local people were consensually perceived as a threat to Makay landscapes and species. This consensus highlights that, as elsewhere, reconciling development and conservation goals will be a specific challenge in this region. Yet, as suggested by the two group cognitive maps (Figs 7 and 8), stakeholders were not necessarily on the same page regarding the dynamics associated with these problems, and therefore regarding the solutions to solve them. In this case, we showed that this is the core zone of the representation that differed between the two clusters of respondents (S2 Fig), which could lead to substantial and long-lasting tensions between stakeholders. Indeed, the core zone is the most resistant and the least negotiable part of a representation, so changing it would imply a complete transformation of the representation and of the prevailing values and beliefs in which the representation is rooted, which is particularly challenging [42]. This first type of ambiguity is therefore supposed to persist in time [64] and may jeopardize actors’ capacity to reach a consensus on SES management strategy and conservation practices. Tackling this type of ambiguity that concerns the core zone of the representation might require dialogue and negotiations between stakeholders, and ultimately that each one accepts the legitimacy and validity of values and opinions that they do not necessarily share for the sake of the collective interest.

Second, the identification of the peripheral system of the representation allowed us to point to a second type of ambiguity in people’s representations of the Makay. Theoretically speaking, the elements of the peripheral system might not be critical sources of disagreements among actors, as they rather tend to reflect differences in awareness or expertise on specific aspects but not in the substance of the representation itself [42, 64]. For example, in the Makay, the conservation of specific ecosystems (e.g. dry and humid forests) and species (e.g. lemurs), as well as food security issues, were part of the contrasting element zone. This suggests a difference in expertise between respondents, but not necessarily a profound divergence of opinions. Indeed, people’s representations might differ on the nature and number of (i) the entities they use to describe reality and/or (ii) the relations they perceive between these entities. Such differences does not necessarily mean that people disagree with each other [58], but simply that they do not have the same level of knowledge or expertise on every aspect of the SES [58, 65]. Yet, cognitive maps also allowed us to point to differences in the way people perceived relations between entities as positive or negative. These differences in people’s judgments reflect diverging opinions or representations about a given phenomenon rather than differences in awareness or knowledge. In common social representation research, there is no explicit distinction between how people perceive the entities that compose reality, and how they perceive the interactions between these entities. In allowing to make this distinction, it appeared that cognitive mapping was helpful to distinguish (i) differences in people’s awareness, through the diversity and precision of the components they mobilize to describe a reality from (ii) areas of disagreement, through the opinions they have on the interactions between these components. This distinction is particularly important and the two do not have the same consequences for achieving a consensual PA management strategy.

5.2. Challenges in combining mental models and social representations

As for all theories and methods, social representation and mental models have well-documented caveats that should be considered prior to their use. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize some key methodological challenges in the combination of the two approaches that are important to consider.

First, the social representation theory has been mainly criticized for its theoretical ambiguity, social determinism focus, cognitive reductionism and lack of a critical agenda [66]. Some of these critics seem to come from a misunderstanding about the concept, as ‘social’ was sometimes understood as ‘shared’ whereas in the Moscovici’s view it emphasized the fact that a representation is collectively and culturally constructed and validated, but not necessarily shared [67]. Other critics have more serious theoretical and methodological implications, e.g. in pointing to the difficult integration of the complex and dynamic relationship between individual and social agency [66]. Furthermore, specific critics were formulated on the structural approach of representations [64]. Regarding our work, one main limitation is related to the fact that we identified both the content and structure of representations from a single interview with each respondent. While this is a common research practice [43], some authors recommend to conduct two separate interviews for successively identifying the content of the representation and then its structure [47]. In addition, from the elements that respondents have freely cited, we merged synonyms and similar terms a posteriori, without asking respondents to validate this merging. This implies that, despite the precautions we took during the condensing procedure (S1 Appendix), our own subjectivity on what people said has influenced our results. A post-validation phase might have been useful to confront our choices with respondents opinions [41], which would have required another round of interviews that was not possible for this study.

Second, mental-model approaches, including cognitive mapping, also have a number of practical and theoretical limitations that have been extensively discussed elsewhere [24, 35, 68]. Among other things, mental-model research was criticized as it requires respondents to cognitively engage in the elicitation process, which can vary from one respondent to another. Furthermore, mental models offer a snapshot assessment of continually evolving representations that might not necessarily reflect people’s attitudes and behaviors in real-world situations. In particular, the elicitation procedure and context, as well as the interviewee-interviewer relationship, are known to greatly influence the resulting cognitive map [69-71]. As a consequence, the ICMs we obtained in our study did not necessarily reflect how respondents frame the Makay SES in their own internal mental model. Rather, an ICM should be understood as the result of a socially situated interaction where both the researcher and respondent had an active role [72]. Finally, we note that cognitive maps are (over)simplified models of complex social objects, and our analytical procedure led to a further purposeful simplification. While the diversity and depth of thought provide useful information [71], cognitive map simplification was necessary to perform quantitative analyses but also to avoid the Bonini paradox: a model closely representing the complexity of a real system might become incomprehensible and not transparent [73]. Our approach therefore resulted from a trade-off between embracing complexity and producing intelligible and comparable maps, which was mandatory to articulate qualitative and quantitative analyses.

Finally, our ambition to combine mental models and social representations led us to make certain methodological choices, in particular regarding how we investigated the content and structure of Makay representations. There are effectively different methods to study these, each one having its specific caveats [74], and in particular rank-frequency and importance-frequency criteria that are widely used to distinguish the four zone of a social representation [43]. In our work, we devised a new method based on centrality-frequency criteria. The use of a centrality measure has already been used in social representation research to assess the ‘qualitative centrality’ of the elements that belong to the core zone of a representation, whereas frequency reflects their ‘quantitative centrality’ [75]. Our method therefore is an adaptation of existing methods that put graph theory metrics to contribution, resting on the assumption formulated in cognitive-map research that nodes with higher centrality are perceived by respondents as more important to the system [76]. The centrality-frequency method has not less weaknesses than existing methods, but it allowed to operationalize the bridge between social representations and cognitive maps. A comparison between the different methods could be insightful to further discuss their respective strengths and weaknesses as well as epistemic implications.

5.3. Recommendations for the Makay’s protected area

This mixed, in-depth analysis of the Makay’s representations among key stakeholders allowed us to draw some key lessons for the future management of the PA in the perspective of a more just and sustainable nature conservation initiative. However, these lessons should be taken with caution as our study did not include, at this stage, the viewpoints of local people living around the Makay massif. Integrating their visions to our analysis is a key research perspective that will require an adaptation of our method. Indeed, the elicitation procedure we used (i) relied on the Mental Modeler software, (ii) was adapted to remote interviews, and (iii) was involving a graphic representation of the Makay SES. As a consequence, this procedure would likely not to be suited to collect data on the representations of the local people who live in the Makay region who are not familiar with computers and graphics, and who will certainly be more comfortable with more indirect elicitation methods (for example, see the method proposed in [77]).

First, achieving a more precise understanding of local people and livelihoods, and how they interact with their environment, seems a preliminary mandatory objective for formulating relevant recommendations for the Makay PA management strategy. Indeed, respondents commonly acknowledged the importance of local people in the ecological dynamics of the Makay, in particular through their subsistence activities that might sometimes be a threat to the Makay’s ecosystems and unique biodiversity. However, in the absence of context-specific studies, it seemed that respondents’ visions were mainly based on preformatted opinions based on their prior experiences in other regions or readings. The use of fire by local people and the impact on the Makay ecosystems, generally highlighted by the respondents, illustrates this argument and pleads for fostering local research on this issue, which is a key challenge in the whole Madagascar’s island but with very contrasting local realities [78]. Similarly, the actual impact of zebu grazing, as mentioned by the ecocentric cluster, should be precisely documented.

Second, promoting dialogue and social learning between stakeholders should be another central objective for PA managers. Indeed, our results revealed two clusters of respondents holding different representations of the Makay, which should be considered to make them complementary, to prevent conflicts and to take into account all the dynamics and issues of the Makay region. While the ecocentric cluster only highlights the responsibility of local populations and their activities in the degradation of Makay’s ecosystems, the social-ecological cluster emphasizes the existence of other causes of fires, places hunting and picking activities in the local socioeconomic context, and also mentions other potential threats. The former testified to a vision that may lead to advocating for ‘a back to the barriers’ conservation strategy [79], while the latter acknowledged that conservation and development issues are inseparable, advocating for a more inclusive, co-constructed conservation strategy [2]. Reconciliation might therefore represent a challenging and long-lasting process in Madagascar, which could only be fostered by a nourished dialogue between stakeholders, fed by the new scientific evidences that we advocated as necessary in our previous point (also see [32]). Furthermore, beyond commonly-acknowledged challenges, researchers and PA managers must not neglect more subtle dynamics and emerging issues mentioned by the social-ecological cluster. In particular, our results pointed to mining activities and wildlife trade as potential threats to the Makay’s ecosystems and biodiversity, even though a limited number of respondents were aware of these. Considering that mining activities could rapidly expand and pose major environmental degradations [80], such weak signals should not be overlooked.

Finally, it seems crucial to ensure that the creation and management of the PA is integrated into local power dynamics. Indeed, some respondents mentioned the place of traditional local authorities, decentralized administrations and national authorities in the Makay SES, as well as conflicts between stakeholders. On the one hand, our results tend to point to a disconnection between the local dynamics of the Makay region and the national authorities, with respondents mentioning the poverty of local people, difficult access to education, and a general retreat of national support in the region. A better understanding of the interactions between the population, local power holders (formal and informal) and national authorities is all the more essential as the weakness of intermediary bodies to link elites and ordinary citizens has been identified as one of the main causes of Madagascar’s long-term instability and decline [81]. On the other hand, since the local authorities are rarely mentioned by the respondents and have little connection with the dynamics of the creation of the PA, it appears that they have little involvement in the project. However, a real involvement of local authorities in the creation and management of the PA is essential for the participation and ownership of the PA by local people and for the PA sustainability [82].

6. Conclusion

This study presents a first assessment of different stakeholders’ representations about the Makay region and the key socio-environmental challenges that the newly-created PA will have to tackle. In combining mental models and social representation theory, it revealed both consensual and non-consensual elements in people’s representations, and discriminates two visions of the Makay. The first vision was ecocentric, and insisted on the threat of local factors and local people on biodiversity, such as anthropogenic fires, hunting, and deforestation. The second vision was social-ecological, and was more complex, also pointing to more external threats such as the conflicts generated by the arrival of new stakeholders (tourists, associations) and mining activities. Even though both visions converged regarding the challenging aspect of concealing local people activities and nature conservation in the region, they yet differed on how to best achieve this conciliation. In order to tackle this ambiguity between stakeholders’ viewpoints so it would not undermine the success of the newly-created PA, we recommend an increased research effort in the Makay, as well as the creation of dialogue arenas within the PA governance to foster social learning between stakeholders. Increasing dialogue between local managers and governmental authorities would be another key priority, as well as the integration of local people’ knowledge and viewpoint in future research in the region.

Questionnaire on inclusivity in global research.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

List of the 10 references indexed in Scopus and dealing with the Makay region in Madagascar.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Number of components and mean frequency for each component’s types, in the four zones of the Makay’s social representations.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(Including S1 and S2 Figs and S2 and S3 Tables): Methods.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Interview guide.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Group cognitive maps of the Makay SES according to respondents’ distribution in the two clusters.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Graphs showing the elements of the four zones of the Makay social representations for (a) the ecocentric cluster, and (b) the social-ecological cluster.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

6 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rodrigo Pereira Medeiros

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

(This research was funded by the MSH-Sud (Maison des Sciences de l’Homme) through the Makay-Mada project, and by the research laboratories SENS (UMR Knowledge, Environment and Societies), PALOC (UMR Local Heritage, Environment and Globalization), DIAL (UMR LEDa, DIAL) and Art-Dev (UMR Actors, Resources and Territories in Development). We would also like to thank all the stakeholders who accepted to be interviewed, and in particular Bernard Forgeau for its valuable help throughout this study.)

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

(SC and CC received funding from the "Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme" for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.)

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. We note that Figure 5 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments:

I congratulate the authors for the manuscript, that, if suggestions are taken carefully, is suitable for publication Please follow the suggestions by reviewer 1, especially on methods, that are crucial for being considered for publication. The manuscript is relevant and innovative, and the authors should review carefully the suggestion to increase the potential of the manuscript for a bigger audience. Also, provide the best resolution possible for your figures in the final submission. Despite being considered a minor revision, I considered it a major revision since the comments are precise to say that the methods need a substantial revision, with the need to adjust the following sections.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper fits well with the aims of the journal and the targeted audience, providing a very interesting (and useful) background on the need to protect a vulnerable area in Madagascar, while considering the added-value of social representation to ensure the viability of area conservation. The introduction provides enough background on protected areas and the need to be analysed considering SES, but also calls for action. However, Section 2, on Material and Methods, needs to be reshaped. Firstly, I suggest to exclude the "presentation of the Malay region" as a new section clearly focused on the case study, and providing more details on the challenges and risks if the area is not protected. Following, I suggest to organize the rest of the sub-divisions in just two main sub-sections: Data collection and Data analysis. Furthermore, I think that sub-section 2.3 on Ethical approval should not be included in this section in the current detail, as the journal asked for ethical issues when submitting and as a separate issue. Regarding data collection, I was wondering if 32 respondents are a validated sample to ensure that all confronted perspectives are consulted. For example, you specified their profile as researchers, members of NGOs (civil society) and tour operators... but what about managers? and public administration or government? They have no relevance in the decision-making process of the PA creation? The reasons to identify and select respondents must be clearly extended. Likewise, are interviews recorded? How about the transcription process? Does the speeches being codified or organized in some way to highlight shared views among respondents? In p. 18, line 245 it is presented a double focus on anthropogenic fires and provisioning ecoservices, but why both issues are considered to be focused in? The results section seems to identify both issues, so they are a result or a previous selection criteria to analyse data from the interviews?

The results section are clear. I just suggest to edit the title of sub-section 3.2 currently focus on ambiguity but to cognitive maps as the content is focused on that. Sub-section 3.3 seems a social-learning process so maybe the title "different perspectives" is so general... In the discussion, sub-section 4.3 provides recommendations more than implications. The conclusions are focused on and reflect the obtained results.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is very well written and presented. It tackles a central issue in biodiversity conservation: how to deal with ambiguity and competing perceptions and views about the social and ecological systems submitted to conservation actions. To my knowledge, the authors present an innovative method combining the analysis of mental models and social representation, providing results and insights that form a basis for further research and for the improvement of conservation strategies in the Makay region. One of the main caveats, the fact that local people were not included in the study, is recognized and discussed. Results are presented with the help of well thought out figures and are adequately interpreted and discussed. my recommendation is to accept this manuscript for publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sandra Ricart

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

12 May 2022

Dear Dr. Rodrigo Pereira Medeiros,

First and foremost, we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled " Towards an inclusive nature conservation initiative: preliminary assessment of stakeholders’ representations about the Makay region, Madagascar" to PLOS ONE. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your insightful and constructive comments on our manuscript.

We have made changes to incorporate the suggestions provided by you and the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript in the attached document called "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes", and have detailed in a point-by-point our responses to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments and concerns. Finally, due to the substantial modification in the bibliography, we also revised the corresponding number of each reference cited in the paper.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission and to responding to

any further questions and comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Céline Fromont, April 28th 2022

Journal Requirements:

1. PLOS ONE's style requirements: We ensured that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research: We uploaded a completed version of our questionnaire as Supporting Information. Besides, we added the sentence “Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1 Checklist)” in a subsection ‘Inclusivity in global research’ to the Methods section.

3. Acknowledgements and Funding Statement: Thank you for your suggestion. As required, we removed the funding-related text from the acknowledgements, as follows:

“We thank the research laboratories SENS (UMR Knowledge, Environment and Societies), PALOC (UMR Local Heritage, Environment and Globalization), DIAL (UMR LEDa, DIAL) and Art-Dev (UMR Actors, Resources and Territories in Development) for their support. We would also like to thank all the stakeholders who accepted to be interviewed, and in particular Bernard Forgeau for its valuable help throughout this study.”

We would like to update the Funding Statement as follows:

“SMC and CC received funding from the "Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme" for the MakayMada project of which this study is part. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”

4. Data Availability statement: Thank you for your suggestion, we do not wish to make changes to our Data Availability statement.

5. Figure 1: Thank you for being concerned by Figure 1. However, this figure does not use any copyrighted material. The map was built by Auréa Pottier (engineer at IRD), under QGIS, using OpenStreetMap data free to use under an open license. From these data, we made all the layers present on this map. We did not use any other sources for this map.

Accordingly, we made the changes in the caption as follows:

“Figure 1: Location of the Makay region, Madagascar. The map was built by Auréa Pottier (engineer at IRD), under QGIS, using OpenStreetMap data.”

6. Figure 5: Thank you for being concerned by Figure 5. However, this figure does not use any copyrighted material. It was built by the authors with R and Inkscape softwares, from our data. We did not use any other sources for this figure.

Comments from Reviewer #1:

Comment Rev1 #1: I suggest to exclude the "presentation of the Malay region" as a new section clearly focused on the case study, and providing more details on the challenges and risks if the area is not protected.

Response Rev1 #1: We agree with this comment and created a new section “Study site” (line 89) that provides more information about the Makay region. This section contains two subsections “Presentation of the Makay region” (line 90) and “Challenges and potential threats” (line 114) to give more information about the local and national context and potential risks if the area is not protected.

Comment Rev1 #2: I suggest to organize the rest of the sub-divisions in just two main sub-sections: Data collection and Data analysis.

Response Rev1 #2: We thank reviewer 1 for his suggestion. We have renamed the subsection “Elicitation of individual representations of the Makay” to “Data collection” (line 188), and merged the subsections “Condensing and aggregating individual cognitive maps” and “Analysis of social representations and ambiguity in individuals’ views” into “Data analysis” (line 240). Before these subsections, we have kept the "conceptual background" part, because it seems to us necessary as a preamble to explain the articulation of the mental-model theory and the social representation theory.

Comment Rev1 #3: Furthermore, I think that sub-section 2.3 on Ethical approval should not be included in this section in the current detail, as the journal asked for ethical issues when submitting and as a separate issue.

Response Rev1 #3: We followed PLOS ONE requirements and renamed this subsection “Inclusivity in global research” into the “Material and methods” section. We uploaded a completed version of our questionnaire on inclusivity in global research as Supporting Information (S1 Checklist).

Comment Rev1 #4: Regarding data collection, I was wondering if 32 respondents are a validated sample to ensure that all confronted perspectives are consulted. For example, you specified their profile as researchers, members of NGOs (civil society) and tour operators... but what about managers? and public administration or government? They have no relevance in the decision-making process of the PA creation? The reasons to identify and select respondents must be clearly extended. Likewise, are interviews recorded? How about the transcription process? Does the speeches being codified or organized in some way to highlight shared views among respondents?

Response Rev1 #4: We thank Reviewer 1 for pointing this

out. In order to decide when to stop interviewing more respondents, we applied a data saturation technique that is commonly used in social investigations: we considered that enough respondents were interviewed when no new information (new components in cognitive maps) was added by an interview. We explain this data saturation in S1 Appendix (S1 Figure). Regarding the inclusion of managers, we included members of the NGO carrying the project of creation of the protected area and expected to be the future manager of this protected area among the members of local environmental organizations we interviewed. We have added this precision to line 199-200. Regarding public administration and government, we chose to elicit cognitive maps from people who had personally been in the Makay (we have added this precision to line 194), and public administration and government did not have sufficient on-the-ground knowledge of the region to produce a cognitive map of the Makay. However, we did meet with the Ministry of the Environment's Protected Area Creation and Management Department for additional interviews. The interviews were recorded but not transcribed in full, as our main material for data analysis was the cognitive maps produced by the respondents. We used an a posteriori standardization of all cited components in the cognitive maps to allow for analysis and comparisons between respondents. We used the recording of the interviews in order not to betray respondents’ discourses and opinions. We give more information about this standardization procedure in the S1 Appendix.

Comment Rev1 #5: In p. 18, line 245 it is presented a double focus on anthropogenic fires and provisioning ecoservices, but why both issues are considered to be focused in? The results section seems to identify both issues, so they are a result or a previous selection criteria to analyse data from the interviews?

Response Rev1 #5: We thank Reviewer1 for raising this important point. We chose these two issues firstly because they were mentioned by most of the respondents and linked to many components of the Makay system, but also because these two issues are central in Madagascar. We added some clarification in lines 414-416: “Besides, the problem of fires is well known in Madagascar [49-51], as is the importance of natural resources for the subsistence activities of local people [28].”, with the references “49. Kull CA. Madagascar aflame: landscape burning as peasant protest, resistance, or a resource management tool? Political Geography. 2002;21(7):927‑53.”, “50. Frappier-Brinton T, Lehman SM. The burning island: Spatiotemporal patterns of fire occurrence in Madagascar. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 2022;17(3)” and “51. Kull CA. Deforestation, erosion, and fire: degradation myths in the environmental history of Madagascar. Environment and History. 2000;6(4):423‑50.”

Comment Rev1 #6: I just suggest to edit the title of sub-section 3.2 currently focus on ambiguity but to cognitive maps as the content is focused on that. Sub-section 3.3 seems a social-learning process so maybe the title "different perspectives" is so general...

Response Rev1 #6: We changed the title of these subsections to “Variability in representations at individual and group level” and to “Complementary perspectives about Makay’s conservation challenges”.

Comment Rev1 #7: In the discussion, sub-section 4.3 provides recommendations more than implications.

Response Rev1 #7: We agree with Reviewer 1, and changed the title to “Recommendations for the Makay’s protected area”.

Comments from Reviewer #2:

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the time spent reviewing our manuscript and for his very positive comments on this work.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jul 2022

Towards an inclusive nature conservation initiative: preliminary assessment of stakeholders’ representations about the Makay region, Madagascar

PONE-D-22-03075R1

Dear Dr. Fromont ,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Randeep Singh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for considering my suggestions and providing a very extensive answer to each point. Congratulations for a very interesting work.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sandra Ricart

**********

5 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-03075R1

Towards an inclusive nature conservation initiative: preliminary assessment of stakeholders’ representations about the Makay region, Madagascar

Dear Dr. Fromont:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Randeep Singh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE