Dataset Information

Conflict in Protected Areas: Who Says Co-Management Does Not Work?

ABSTRACT: Natural resource-related conflicts can be extremely destructive and undermine environmental protection. Since the 1990 s co-management schemes, whereby the management of resources is shared by public and/or private sector stakeholders, have been a main strategy for reducing these conflicts worldwide. Despite initial high hopes, in recent years co-management has been perceived as falling short of expectations. However, systematic assessments of its role in conflict prevention or mitigation are non-existent. Interviews with 584 residents from ten protected areas in Colombia revealed that co-management can be successful in reducing conflict at grassroots level, as long as some critical enabling conditions, such as effective participation in the co-management process, are fulfilled not only on paper but also by praxis. We hope these findings will re-incentivize global efforts to make co-management work in protected areas and other common pool resource contexts, such as fisheries, agriculture, forestry and water management.

SUBMITTER: De Pourcq K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4695097 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Conflict in Protected Areas: Who Says Co-Management Does Not Work?

De Pourcq Kobe K Thomas Evert E Arts Bas B Vranckx An A Léon-Sicard Tomas T Van Damme Patrick P

PloS one 20151229 12

Natural resource-related conflicts can be extremely destructive and undermine environmental protection. Since the 1990 s co-management schemes, whereby the management of resources is shared by public and/or private sector stakeholders, have been a main strategy for reducing these conflicts worldwide. Despite initial high hopes, in recent years co-management has been perceived as falling short of expectations. However, systematic assessments of its role in conflict prevention or mitigation are no ...[more]

PMID: 26714036

Similar Datasets

Project description:Performance thresholds are an important tool for determining successful conservation outcomes. They provide an objective means of defining good ecological condition and have been endorsed as an essential part of best practice in protected area (PA) management within the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas Standard. With a growing number of PAs attaining Green List status globally, thresholds developed by PAs on the Green List present an excellent resource with which to identify the attributes of well-defined performance thresholds. We examined 349 thresholds associated with PAs on the Green List to determine whether they were specific and measurable (i.e., factors recognized as essential for setting well-defined targets). We assessed whether thresholds were defined quantitatively and whether definitions included ambiguous terms (e.g., stable numbers). We identified six different ways thresholds were expressed and found that many thresholds were expressed as management objectives, rather than ecological condition thresholds, although this trend improved over time. Approximately one-half of the performance thresholds lacked the necessary specificity to delineate successful outcomes. Our results enabled us to develop a checklist of information required to set robust performance thresholds. Recommendations include that thresholds should be quantitatively defined, including quantitative estimates of the limits of acceptable change (LAC) around the target condition. To ensure transparency, a rationale and associated evidence should be provided to support the threshold and the LAC. When accompanied by a rationale and quantitative estimate of the current condition of the value, unambiguously defined thresholds with a quantitative LAC provide an objective means of demonstrating that successful conservation outcomes have been achieved. These recommendations will help conservation managers apply the Green List Standard and improve the measurement of conservation outcomes more broadly.

Project description:Protected areas are a crucial tool for halting the loss of biodiversity. Yet, the management of protected areas is under resourced, impacting the ability to achieve effective conservation actions. Effective management depends on the application of the best available knowledge, which can include both scientific evidence and the local knowledge of onsite managers. Despite the clear value of evidence-based conservation, there is still little known about how much scientific evidence is used to guide the management of protected areas. This knowledge gap is especially evident in developing countries, where resource limitations and language barriers may create additional challenges for the use of scientific evidence in management. To assess the extent to which scientific evidence is used to inform management decisions in a developing country, we surveyed Brazilian protected area managers about the information they use to support their management decisions. We targeted on-ground managers who are responsible for management decisions made at the local protected area level. We asked managers about the sources of evidence they use, how frequently they assess the different sources of evidence and the scientific content of the different sources of evidence. We also considered a range of factors that might explain the use of scientific evidence to guide the management of protected areas, such as the language spoken by managers, the accessibility of evidence sources and the characteristics of the managers and the protected areas they manage. The managers who responded to our questionnaire reported that they most frequently made decisions based on their personal experience, with scientific evidence being used relatively infrequently. While managers in our study tended to value scientific evidence less highly than other sources, most managers still considered science important for management decisions. Managers reported that the accessibility of scientific evidence is low relative to other types of evidence, with key barriers being the low levels of open access research and insufficient technical training to enable managers to interpret research findings. Based on our results, we suggest that managers in developing countries face all the same challenges as those in developed countries, along with additional language barriers that can prevent greater use of scientific evidence to support effective management of protected areas in Brazil.

Dataset Information

Conflict in Protected Areas: Who Says Co-Management Does Not Work?

Publications

Conflict in Protected Areas: Who Says Co-Management Does Not Work?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets