Research on ecosystem services has grown markedly in recent years. However, few studies are embedded in a social process designed to ensure effective management of ecosystem services. Most research ...has focused only on biophysical and valuation assessments of putative services. As a mission-oriented discipline, ecosystem service research should be user-inspired and user-useful, which will require that researchers respond to stakeholder needs from the outset and collaborate with them in strategy development and implementation. Here we provide a pragmatic operational model for achieving the safeguarding of ecosystem services. The model comprises three phases: assessment, planning, and management. Outcomes of social, biophysical, and valuation assessments are used to identify opportunities and constraints for implementation. The latter then are transformed into user-friendly products to identify, with stakeholders, strategic objectives for implementation (the planning phase). The management phase undertakes and coordinates actions that achieve the protection of ecosystem services and ensure the flow of these services to beneficiaries. This outcome is achieved via mainstreaming, or incorporating the safeguarding of ecosystem services into the policies and practices of sectors that deal with land- and water-use planning. Management needs to be adaptive and should be institutionalized in a suite of learning organizations that are representative of the sectors that are concerned with decision-making and planning. By following the phases of our operational model, projects for safeguarding ecosystem services are likely to empower stakeholders to implement effective on-the-ground management that will achieve resilience of the corresponding social-ecological systems.
Transdisciplinary research practice has become a core element of global sustainability science. Transdisciplinary research brings with it an expectation that people with different backgrounds and ...interests will learn together through collective problem solving and innovation. Here we introduce the concept of “transdisciplinary communities of practice,” and draw on both situated learning theory and transdisciplinary practice to identify three key lessons for people working in, managing, or funding such groups. (1) Opportunities need to be purposefully created for outsiders to observe activities in the core group. (2) Communities of practice cannot be artificially created, but they can be nurtured. (3) Power matters in transdisciplinary communities of practice. These insights challenge thinking about how groups of people come together in pursuit of transdisciplinary outcomes, and call for greater attention to be paid to the social processes of learning that are at the heart of our aspirations for global sustainability science.
A key aim of transdisciplinary research is for actors from science, policy and practice to co-evolve their understanding of a social–ecological issue, reconcile their diverse perspectives and ...co-produce appropriate knowledge to serve a common purpose. With its concurrent grounding in practice and science, transdisciplinary research represents a significant departure from conventional research. We focus on mutual learning within transdisciplinary research and highlight three aspects that could guide other researchers in designing and facilitating such learning. These are: “who to learn with”, “what to learn about” and “how to learn”. For each of these questions, we present learning heuristics that are supported by a comparative analysis of two case studies that addressed contemporary conservation issues in South Africa but varied in scale and duration. These were a five-year national-scale project focusing on the prioritisation of freshwater ecosystems for conservation and a three-year local-scale project that used ecological infrastructure as a theme for advancing sustainability dialogues. Regarding the proposed learning heuristics, “who to learn with” is scale dependent and needs to be informed by relevant disciplines and policy sectors with the aim of establishing a knowledge network representing empirical, pragmatic, normative and purposive functions. This emergent network should be enriched by involving relevant experts, novices and bridging agents, where possible. It is important for such networks to learn about the respective histories, system processes and drivers, values and knowledge that exist in the social–ecological system of interest. Moreover, learning together about key concepts and issues can help to develop a shared vocabulary, which in turn can contribute to a shared understanding, a common vision and an agreed way of responding to it. New ways of group learning can be promoted and enhanced by co-developing outputs (boundary objects) for application across knowledge domains and creating spaces (third places) that facilitate exchange of knowledge and knowledge co-production. We conclude with five generic lessons for transdisciplinary researchers to enhance project success: (a) the duration, timing and continuation potential of a project influences its prospects for achieving systemic and sustainable change; (b) bridging agents, especially if embedded within an implementing agency, play a critical role in facilitating transdisciplinary learning with enhanced outcomes; (c) researchers need to participate as co-learners rather than masters of knowledge domains; (d) purposeful mixed-paradigm research designs could help to mend knowledge fragmentation within science; and (e) researchers must be vigilant for three pitfalls in mutual learning initiatives, namely biases in participant self-selection, perceived superiority of scientific knowledge and the attraction of simple solutions to wicked problems that retain the status quo.
As the United Nations develops a post-2020 global biodiversity framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, attention is focusing on how new goals and targets for ecosystem conservation ...might serve its vision of 'living in harmony with nature'
. Advancing dual imperatives to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services requires reliable and resilient generalizations and predictions about ecosystem responses to environmental change and management
. Ecosystems vary in their biota
, service provision
and relative exposure to risks
, yet there is no globally consistent classification of ecosystems that reflects functional responses to change and management. This hampers progress on developing conservation targets and sustainability goals. Here we present the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Ecosystem Typology, a conceptually robust, scalable, spatially explicit approach for generalizations and predictions about functions, biota, risks and management remedies across the entire biosphere. The outcome of a major cross-disciplinary collaboration, this novel framework places all of Earth's ecosystems into a unifying theoretical context to guide the transformation of ecosystem policy and management from global to local scales. This new information infrastructure will support knowledge transfer for ecosystem-specific management and restoration, globally standardized ecosystem risk assessments, natural capital accounting and progress on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.
Although protected areas represent a pivotal response to escalating anthropogenic threats, they face many pressures, inside and outside their boundaries. Amid these challenges, effective conservation ...is guided by evidence‐based decision making supported by dynamic processes of learning and knowledge exchange. Although different models promote knowledge exchange, embedding research scientists within conservation agencies is best suited to supporting evidence‐based conservation. Based on available literature and our experiences on several continents, we considered the benefits, challenges, and opportunities associated with embedding research scientists within conservation agencies and the research required to better understand the effectiveness of the embedding model for evidence‐based conservation. Embedded researchers provide long‐term commitment to building social capital among academic and nonacademic stakeholders; act as skilled gatekeepers who increase 2‐way flow of knowledge between scientists and managers; attract, coordinate, and support management‐relevant external research projects; drive the design and maintenance of long‐term monitoring; and align their research with information needs. Notwithstanding the many benefits, research capacity of conservation agencies is declining worldwide. A significant challenge is that the values, structures, functions, and effectiveness of the embedding model of knowledge exchange remain poorly evaluated and documented. Also, embedded researchers have to balance their desire for creativity and flexibility with the standardization and quality control required by their public sector agencies; may be perceived as not credible because they are not truly independent of their agency; and have to couple scientific productivity with skills for transdisciplinary research, social facilitation, and stakeholder engagement. Systematic research on embedding and other models of knowledge exchange, across different world contexts, is required to better understand the benefits, costs, and institutional arrangements associated with different models.
El Caso para la Incorporación de Investigadores en las Agencias de Conservación
Resumen
Aunque las áreas protegidas representan una respuesta crucial a las crecientes amenazas antropogénicas, estas enfrentan muchas presiones dentro y fuera de sus fronteras. En medio de estos desafíos, la conservación efectiva se guía por la toma de decisiones con base en evidencias respaldada por los procesos dinámicos de aprendizaje e intercambio de conocimiento. Mientras que diferentes modelos promueven el intercambio de conocimiento, la incorporación de investigadores científicos en las agencias de conservación es más adecuada para respaldar la conservación basada en evidencias. Con base en la literatura disponible y en nuestras experiencias en varios continentes consideramos los beneficios, desafíos y oportunidades asociadas con la incorporación de investigadores científicos en las agencias de conservación y la investigación requerida para entender de mejor manera la efectividad del modelo de incorporación para la conservación basada en evidencias. Los investigadores incorporados proporcionan un compromiso a largo plazo con la construcción de un capital social entre los accionistas académicos y no académicos; fungen como guardianes habilidosos que incrementan el flujo de dos vías de conocimiento entre los científicos y los administradores; atraen, coordinan y apoyan los proyectos de investigación externos relevantes para el manejo; llevan el diseño y el mantenimiento del monitoreo a largo plazo; y alinean su investigación con las necesidades de información. A pesar de los beneficios, la capacidad de investigación de las agencias de conservación está declinando a nivel mundial. Un desafío significativo es que los valores, estructuras, funciones y efectividad del modelo de incorporación del intercambio de conocimiento permanecen pobremente evaluados y documentados. Además, los investigadores incorporados tienen que balancear su deseo por ser creativos y flexibles con la estandarización y el control de calidad requeridos por sus agencias del sector público; pueden ser percibidos como no creíbles porque no son realmente independientes de su agencia; y tienen que emparejar la productividad científica con las habilidades de investigación transdisciplinaria, facilitación social y participación de los accionistas. Se requiere de la investigación sistemática sobre la incorporación y otros modelos de intercambio de conocimiento en diferentes contextos globales para entender de mejor manera los beneficios, costos y arreglos institucionales asociados con diferentes modelos.
摘要
保护地在当前人为威胁不断升级的现状下对保护起着关键作用, 然而, 在保护地的边界内外都面临着许多压力。为应对这些压力和挑战, 需要那些被动态学习过程和知识交换支持的基于证据的决策来指导有效保护。尽管许多不同的模式都可以促进知识交换, 但在保护机构中吸纳科学家的做法才最能支持基于证据的保护。根据现有的文献和我们在多个大洲的经验, 我们探讨了将研究者纳入保护机构的好处、挑战和机遇, 以及为了更好地理解吸纳研究者的模式对基于证据的保护的有效性仍需进行的研究。加入保护机构的研究者会长期致力于建立学术界和非学术界的利益相关者之间的社会资本; 担当把关人来增加科学家和管理者之间的双向知识交流; 吸引、协调和支持与管理相关的外部研究项目; 推动长期监测项目的设计和维护; 并根据信息需求来进行他们的研究。虽然这样做有许多好处, 但世界范围内, 保护机构的研究能力却正在下降。目前面临的一个重要挑战在于, 这种人才吸纳式的知识交换模式的价值、结构、功能和有效性仍然没有得到很好的评估和记录。此外, 研究者必须在对创造力和灵活性的渴望与公共部门机构要求的标准化和质量控制之间取得平衡, 可能会因为并非完全独立于他们的服务机构而被认为不可信; 还必须将科学生产力与跨学科研究、社会促进和推动利益相关者参与等技能相结合。为了更好地理解各种知识交换模式的利益、成本和制度安排, 未来需要对不同领域背景下的人才吸纳及其它模式进行系统性的研究。【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】
Article impact statement: Embedding researchers in conservation agencies can promote knowledge exchange, research relevance, and management effectiveness.
Knowledge co-production and boundary work offer planners a new frame for critically designing a social process that fosters collaborative implementation of resulting plans. Knowledge co-production ...involves stakeholders from diverse knowledge systems working iteratively toward common vision and action. Boundary work is a means of creating permeable knowledge boundaries that satisfy the needs of multiple social groups while guarding the functional integrity of contributing knowledge systems. Resulting products are boundary objects of mutual interest that maintain coherence across all knowledge boundaries. We examined how knowledge co-production and boundary work can bridge the gap between planning and implementation and promote cross-sectoral cooperation. We applied these concepts to well-established stages in regional conservation planning within a national scale conservation planning project aimed at identifying areas for conserving rivers and wetlands of South Africa and developing an institutional environment for promoting their conservation. Knowledge co-production occurred iteratively over 4 years in interactive stakeholder workshops that included co-development of national freshwater conservation goals and spatial data on freshwater biodiversity and local conservation feasibility; translation of goals into quantitative inputs that were used in Marxan to select draft priority conservation areas; review of draft priority areas; and packaging of resulting map products into an atlas and implementation manual to promote application of the priority area maps in 37 different decision-making contexts. Knowledge co-production stimulated dialogue and negotiation and built capacity for multi-scale implementation beyond the project. The resulting maps and information integrated diverse knowledge types of over 450 stakeholders and represented > 1000 years of collective experience. The maps provided a consistent national source of information on priority conservation areas for rivers and wetlands and have been applied in 25 of the 37 use contexts since their launch just over 3 years ago. When framed as a knowledge co-production process supported by boundary work, regional conservation plans can be developed into valuable boundary objects that offer a tangible tool for multiagency cooperation around conservation. Our work provides practical guidance for promoting uptake of conservation science and contributes to an evidence base on how conservation efforts can be improved. La coproducción de conocimiento y el trabajo de frontera le ofrecen a los planeadores un marco nuevo para diseñar críticamente un proceso social que fomente la implementación de los planes resultantes en colaboración. La coproducción de conocimiento involucra a accionistas de diversos sistemas de conocimiento trabajando repetidamente hacia una visión y acción común. El trabajo de frontera es un medio de creación de fronteras permeables de conocimiento que satisfacen las necesidades de múltiples grupos sociales mientras mantienen la integridad funcional de los sistemas de conocimiento contribuyentes. Los productos resultantes son objetos fronterizos de interés mutuo que mantienen la coherencia a lo largo de todas las fronteras del conocimiento. Examinamos cómo la coproducción de conocimiento y el trabajo de frontera pueden resolver el vacío entre la planeación y la implementación y promover la cooperación entre sectores. Aplicamos estos conceptos a las fases bien establecidas de la planeación de la conservación regional dentro de un proyecto de planeación de la conservación a escala nacional enfocado a la identificación de áreas para la conservación de ríos y humedales de Sudáfrica y al desarrollo de un ambiente institucional para promover su conservación. La coproducción de conocimiento apareció repetidamente a lo largo de cuatro años en talleres interactivos de trabajo para los accionistas, que incluyeron el co-desarrollo de objetivos de conservación del agua dulce nacional e información espacial sobre la biodiversidad de agua dulce y la viabilidad de la conservación local; la traducción de las metas a aportes cuantitativos que se usaron en Marxan para seleccionar áreas de conservación de proyectos prioritarios; la revisión de áreas de proyectos prioritarios; y el empaquetamiento de los productos cartográficos resultantes para promover la aplicación del mapa de área prioritaria resultante en 37 contextos de toma de decisiones. La coproducción de conocimiento estimuló el diálogo y la negociación y construyó la capacidad para la implementación multiescala más allá del proyecto. Los mapas resultantes y la información integraron diferentes tipos de conocimiento de más de 450 accionistas y representaron >1000 años de experiencia colectiva. Los mapas proporcionaron una consistente fuente nacional de información sobre las áreas prioritarias de conservación de ríos y humedales y se han aplicado en 25 contextos de uso desde su creación. Cuando se enmarcan como un proceso de coproducción de conocimiento respaldado por el trabajo de frontera, los planes de conservación regional pueden transformarse en objetos valiosos que ofrecen una herramienta tangible para la cooperación multiagencia en la conservación. Nuestro trabajo proporciona una guía práctica para promover la comprensión de la ciencia de la conservación y contribuye a una base de evidencias de cómo se puede mejorar la conservación.
A key reason for undertaking transdisciplinary processes such as knowledge co-production in natural resource management is to access and apply different knowledge systems to complex issues. However, ...the value of co-production is predominantly framed by academics. They have focused on research design and outcomes in the form of ‘science informing policy’. In this paper we build a more inclusive and holistic framing of knowledge co-production incorporating values of non-academic participants, and values related to the participatory process. Specifically, we examine how knowledge is communicated and deliberated upon and the requirements for this to be done effectively. We draw upon empirical data from interviews with natural resource managers who participated in two case studies of knowledge co-production in Australia and South Africa. Their perspectives are captured in eight evaluation principles that build upon existing evaluation frameworks for public participation. Critically, decision-makers valued science-based outputs not just as salient knowledge sources, but to give legitimacy to their decisions. This need for legitimacy necessitates transparency, fairness and inclusivity in knowledge selection, participation and dialogue within knowledge co-production processes. The practice-based knowledge of decision-makers was important for contextualizing and applying science to specific decision contexts. Another key finding is that communicative competence is central to the process of knowledge co-production because it enables participants to critically explore and understand the knowledge claims of others.
•Decision-makers provide new perspectives on the value of knowledge co-production.•Science is valued to both inform and legitimize decisions.•Decision-makers’ expertise is critical to apply science in specific decision contexts.•Understanding and applying participant knowledge requires communicative competence.•Transparent knowledge selection and inclusive dialogue promote legitimacy.
This paper contends that natural resource management (NRM) issues are, by their very nature, complex and that both scientists and managers in this broad field will benefit from a theoretical ...understanding of complex systems. It starts off by presenting the core features of a view of complexity that not only deals with the limits to our understanding, but also points toward a responsible and motivating position. Everything we do involves explicit or implicit modeling, and as we can never have comprehensive access to any complex system, we need to be aware both of what we leave out as we model and of the implications of the choice of our modeling framework. One vantage point is never sufficient, as complexity necessarily implies that multiple (independent) conceptualizations are needed to engage the system adequately. We use two South African cases as examples of complex systems—restricting the case narratives mainly to the biophysical domain associated with NRM issues—that make the point that even the behavior of the biophysical subsystems themselves are already complex. From the insights into complex systems discussed in the first part of the paper and the lessons emerging from the way these cases have been dealt with in reality, we extract five interrelated generic principles for practicing science and management in complex NRM environments. These principles are then further elucidated using four further South African case studies—organized as two contrasting pairs—and now focusing on the more difficult organizational and social side, comparing the human organizational endeavors in managing such systems.
Assessment of social relations, including social network analysis, is central to understanding collaborative processes for environmental decision-making and action. The capacity of network role ...players to learn and adapt appropriately to uncertainty and change is a critical determinant of the resilience of socialecological systems. Poor social network structure can predispose failure. In this study, we used social network analysis to explore learning capacity and network resilience in a multi-authority conservation initiative on the West Coast of South Africa (Dassenberg Coastal Catchment Partnership). Our analysis focused on structural variables for network learning and resilience, namely connectivity, heterogeneity, and centrality. The governance network was found to be structurally connected, with the interaction between heterogeneous organisations and sectors, and centralised around a core group of actors. The network had good structural features to enable learning. However, the high level of centrality, and dependence on a small number of core actors, rendered the network potentially vulnerable to dealing with complex challenges. We recommend that core actors (1) reflect on their core functions and whether the network can absorb these functions if they were to leave and (2) tap into the knowledge potential of actors on the network periphery or invite new actors to the network when dealing with complex challenges. This may require the network to diverge into decentralised subgroups to deal with complex issues. We further suggest that the Dassenberg Coastal Catchment Partnership network incorporate social network research with qualitative monitoring into a long-term plan to monitor the movement and influence of actors as the initiative evolves.Significance: • This study illustrates how social network analysis can help researchers, public-sector organisations, and donor agencies to monitor the structural features of governance networks that enable or disable learning and resilience within landscape-scale conservation initiatives. • Our results illustrate how social network analysis can assist public-sector actors to reflect on their roles and whether there is redundant competency within the network to maintain its resilience.
River flows connect people, places, and other forms of life, inspiring and sustaining diverse cultural beliefs, values, and ways of life. The concept of environmental flows provides a framework for ...improving understanding of relationships between river flows and people, and for supporting those that are mutually beneficial. Nevertheless, most approaches to determining environmental flows remain grounded in the biophysical sciences. The newly revised Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018) represents a new phase in environmental flow science and an opportunity to better consider the co‐constitution of river flows, ecosystems, and society, and to more explicitly incorporate these relationships into river management. We synthesize understanding of relationships between people and rivers as conceived under the renewed definition of environmental flows. We present case studies from Honduras, India, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia that illustrate multidisciplinary, collaborative efforts where recognizing and meeting diverse flow needs of human populations was central to establishing environmental flow recommendations. We also review a small body of literature to highlight examples of the diversity and interdependencies of human‐flow relationships—such as the linkages between river flow and human well‐being, spiritual needs, cultural identity, and sense of place—that are typically overlooked when environmental flows are assessed and negotiated. Finally, we call for scientists and water managers to recognize the diversity of ways of knowing, relating to, and utilizing rivers, and to place this recognition at the center of future environmental flow assessments.
This article is categorized under:
Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness
Human Water > Water Governance
Human Water > Water as Imagined and Represented
For many human populations around the world, river flows are linked to livelihood, identity, sense of place, religious beliefs and ceremonies, language systems, or educational practices. These embedded, reciprocal, and constitutive relationships between humans and rivers remain poorly understood, but can be critically important to assessment and implementation of environmental flows
PDF
