Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation

Sterling, Eleanor J.; Betley, Erin; Sigouin, Amanda; Gómez, Andrés; Toomey, Anne; Cullman, Georgina; Malone, Cynthia; Pekor, Adam; Arengo, Felicity; Blair, Mary E.; Filardi, Chris; Landrigan, Kimberley; Porzecanski, Ana L.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008

Cited by 310 publications

(241 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, State Forest Department has only occasionally harnessed these insights in developing and implementing community-based forest planning and conservation programmes (Ramakrishnan 2007). Participation of different stakeholders seems necessary for reciprocity and exchange of knowledge, and trust building to enhance the biodiversity conservation and livelihood options (Garnett et al 2007;Sterling et al 2017), as well illustrated in Nepal (Shrestha et al 2010) and with Indigenous People (UN 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different stakeholders involved in forest resources access and use may vary in terms of their TEK and responsibilities of forest management and therefore may ultimately affect the sustainability of forest resources and associated services. Often, it might happen that knowledge of one stakeholder about forest resources (such as of a particular plant or animal species) may not be known to others (Keen et al 2005;Sterling et al 2017) jeopardizing the community plans and initiatives for sustainable conservation (Brown et al 2013). We found that while Adi hunters rate the leguminous tree Gymnocladus burmanicus to be less abundant than before in regpi and morang forests, other user groups had little knowledge about this species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Classification and management of community forests in Indian Eastern Himalayas: implications on ecosystem services, conservation and livelihoods

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Evidence is mounting that traditional knowledge can play a critical role in shaping the biodiversity conservation strategies and maintaining ecosystem services. This study was conducted with Adi community of Arunachal Pradesh (Ar P) state in the Eastern Indian Himalayas to understand as how local systems of forest classification governs conservation tradition and influences subsistence livelihoods. Twenty Adi villages were sampled from East Siang district of Ar P. A total of 197 men and 204 women (total of 401) Adi respondents were selected for this study. A combination of methodologies including in-depth interview, transect walks, focus group discussion, participant observation and informal interactions were combined for data collection. Results: Local forests are classified into 10 different categories based on indicators such as topography, cultural significance, use typology, ownership rights and plant diversity indicators. Local people assign different values (economic, cultural and ecological) to different forest types. Overall, morang followed by regpi and homegardens are perceived to be more valuable to the local needs than other forests with relative ranking of a particular forest reflecting its sustainability. Adis access several diverse services from these community-managed forests. Compared to men (3-35%), the role of women was assessed to be much higher (65 to 100%) in conserving forest biodiversity. Woman-led practices, instrumental in sustainable forest management, included deliberate manipulations of micro-habitats, sustainable harvesting strategies and species domestication. Men were mostly involved in ownership and decision-making roles and in devising social norms to ensure sustainability. Adi celebrate a number of cultural events to sustain biodiversity. Forest-based livelihoods are intrinsically connected to forest resource conservation and are governed by community approaches. Most of the community members gather plants, hunt wild animals and access other ecosystem services from these forests to sustain their livelihoods. Community-owned forests are collectively managed by an indigenous institution 'Kebang'. Conflicts relating to forest land use and resource management are resolved by the customary chief 'Gaon Burha' and his associates using traditional norms. Conclusions: Adi's system of forest classification, based on ecological, socio-cultural and livelihood indicators, is a location-specific yet comprehensive in nature. Study suggests that integrating the local indicators applied in classifying and strategies applied in managing the local forests can provide valuable insights to the policy makers for the sustainable conservation of forest resources.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification and management of community forests in Indian Eastern Himalayas: implications on ecosystem services, conservation and livelihoods

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt|Wien Graz and IFZ-Inter-University Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture, Schloegelgasse 2, 8010 Graz, Austria. 5 JT Environmental Consultants (JTEC), Cambridge, UK.…”

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[3]) (see "Defining stakeholders", below). 1 Stakeholder engagement may provide several key benefits to environmental management research projects (reviewed in [4,5]), including: improving the evidence base [6]; greater public acceptance [7]; higher likelihood of intervention success [8]; wider communication of findings [9]; and increased likelihood of impact on decision-making [10]. However, engaging stakeholders in research can also be associated with dis-benefits, such as reinforcing power imbalance [11], causing or worsening misunderstandings, and delaying decision-making [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People have a stake in conservation and environmental management both for their own interests and the sake of the environment itself. Environmental decision-making has changed somewhat in recent decades to account for unintentional impacts on human wellbeing. The involvement of stakeholders in environmental projects has been recognised as critical for ensuring their success and equally for the syntheses of evidence of what works, where, and for whom, providing key benefits and challenges. As a result of increased interest in systematic reviews of complex management issues, there is a need for guidance in best practices for stakeholder engagement. Here, we propose a framework for stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews/systematic maps, highlighting recommendations and advice that are critical for effective, efficient and meaningful engagement of stakeholders. The discussion herein aims to provide a toolbox of stakeholder engagement activities, whilst also recommending approaches from stakeholder engagement research that may prove to be particularly useful for systematic reviews and systematic maps.

show abstract

“…For instance, it determines whether one is interested in the normal scientific facts, the different perceptions of the problems at hand, and/or the underlying reasons why different perspectives exist. The view of knowledge determines not only what problem definitions are recognized but also what types of data are considered valid [19], which in turn shapes the framing within which evidence-based decision-making takes place A vital step is therefore to negotiate the definition of what constitutes credible evidence and to transparently document not only scientific data but also indigenous and local knowledge and practitioners' experiences. Different views of knowledge can be especially pronounced in cross-cultural settings and can also have implications for what research methods are considered ethical [17].…”

Section: The View Of Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge production and environmental conflict: managing systematic reviews and maps for constructive outcomes

Larsen

Nilsson

2017

Environ Evid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews and maps in the environmental field are often carried out in contexts of contestation between different knowledge holders and users, placing demands on the review team to constructively relate to different interests and perspectives. The aim of this short commentary is to place systematic reviews and maps into a broader perspective of conflict management related to knowledge production, including the role of facilitated stakeholder involvement. We introduce a brief framework that identifies four dimensions that are relevant for choosing among different approaches to knowledge production in conflict situations: type of conflict, view of knowledge, model of stakeholder involvement, and measure of quality. We also provide some suggestions on how such a framework can be applied in connection with planning for systematic reviews and maps. Options include managing conflicts through facilitated stakeholder involvement within the review itself as well as a thorough assessment of what specifically the method can contribute in relationship to other approaches to knowledge production for environmental management.

show abstract

Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation

Cited by 310 publications

References 100 publications

Classification and management of community forests in Indian Eastern Himalayas: implications on ecosystem services, conservation and livelihoods

Classification and management of community forests in Indian Eastern Himalayas: implications on ecosystem services, conservation and livelihoods

A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management

Knowledge production and environmental conflict: managing systematic reviews and maps for constructive outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About