Knowledge co‐production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans

Abstract

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 stake-holder 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 multi-agency 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.

Linking knowledge to action: the role of boundary spanners in translating ecology

“…; Nel et al . ). Although such products and tools may require an experienced boundary spanner to successfully develop, market, and employ them, under the right circumstances tools and other products can assume a boundary‐spanning role of their own if users adopt them (Panel ).…”

Interdisciplinary and multi-institutional higher learning: reflecting on a South African case study investigating complex and dynamic environmental challenges

“…Finally, we acknowledged, along with others [see e.g. 52,53,54,55,56], that knowledge co-production and "boundary work" are important ways to tackle complex social-ecological challenges. These approaches encourage meaningful participation across different knowledge communities, thereby ensuring accountability to relevant stakeholders.…”

“…Nel et al [56] provide a developing country's perspective and approach to dealing with complex and dynamic social-ecological systems through a collaborative and interdisciplinary program. Our…”

Post‐normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation

“…A key ingredient of this success was the willingness of planners to work beyond their familiar scientific paradigms (e.g., life sciences, earth sciences, or social sciences) by focusing on decisionmaking, behavioral change and policy implementation Reyers et al, 2010). Through engagement with a broader community of stakeholders (i.e., the extended peer community of researchers, policy-makers, practitioners, and government officials), the values of those outside of traditional science informed the motives for conservation planning (Nel et al, 2016). Through engagement with a broader community of stakeholders (i.e., the extended peer community of researchers, policy-makers, practitioners, and government officials), the values of those outside of traditional science informed the motives for conservation planning (Nel et al, 2016).…”