Partnering for greater success - Kainer et al.

Partnering for greater success: Local stakeholders and research in tropical

biology and conservation

Karen A. Kainer1, 2

, Maria DiGiano3, Amy Duchelle

2, Lúcia H.O. Wadt

4, Emilio Bruna

1, 5,

Jonathan L. Dain1

1Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, P.O. Box 115530, Gainesville, FL,

32611-5530, USA

2School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110410,

Gainesville, FL, 32611-0410, USA

3School of Natural Resources and the Environment, Gainesville, P.O. Box 116455, Gainesville,

FL, 32611-6455, USA FL, USA

4Centro de Pesquisa Agroflorestal do Acre (Embrapa Acre), Caixa Postal 321, Rio Branco, Acre,

69908-970, Brazil

5Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110430,

Gainesville, FL, 32611-0430, USA

Received___________; revision accepted___________.

Partnering for greater success - Kainer et al.

ABSTRACT 1

Local communities are important stakeholders in resource management and conservation efforts, 2

particularly in the developing world. Although evidence is mixed in suggesting that these 3

resident stakeholders are optimal forest stewards, it is highly unlikely that large tracts of tropical 4

forests will be conserved without engaging local people who depend on them daily for their 5

livelihoods. Stakeholders, who reside in biodiverse ecosystems like tropical forests, are the 6

largest direct users and ultimate decision makers of forest fate, can be great investors in 7

conservation, harbor local ecological knowledge that complements Western science, and 8

frequently have long-term legitimate claims on lands where they reside. Research partnerships 9

with local stakeholders can increase research relevance, enhance knowledge exchange and result 10

in greater conservation success. Different phases of the research cycle present distinct 11

opportunities for partnership, with flexibility in timing, approaches and strategies depending on 12

researcher and local stakeholder needs and interests. Despite being the last step in the research 13

process, dissemination of results can be the best starting point for researchers interested in 14

experimenting with local stakeholder engagement. Still, tropical biologists might not choose to 15

partner with local people because of lack of institutional rewards, insufficient training in 16

stakeholder engagement, insecure research infrastructure in community settings, and time and 17

funding limitations. Although not appropriate in all cases and despite significant challenges, 18

some biological scientists and research institutions have successfully engaged local stakeholders 19

in the research process, proving mutually beneficial for investigators and local people alike and 20

resulting in important innovations in tropical biology and conservation. 21

22

Keywords: Community; dissemination, returning results, participatory research 23

1

Partnering for greater success: Local stakeholders and biological/conservation 24

research in the tropics 25

26

THE NEED FOR TROPICAL BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION TO BE MORE INCLUSIVE OF HUMANS and 27

human activities is indisputable. The largest professional society of tropical biologists has 28

expanded their mission to reflect these 21st century realities, clearly articulating the need to move 29

“beyond paradise”- beyond the vision of protecting an undisturbed wilderness to one that more 30

fully embraces humans as integral components of tropical ecosystems (ATBC 2004). While their 31

primary research focus will continue to be biodiversity and ecosystem function, tropical 32

biologists are now expected “to actively assist in developing action plans for long-term 33

conservation, use, and management of tropical landscapes” (ATBC 2004, p.3). This updated 34

mission requires integration of the broader set of values and concerns held by rural people, 35

adoption of interdisciplinary and participatory approaches that embrace a larger community of 36

social scientists and rural communities, and enhanced linkages between science and policy 37

(ATBC 2004). While there is consensus that this shift needs to occur, there are many challenges 38

to moving beyond disciplinary foundations in the biological sciences to more effectively address 39

human needs and interests. Societal engagement needs to occur at multiple levels to develop 40

systems that sustain global biodiversity and human well-being. In this paper, we focus on efforts 41

to integrate research and the exchange of knowledge with local people living in and around 42

tropical ecosystems, particularly in tropical forests. Although evidence is mixed in suggesting 43

that these resident stakeholders are optimal forest stewards (Agrawal and Gibson 1999), it is 44

highly unlikely that large tracts of tropical forests will be conserved without engaging the local 45

people who depend on them daily for their livelihoods (Scherr et al. 2002). We aim to illustrate 46

2

not only why research partnerships with local people often make sense, but also share some 47

strategies for integration of local stakeholders into the research process and institutionalization of 48

these efforts. 49

50

WHY PARTNER WITH LOCAL PEOPLE? 51

LARGEST DIRECT USERS AND ULTIMATE DECISION-MAKERS.–Rural communities are the largest 52

direct users of tropical forests. Forests yield food, construction materials, medicines, fuel, and 53

cash, as well as local ecosystem services such as flood control, soil enrichment and stabilization 54

− all critical to sustain and improve rural livelihoods. In addition to this practical supply of local 55

goods and services, forest-dwelling people often value forests for cultural, ancestral, and spiritual 56

factors more elusive to quantification. 57

Their close proximity to tropical forests also means that local people frequently exercise 58

final, on-the-ground decisions about forest fate. Although certainly privileged and constrained 59

by an array of extra-local drivers (Kaimowitz & Angelsen 1998, Wood 2002, Chomitz et al. 60

2007), they are often the ultimate decision-makers, determining whether forests will be 61

converted (or not) and whether resources will be used sustainably (or not). If tropical forests 62

were not considered critical at other levels of society, this local influence might not be contested. 63

Tropical forests, however, provide innumerable products and services appreciated at larger 64

regional, national and international scales, including timber and non-timber forest products and 65

multiple ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation, carbon storage and sequestration, 66

and watershed protection. Most recently, the crucial role of tropical forests in global climate 67

regulation has captured international scientific and public attention; almost 1/5 of all greenhouse 68

gases originate from tropical deforestation (Stern 2006). 69

70

3

SIGNIFICANT OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL. –Increasingly, local de facto influence over tropical 71

forest fate is turning into legal authority. Almost 25% of all tropical forests are currently owned 72

or legally managed by local communities (White & Martin 2002). This proportion represents a 73

doubling of the previous 15 years total, and is expected to double again in the next 15 years as 74

decentralization and devolution of public forests to local control proceed (Molnar 2003). These 75

devolution and decentralization efforts have been motivated by various political, economic and 76

social factors. For example, it has been suggested that governments rarely have the resources to 77

monitor and regulate vast forest expanses or the ability to manage them effectively. Economic 78

arguments in favor of decentralizaton and devolution have centered on restructuring ownership 79

systems (or land tenure) to encourage greater economic efficiency and attract foreign investment. 80

Social movements, over decades and across the globe, have made successful claims that local 81

people substantially contribute to forest management and conservation, and therefore should be 82

granted rights of access and control of resource-rich areas. Human rights organizations have also 83

raised ethical arguments when protesting displacement of local peoples to create national parks 84

and other conservation units. The bottom line, however, is that local people not only inhabit 85

spaces we are trying to conserve, but also have significant rights and perhaps motivations to be 86

considered potential conservation partners (Vermeulen & Sheil 2006, Sunderland et al. 2007). 87

88

INVESTORS IN CONSERVATION. –Some studies have highlighted the abilities of local groups to 89

maintain or increase tropical forest cover in countries like Nepal (Guatam et al. 2002), Mexico 90

(Bray et al. 2004), Indonesia (Shiel & Boissière 2004) and Brazil, even in the face of acute 91

agricultural expansion (Nepstad et al. 2006). This is not meant to suggest that all communities 92

have the ability or desire to halt deforestation or increase forest cover within their domain. In 93

fact, local control may not be enough to conserve forests when economic benefits of conversion 94

4

outweigh forest conservation values (Wunder 2000). However, research does indicate that some 95

are investing their time, labor and financial resources in these activities. Molnar et al. (2007) 96

estimate that communities dedicate between $1.5 and 2.5 billion per year to forest conservation 97

and management, an annual amount approximately equal to protected area budgets in developing 98

countries. These estimates of community investment are derived from data on cash expenditures 99

and in-kind labor directed to activities such as fire control, guarding land and resources, 100

biological monitoring and habitat restoration (Molnar et al. 2007). 101

102

COMPLEMENT TO WESTERN SCIENCE. –Local people know resources in ways scientists and off-site 103

managers typically do not (Moller et al. 2004, Chalmers & Fabricius 2007) (Table 1). Western 104

science, which generates knowledge through strict and universally agreed-upon rules, is the 105

conventional source of information for almost all formalized forest management. This approach 106

contrasts with local ecological knowledge which is generated on site by trial and error and is 107

often cumulative, passed down through generations to explain relationships between humans and 108

their environment. Engaging local experts, combining methods, and exchanging information and 109

insights generated by these different knowledge systems can lead to more effective working 110

partnerships between local people and outsiders to co-manage forests, a joint management 111

approach that is gaining currency in practice. 112

113

INCREASE RESEARCH RELEVANCE TO LOCAL REALITIES. –Research carried out in conjunction with 114

local people, close to the resource, has a greater chance of being relevant to local realities and 115

needs. Partnering makes it more likely that local people will take ownership of research results, 116

whether obtained through experimentation or observation. As local people increase their 117

knowledge and direct experience with the scientific research process, results will be better 118

5

understood. Similarly, when encouraged to reach their own conclusions, local people are more 119

likely to accept them (Sheil & Lawrence 2004) and apply them in management decisions. 120

121

RELATIVE NUMBERS AND PERMANENCE ON LANDSCAPE. –White & Martin (2002) estimate that 122

400 to 500 million non-indigenous people directly depend on tropical forests for their 123

livelihoods, in addition to the approximately 60 million indigenous people who reside in tropical 124

rainforests. Based on these numbers and their relative permanence on the landscape, partnering 125

in conservation and conservation research, although certainly not without challenges, seems 126

imminently logical (Campos & Nepstad 2006). Partnering specifically with those living close to 127

protected areas offers an additional opportunity to effectively expand park boundaries (Bawa 128

2006). People living in and around protected areas will likely remain there long after research 129

projects end, after governments change hands, and after scientists leave. Time horizons dictated 130

by grant cycles limit effectiveness of many well-intentioned conservation projects (Bawa 2006) 131

while joint learning between scientists and local people through research and other discovery 132

processes may facilitate improved management that will last longer than project cycles. 133

134

LONG-TERM LEGITIMATE CLAIMS. –In addition to the above efficiency arguments, there are also 135

ethical reasons to integrate local stakeholders into tropical research projects. While many 136

tropical forest benefits accrue at higher transnational and global scales (i.e., biodiversity 137

conservation, carbon storage and sequestration), the costs of maintaining them are 138

disproportionally borne at lower national and regional scales, with the largest burden typically 139

felt at the local level (Wells 1992). Communities attempting to address their own livelihood 140

needs are often expected to attend to additional, much broader international forest conservation 141

objectives. It seems only fair that tropical forest research agendas, which are typically set at 142

6

national if not international levels, should be determined with input from those who have resided 143

in the forest for generations and increasingly aspire to (and are expected to) manage their forest 144

ecosystems with greater economic and ecological sophistication. 145

146

STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS 147

If research partnerships with local communities are accepted as an important strategy of tropical 148

conservation and restoration efforts (ATBC 2004), how can we go about developing them? How 149

can we integrate rural communities and their support organizations into the research process and 150

enhance knowledge exchange? Lessons from predecessors focused on tropical agricultural 151

research and community forestry can help inform this expanded research mission. 152

153

LEARNING FROM PREDECESSORS. –Over the past four decades, researchers and research 154

institutions have developed and tested diverse approaches and methods for partnering with rural 155

people to improve agricultural and forest-based livelihoods. The Green Revolution of the 1960s, 156

which produced new high-yielding grain varieties, resulted in tremendous advances in food 157

production across the globe, but tended to favor only those farmers who were already in 158

relatively advantageous positions (Whyte 1986). The rural majority, small-scale, resource-159

limited farmers who were largely passed over by the Green Revolution, began to receive some 160

attention in the 1970s with publication of Schumacher’s (1973) Small is Beautiful and 161

subsequently World Neighbors’ Two Ears of Corn (Bunch 1982). Conceptual and practical 162

approaches to research also emerged with an emphasis on “farmer first” (Chambers 1983; 163

Chambers et al. 1989) and the Farming Systems Research and Exension (FSRE) approach 164

(Hildebrand 1981, Hildebrand 1986). These new perspectives were highly innovative not only in 165

their focus on smallholders, but also in their assumption that farmers should be partners in 166

7

research endeavors to design and evaluate new technologies (Ashby 1990a, b). These scientists 167

advocated “on-farm” research, arguing that conducting experiments with farmers in situ, despite 168

the risks and potential loss of experimental control, greatly improved the speed, science and 169

application of agricultural advancement. FSRE practitioners also developed methods that 170

allowed multidisciplinary teams of scientists to engage in joint research activities, seeking to 171

understand the farm as a complex, interconnected system rather than a series of isolated farm 172

components defined by disciplinary lenses (Hildebrand & Waugh 1986). These early 173

experiences in interdisciplinarity (Rhodes 1984) underscored the tremendous benefits of strong 174

research collaborations between biologists and social scientists – a benefit still considered so 175

vital today that it is embedded in one of three guiding principles for tropical biologists (ATBC 176

2004). 177

The Farming Systems Research and Extension approach also highlighted the importance 178

of the household as the central decision-making unit of the farming system (Poats & Feldstein 179

1989). Over time, the assumed homogeneity of the farm household was dispelled as gendered 180

differences in household roles and their impact on resource use decisions became evident 181

(Overholt et al. 1985). These themes of participation, gender, and people-centered research have 182

more recently been extended to natural resource management and community forestry (Arnold 183

1992, Thomas-Slayter et al. 1993, FAO 1999). Fresh methodological advancements through the 184

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and others have more fully integrated 185

fundamental issues of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and ecological integrity with the 186

livelihood concerns of forest-based and other natural resource dependent groups (Wollenberg et 187

al. 2000, Campbell & Luckert 2000, Evans et al. 2006). Similarly, local ecological knowledge 188

has also come to the fore when expanding to forest-focused rural peoples (Berkes et al. 2000). 189

The hard-won lessons of these agricultural and forestry predecessors working in the developing 190

8

world can serve tropical biologists well as they pursue their broader participatory and 191

interdisciplinary research agenda in partnership with local stakeholders. 192

193

INTEGRATION AND THE RESEARCH CYCLE. –How might some of these strategies, tools and 194

approaches be applied during the research cycle? There is now a relatively large body of 195

academic and practitioner experiences with tropical resource management and conservation 196

found under the rubric of “participatory” or “collaborative” research (Slocum et al. 1995, Evans 197

et al. 2006, Arnold & Fernandez-Gimenez 2008, Lynam et al. 2007). These research 198

frameworks consider a continuum that ranges from non-participation to full partnerships, in 199

defining research agendas, executing projects, interpreting, using and disseminating results 200

(Castillo et al. 2005). One innovative book jointly evaluates the success of participatory research 201

projects from the perspectives of both lead scientists and local collaborators – the latter being a 202

voice rarely heard in the scientific literature. This dual reporting pushes the envelope of full 203

partnership by effectively demonstrating differences in evaluation measures: complementary 204

views of certain projects and quite contrasting views of others (Fortmann 2008). Our intent is not 205

to thoroughly critique the details of engaging local people in the research process, but rather to 206

highlight a few key opportunities within this process where biological scientists have and will 207

continue to develop local research partnerships (Figure 1). 208

The initial stage of research design, specifically development of research questions, is a 209

key moment for engaging stakeholders in the research process. While not always possible or 210

appropriate, partnering at this stage can build in greater research relevance, trust amongst 211

partners, and overall buy-in to the research project (Barnard 2006). Similarly, local feedback at 212

the research design phase on preconceived research ideas can help redirect or refine research to 213

better meet the needs and realities of local contexts. For example, experimental treatments for 214

9

silvicultural management may be redefined to integrate an already-practiced treatment or one 215

that is more likely to be applied given local constraints. Finally, researcher-community partners 216

should consider developing a cooperative research agreement whereby expectations, 217

responsibilities and negotiated terms of collaboration are transparent (Firehock 2003). 218

Thoughtful communication at the beginning will pay off throughout the collaborative process. 219

Fundraising for ecological research is always a concern, and inclusion of local people 220

when setting research agendas certainly complicates matters. Nonetheless, explicit inclusion of 221

local capacity building, dissemination of results and other types of partner engagement activities 222

can be advantageous in making the case for research funding. The U.S. National Science 223

Foundation emphasizes “broadening participation of underrepresented groups”, “enhancing 224

networks and partnerships” and “disseminating results broadly to enhance scientific and 225

technological understanding” (NSF 2007). Applicants for the doctoral dissertation research 226

abroad field grants sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education Fulbright Hays Program 227

must demonstrate appropriate contacts and affiliations abroad as well as plans to share research 228

results with host-country scholars and officials. Insertion of budgetary lines to fund activities 229

that attend to local partner needs, including attention to direct resource users, as related to the 230

project, even if they are not completely funded, can go a long way to strengthening researcher-231

community relations. Formal partnerships are also required for granting of research visas to 232

foreigners in many tropical countries. 233

Implementation, from data collection to interpretation, is another phase of research in 234

which local stakeholders might be effectively integrated. Concerns over data quality can be a 235

concern to tropical biologists engaged in collaborative projects. However, recent experiences 236

with the use of parataxonomists − field-based inventory specialists who are usually residents in 237

the ecosystem studied, however, have been largely positive −finding that these “specialists” have 238

10

been cited as key assets in tropical conservation (Janzen 2004, Basset et al. 2004, Sheil & 239

Lawrence 2004). Continued refinement of the limitations and applications of paratoxonomy 240

coupled with solutions for improving species identification consistency show great promise 241

(Baraloto et al. 2007). Researcher interactions with local people during data collection may also 242

provide day-to-day opportunities for debate over observations, findings and interpretation of 243

results (Parrado-Rosselli 2007). For scientists who can successfully partner with local 244

stakeholders during research implementation, the rewards can involve in-depth knowledge 245

exchange and interpretation of findings from diverse perspectives that can strengthen 246

understanding of tropical ecosystems and build more sustainable conservation strategies. 247

Results dissemination is likely the research phase where scientists can most readily 248

integrate local stakeholders into the research process. While dissemination comes at the end of 249

the research process, it may be a logical first step for researchers interested in experimenting 250

with local stakeholder engagement. The extension of ecological findings can take on various 251

formats including interactive workshops, extension pamphlets, manuals, flannel boards, 252

illustrated stories, school curricula, coloring books, radio, field visits, and more (Shanley et al. 253

1996, Shanley 1998, Shanley & Laird 2002). The dissemination phase also provides an 254

opportunity to thank local people for their engagement in the research process. Simple gestures 255

such as presenting certificates of participation or holding community celebrations can reinforce 256

the give and take needed to foster genuine partnerships between scientists and local stakeholders. 257

In both dissemination of results and giving closure to the research process, scientists are only 258

constrained by their creativity. 259

260

WHAT HOLDS US BACK? 261

11

There are multiple reasons why tropical biologists might not choose to engage with local people. 262

Below, we highlight some of the difficulties in harmonizing distinct local and scientific agendas, 263

as well as how some of these challenges might be confronted through institutionalization and 264

other means. 265

266

NOT APPROPRIATE IN ALL CASES. –Some tropical research is less applicable to local people and 267

their management systems than others. Does a scientist constructing a molecular phylogeny of 268

dragonflies need to develop his/her research questions in collaboration with communities? Some 269

kinds of science clearly do not benefit from local engagement, and can be efficiently executed 270

without this type of local partnership. However, much can be still gained from explaining the 271

objectives and outcomes of such research to local communities. In addition to establishing 272

positive relationships with community members who might one day host future researchers, 273

transparency regarding specimen collection and the motivation for conducting such research can 274

help assuage concerns about access to biological or cultural patrimony. 275

276

LACK OF FACILITIES. – Even if science can benefit by embedding a research project in a 277

community-managed forest or locally-run conservation unit, there will likely be less 278

infrastructural and logistical support to execute research. Internet access, detailed soils maps, 279

and the accumulated body of knowledge that comes from working in a well-established research 280

station will be lacking. Also absent will be a group of scholars with specialized scientific 281

expertise, although they may find “in-community” collaborators with a wealth of ecological 282

knowledge that complements their own. Linkages with local universities and research groups 283

can also alleviate some of these challenges, but there are clearly trade-offs in conducting 284

research “on-station” vs. “in-community”. Two innovative tropical research centers have 285

12

reconciled some of these trade-offs by creating spaces that foster high quality scientific research 286

and joint learning in conjunction with local stakeholders: Ashoka Trust for Research and 287

Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) in India and the Institute for Ecological Research (IPÊ) 288

in Brazil. Such institutes adopt the regional landscape as their research sites, integrate university 289

training and research directly into their programs, and simultaneously engage local stakeholders 290

in highly successful conservation/sustainable development partnerships. 291

292

REQUIRES ADDITIONAL RESOURCES. – Engaging local stakeholders at any degree of intensity is 293

time-consuming and may require extra funding. As Shanley et al. (this volume) point out; 294

donors must be on board if research in tropical biology and conservation is to be significantly 295

expanded to integrate local stakeholders. Notwithstanding, one only has to look as far as IPÊ 296

and ATREE to see unquestionable evidence that donors are interested in investing in successful 297

collaborative research and action partnerships. 298

299

UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR FIELD SITES. – Linked to these trade-offs, there is potentially greater risk 300

in investing in a research site that lacks the security of a biological station or formal protected 301

area. Losing a precious replicate, or even an entire experiment, to cattle herbivory or escaped 302

fire is a legitimate concern, and establishing long-term studies can be a risky proposition. Early 303

and continuing investment in community relations, including shared responsibilities and benefits, 304

can alleviate some of these risks −the more knowledgeable and vested local people are in the 305

research, the greater the security of the research endeavor. 306

307

LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL REWARDS.–Until the engagement of local stakeholders is considered part 308

of the job, tropical biologists are less likely to invest in local collaborative partnerships. Many 309

13

scientists in academia have found that engaging local communities in science is not typically 310

rewarded (Barnard et al. 2006); furthermore, potentially lower productivity (as currently defined 311

in academic circles) resulting from the challenges described above may even hinder professional 312

advancement. Scientists rarely receive significant institutional credit for research products such 313

as manuals or locally-oriented education materials that are not peer-reviewed. It is no surprise, 314

therefore, that many tropical researchers consider information transfer a separate and perhaps 315

lower endeavor (Shanley & Laird 2002). It is logical to consider the scientific process complete 316

once findings are published in scientific journals; indeed refereed publications are central to 317

fundraising and career advancement (Shanley & Laird 2002). 318

This aspect of scientific culture, however, is being challenged in some circles (Shanley 319

this volume). On one end, scholars fearful of an overemphasis on “career assessment by 320

numbers” (Kelly and Jennions 2006) are critically examining the growing popularity of impact 321

factors and the h-index, questioning if “institutions have a misguided sense of the fairness of 322

decisions reached by algorithm” (Lehmann et al. 2006). On the other end, universities, 323

particularly those with a land-grant mandate to solve problems, and research institutions such as 324

the Center for International Forestry Research are increasingly attempting to integrate measures 325

of research impact on target stakeholders. Considering the next generation of tropical 326

researchers, graduate training programs such as the University of Florida’s Tropical 327

Conservation and Development Program are attempting to institutionalize host-country partner 328

engagement by linking student academic credits and field research funding to engagement of 329

local people (Duchelle et al. this volume). 330

331

DON’T KNOW HOW.–The outlook and skills necessary to engage communities are often not found 332

in organizations that collect and analyze scientific data (Shanley & Laird 2002). Tropical 333

14

researchers are trained in modern scientific methods and perhaps local languages, not the 334

engagement of stakeholders. Similarly, collaborative research methods are not as well-known to 335

biological scientists. During formative graduate training, few courses are offered in which 336

students can garner skills in information exchange, group facilitation, and negotiation with 337

partners (although see Duchelle et al. this volume). And even if courses are offered, they are 338

generally viewed as extra-curricular and tacked on to an already heavy course load. 339

Notwithstanding, methods and approaches for partnering in research with rural people have been 340

developed by predecessors, and are growing. Furthermore, research protocols have been 341

developed that lay out clear guidelines for ethical and effective research within community-based 342

collaborative projects (see Firehock 2003). 343

344

MAY BE UNCOMFORTABLE.–Finally, collaborating with local people may take scientists out of 345

their comfort zone. The intellectual tendency of tropical researchers to stay firmly grounded in 346

their biological roots is comforting (Robinson 2006), while the idea of nurturing different 347

relationships and networks, possibly with groups critical and perhaps suspicious of researchers, 348

is daunting. New languages and cultures can also create discomfort; for non-natives, an 349

imperfect grasp of the local language can make communication difficult, while for host-country 350

nationals, local dialects, speech patterns and ethnic, gender and class divisions can make 351

interactions awkward. Even disseminating research findings to local stakeholders is not without 352

risks, as results can be challenged, misinterpreted and even co-opted to pursue other agendas 353

(Barnard et al. 2006). This can make researchers, who are usually exceptionally cautious in their 354

research interpretations and pronouncements, uncomfortable. Nonetheless, some biologists are 355

learning by doing, gradually becoming comfortable with the ambiguities of conducting research 356

with local stakeholders. Parrado-Rosselli (2007) describes an incremental process whereby the 357

15

research relationship with a Colombian Indigenous group grew increasingly collaborative over 358

time, ultimately resulting in better understanding of fruit availability and seed dispersal and more 359

sustained conservation efforts at the local level. The growing numbers of refereed publications 360

that relate experiences such as the above are evidence that sectors of the scientific community 361

are comfortable with and value collaborative research partnerships with local stakeholders. 362

363

CONCLUSIONS 364

Although not without challenges, we believe that when appropriate, engaging local stakeholders 365

in the scientific research process has the potential to be mutually beneficial for investigators and 366

local people, and can result in important innovations in tropical biology and conservation. 367

Institutionalization of these approaches may be critical to helping researchers interested in 368

engaging local people overcome some of these challenges. These include research centers such 369

as ATREE and IPÊ who at their core bridge scientific research and training with direct 370

engagement of local stakeholders; graduate education programs that train and encourage 371

upcoming scientists in how to form collaborative partnerships with local stakeholders; some 372

evidence of change in donor culture; and recent publications of participatory research tools and 373

experiences in tropical biology and conservation that provide guidance. Tropical biologists who 374

are interested in engaging local people, however, need not wait for institutional and cultural 375

change before experimenting with their own brand of partnerships with local stakeholders. 376

377

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 378

We gratefully acknowledge the invitation and challenge laid out by symposium organizers to the 379

2007 Annual Meeting of the Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation (ATBC) in 380

Morelia, Mexico. They inspired us to address the “limited practical transfer of the immense 381

16

scientific research output to local communities” and other decision-makers. We also thank our 382

many research colleagues, on paper and in person, who have stimulated our creativity and 383

challenged our thinking of community-based research partnerships. Finally, we are most grateful 384

to the many local stakeholders who have engaged us in their experiments, shared their 385

observations, and challenged us to be better scientists. 386

387

LITERATURE CITED 388

AGRAWAL, A., AND C. C. GIBSON. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of 389

community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27:629-649. 390

ARNOLD, J. E. M. 1992. Community forestry: ten years in review (revised edition). Food and 391

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 392

ARNOLD J. S., AND M. E FERNANDEZ-GIMENEZ. 2008. Engaging communities through 393

participatory research. In E. M. Donaghue and V. S. Sturtevant (Eds.). Forest community 394

connections: implications for research, management and governance. Resources for the 395

Future, Washington, DC. 396

ASHBY, J. 1990a. Evaluating technology with farmers: a handbook. Centro International de 397

Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia. 398

ASHBY, J. 1990b. Small farmers’ participation in the design of technologies. In M. A. Altieri 399

and S. B. Hecht (Eds.). Agroecology and small farm development, pp. xx-xx. CRC 400

Press, Boca Raton, FL. 401

ATBC (ASSOCIATION FOR TROPICAL BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION). 2004. Beyond Paradise–402

Meeting the Challenges in Tropical Biology in the 21st Century. ATBC, Washington, DC. 403

17

BARALOTO, C., E. FERREIRA, C. ROCKWELL, AND F. WALTHIER. 2007. Limitations and 404

applications of parataxonomy for community forest management in southwestern 405

Amazonia. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5: 77-84. 406

BARNARD, G., L. CARLILE, AND D. B. RAY. 2006. Maximising the impact of development 407

research: How can funders encourage more effective research communication? 408

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. 409

BASSET, Y., V. NOVOTNY, S. E. MILLER, G. D. WEIBLENS, O. MISSA, AND A. J. A. STEWART. 410

2004. Conservation and biological monitoring of tropical forests: the role of 411

parataxonomists. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 163-174. 412

BAWA, K. S. 2006. Globally dispersed local challenges in conservation biology. Conservation 413

Biology 20: 696-699. 414

BERKES, F., J. COLDING, AND C. FOLKE. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge 415

as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10: 1251-1262. 416

BRAY, D. B., E. A. ELLIS, N. ARMIJO-CANTO, AND C. T. BECK. 2004. The institutional drivers of 417

sustainable landscapes: A case study of the “Mayan Zone” in Quintan Roo, Mexico. 418

Land Use Policy 21: 333-346. 419

BUNCH, R. 1982. Two ears of corn: a guide to people-centered agricultural improvement. 420

World Neighbors, Oklanhoma City, OK. 421

CAMPBELL, B., AND M. LUCKERT (Eds.). 2002. Uncovering the hidden harvest; valuation 422

methods for woodland and forest resources. Earthscan, London, UK. 423

CAMPOS, M. T., AND D. C. NEPSTAD. 2006. Smallholders, the Amazon’s new conservationists. 424

Conservation Biology 20: 1553-1556. 425

CASTILLO, A., A. TORRES, A. VELÁZQUEZ, AND G. BOCCO. 2005. The use of ecological science 426

by rural producers: a case study in Mexico. Ecological Applications 15: 745-756. 427

18

CHALMERS, N., AND C. FABRICIUS. 2007. Expert and generalist local knowledge about land-428

cover change on South Africa’s wild coast: Can local ecological knowledge add value to 429

science? Ecology and Society 12(1): 10. 430

CHAMBERS, R. 1983. Rural development: putting the last first. Longman, Harlow, UK. 431

CHAMBERS, R., A. PACEY, AND L. A. THRUPP (Eds.). 1989. Farmer first: farmer innovation and 432

agricultural research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK. 433

CHOMITZ, K.M., P. BUYS, G. DE LUCA, T.S. THOMAS, AND S. WERTZ-KANOUNNIKOFF. 2007. At 434

Loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical 435

forests. World Bank, Jakarta, Indonesia. 284p. 436

EVANS, K. W. DE JONG, P. CRONKLETON, D. SHEIL, T. LYNAM, T. KUSUMANTO, AND C. J. P. 437

COLFER. 2007. Guide to participatory tools for forest communities. Center for 438

International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 439

FAO (FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS). 1999. Community 440

forestry publications. FAO, Rome. 441

FIREHOCK, K. 2003. Protocol and guidelines for ethical and effective research of community 442

based collaborative processes. Community Based Collaboratives Research Consortium, 443

University of Virginia, Blacksburg, VA. 444

FORTMANN, L. 2008. Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods: doing science 445

together. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, United Kingdom. 446

GUATAM, A. P., E. L. WEBB, AND A. EIUMNOH. 2002. GIS assessment of land use/land cove 447

changes associated with community forestry implementation in the Middle Hills of 448

Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 22: 63-69. 449

HILDEBRAND, P. E. 1981. Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal: the sondeo approach. 450

Agricultural Administration 8: 423-432. 451

19

HILDEBRAND, P. E. (Ed.). 1986. Perspectives on farming systems research and extension. Lynne 452

Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO. 453

HILDEBRAND, P. E., AND R. K. WAUGH. 1986. Farming systems research and development. In P. 454

E. Hildebrand (Ed.). Perspectives on farming systems research and extension, pp. 12-15. 455

Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO. 456

JANZEN, D. H. 2004. Setting up tropical biodiversity for conservation through non-damaging 457

use: participation by parataxonomists. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 181-187. 458

KAIMOWITZ, D., AND A. ANGELSEN. 1998. Economic models of tropical deforestation – A 459

review. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 139p. 460

461

KELLY, C.D., AND M.D. JENNIONS. 2006. The h index and career assessment by numbers. 462

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:167-170. 463

LEHMANN, S., A.D. JACKSON, AND B.E. LAUTRUP. 2006. Measures for measures. Nature 464

441:1003-1004. 465

LYNAM, T., W. DE JONG, D. SHEIL, T. KUSUMANTO, AND K. EVANS. 2007. A review of tools for 466

incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in 467

natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12: 5. 468

MOLLER, H., F. BERKES, P. O. LYVER, AND M. KISLIOGLIU. 2004. Combining science and 469

traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology 470

and Society 9(3): 2. 471

MOLNAR, A. 2003. Forest certification and communities: Looking forward to the next decade. 472

Forest Trends, Washington, DC, USA. . 473

MOLNAR, A., M. LIDDLE, C. BRACER, A. KHARE, A. WHITE, AND J. BULL. 2007. Community-474

based forest enterprises in tropical forest countries: Status and potential. International 475

20

Tropical Timber Organization, Forest Trends, and Rights and Resources Initiative. 476

Washington D.C. 477

NEPSTAD, D., S. SCHWARTZMAN, B. BAMBERGER, M. SANTILLI, D. RAY, P. SCHLESINGER, P. 478

LEFEBVRE, A. ALENCAR, E. PRINZ, G. FISKE, AND A. ROLLA. 2006. Inhibition of 479

Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and Indigenous lands. Conservation Biology 20: 480

65-73. 481

NSF (NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION). 2007. Merit Review Broader Impacts Criterion: 482

Representative Activities. Washington D.C. 483

OVERHOLD, C., M. B. ANDERSON, K. CLOUD, AND J. E. AUSTIN (Eds.). 1985. Gender roles in 484

development projects: a case book. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT. 485

PARRADO-ROSSELLI, A. 2007. A collaborative research process studying fruit availability and 486

seed dispersal within an Indigenous community in the Middle Caqueta River region, 487

Columbian Amazon. Ecology and Society 12: 39. 488

POATS, S. V., AND H. S. FELDSTEIN. 1989. Introduction. In H. S. Feldstein and S. V. Poats 489

(Eds.). Working together: gender analysis in agriculture, pp. 1-5. Kumarian Press, Inc., 490

West Hartford, CT. 491

RHOADES, R. E. 1984. Breaking new ground: anthropology in agricultural research. 492

International Potato Center, Lima. 493

ROBINSON, J. G. 2006. Conservation biology and real-world conservation. Conservation 494

Biology 20: 658-669. 495

SCHERR, S.J., A. WHITE, AND D. KAIMOWITZ. 2002. Making markets work for forest 496

communities. Forest Trends, Washington, DC, USA. 497

SCHUMACHER, E. F. 1973. Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. Perennial 498

Library, New York, NY. 499

21

SHANLEY, P. 1998. Extending ecological research to meet local needs: a case from Brazil. In T. 500

C. H. Sunderland, L. E. Clark, and P. Vantomme (Eds.). Non-wood forest products of 501

Central Africa: current research issues and prospects for conservation and development, 502

pp. xx-xx. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 503

SHANLEY, P., AND S. A. LAIRD. 2002. “Giving back”: making research results relevant to local 504

groups in conservation. In S. A. Laird (Ed.). Biodiversity and traditional knowledge: 505

equitable partnerships in practice, pp. xx-xx. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. 506

SHANLEY, P., L. LUZ, J. GALVÃO, AND M. CYMERYS. 1996. Translating dry data for forest 507

communities: science offers incentives for conservation. Rural Development Forestry 508

Network Paper 19e, Overseas Development Institute, London. 509

SHEIL, D., AND A. LAWRENCE. 2004. Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new 510

opportunities for collaboration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 634-638. 511

SHEIL, D., AND M. BOISSIÈRE. 2006. Local people may be the best allies in conservation. 512

Nature 440: 868. 513

SLOCUM, R., L. WICHHART, D. ROCHELEAU, AND B. THOMAS-SLAYTER (Eds.). 1995. Power, 514

process and participation: tools for change. Intermediate Technology Publications, 515

London. 516

STERN, N. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University 517

Press, Cambridge, UK. 518

SUNDERLAND, T. C. H., C. EHRINGHAUS AND B. M. CAMPBELL. Conservation and development 519

in tropical forest landscapes: a time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation 520

34: 276-279. 521

22

THOMAS-SLAYTER, B., A. L. ESSER, AND M. D. SHIELDS. 1993. Tools of gender analysis: a guide 522

to field methods for bringing gender into sustainable resource management. Program for 523

International Development and Social Change, Clark University, Worcester, MA. 524

VERMEULEN, S. AND D. SHEIL. 2006. Partnerships for tropical conservation. Oryx: 41: 434-440. 525

WELLS, M. 1992. Biodiversity, conservation, affluence and poverty: Mismatched costs and 526

benefits and efforts to remedy them. Ambio 21:237-243. 527

WHITE, A., AND A MARTIN. 2002. Who owns the world’s forests? Forest Trends, Washington, 528

DC. 529

WHYTE, W. F. 1986. The need for a new strategy. In P. E. Hildebrand (Ed.). Perspectives on 530

farming systems research and extension, pp. 1-12. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, 531

CO. 532

WOLLENBERG, E., D. EDMUNDS, AND L. BUCK. 2000. Anticipating change: Scenarios as a tool 533

for adaptive forest management. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 534

Bogor, Indonesia. 535

WOOD, C. H. 2002. Land use and deforestation in the Amazon. In C. H. Wood, and R. Porro 536

(Eds.). Deforestation and land use in the Amazon, pp.1-38. University of Florida Press, 537

Gainesville, FL. 538

WUNDER, S. 2000. The economics of deforestation. The example of Ecuador. Macmillan, St. 539

Antony’s Series, Houndmills, UK. 262p. 540

23

TABLE 1. Comparison of two knowledge systems: local ecological knowledge and Western 541

science. 542

Local ecological knowledge Western science

Temporal depth across generations with a rare

historical perspective.

Studies are usually short-term.

Knows local site, but less likely to understand

how it relates to larger spatial patterns and

processes.

Can attain spatial breadth that may link local

site to larger spatial scales, particularly with

new technologies.

Ability to understand and relate local resource

changes and land use outcomes to observed,

complex social and ecological influences.

Ability to monitor and predict large-scale

processes and drivers that escape local

observation.

Ability to observe and record unusual

occurrences and extremes.

Tendency to focus on averages and patterns.

Unusual events may be considered outliers.

Integrated or holistic understanding that may

recognize spiritual and cultural dimensions.

Tendency to break things down into parts for

in-depth understanding; however, integration of

natural and social sciences helps incorporate

spiritual and cultural dimensions.

Rapid and inexpensive gathering of qualitative

information, but perhaps lacks quantitative

precision.

Focus on obtaining and analyzing numerical

data. Precise with what examined. Often

costly.

Intimate involvement may better position local

people to identify problem-oriented hypotheses

and questions.

Focus on identifying theoretical hypotheses and

questions coupled with powerful tools for

testing why.

543

24

544

545

FIGURE 1. Phases of the research cycle. Each phase presents distinct opportunities for 546

partnership, with flexibility in timing, approaches and strategies depending on researcher and 547

local stakeholder needs and interests. 548