Giehl Eduardo L H, Moretti Marcela, Walsh Jessica C, Batalha Marco A, Cook Carly N
Department of Ecology and Zoology, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Department of Botany, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil.
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 9;12(1):e0169917. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169917. eCollection 2017.
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.
保护区是阻止生物多样性丧失的关键工具。然而，保护区的管理资源不足，影响了采取有效保护行动的能力。有效的管理依赖于运用现有的最佳知识，这既可以包括科学证据，也可以包括现场管理人员的当地知识。尽管基于证据的保护具有明显价值，但对于有多少科学证据被用于指导保护区管理，人们仍然知之甚少。这种知识差距在发展中国家尤为明显，在这些国家，资源限制和语言障碍可能给管理中使用科学证据带来额外挑战。为了评估科学证据在多大程度上被用于为一个发展中国家的管理决策提供信息，我们对巴西保护区管理人员进行了调查，询问他们用于支持管理决策的信息。我们的目标是负责当地保护区层面管理决策的实地管理人员。我们询问管理人员他们使用的证据来源、评估不同证据来源的频率以及不同证据来源的科学内容。我们还考虑了一系列可能解释使用科学证据来指导保护区管理的因素，例如管理人员所说的语言、证据来源的可获取性以及管理人员及其管理的保护区的特征。回复我们问卷的管理人员报告说，他们最常根据个人经验做出决策，相对较少使用科学证据。虽然我们研究中的管理人员对科学证据的重视程度往往低于其他证据来源，但大多数管理人员仍然认为科学对管理决策很重要。管理人员报告说，相对于其他类型的证据，科学证据的可获取性较低，主要障碍是开放获取研究水平低以及技术培训不足，无法使管理人员解读研究结果。根据我们的结果，我们认为发展中国家的管理人员面临着与发达国家管理人员相同的所有挑战，同时还存在额外的语言障碍，这可能阻碍更广泛地使用科学证据来支持巴西保护区的有效管理。
