Search

Land‐use changes and the expansion of protected areas (PAs) have amplified the interaction between protected and unprotected areas worldwide. In this context, 'interface processes' (human–nature and cross‐boundary interactions inside and around PAs) have become central to issues around the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This scientific literature review aimed to explore current knowledge and research gaps on interface processes regarding terrestrial PAs. At first, 3,515 references related to the topic were extracted through a standardized search on the Web of Science and analyzed with scientometric techniques. Next, a full‐text analysis was conducted on a sample of 240 research papers. A keyword analysis revealed a wide diversity of research topics, from 'pure' ecology to sociopolitical research. We found a bias in the geographical distribution of research, with half the papers focusing on eight countries. Additionally, we found that the spatial extent of cross‐boundary interactions was rarely assessed, preventing any clear delimitation of PA interactive zones. In the 240 research papers we scanned, we identified 403 processes that were studied. The ecological effects of PAs were well documented and appeared to be positive overall. In contrast, the effects of PAs on local communities were understudied and, according to the literature focusing on these, were very variable according to local contexts. Our findings highlight key research advances on interface processes, especially regarding the ecological outcomes of PAs, the influence of human activities on biodiversity, and PA governance issues. In contrast, main knowledge gaps concern the spatial extent of interactive zones, as well as the interactions between local people and conservation actions and how to promote synergies between them. While the review was limited to terrestrial PAs, its findings allow us to propose research priorities for tackling environmental and socioeconomic challenges in the face of a rapidly changing world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We facilitated the development of a co-designed and locally led community biodiversity inventory (CBI) in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, using nine design principles for participatory action research that promoted inclusivity. A questionnaire survey toward the end of the process found significant differences between people who were engaged and disengaged in the CBI. Engaged people valued biodiversity and ecosystem services, envisioned employment through ecotourism, and held a community-led view of governance. Disengaged people valued human-made and abiotic resources, overlooked threats to ecosystems, envisioned development through agriculture, and held a government-led view of governance. We postulate that CBIs attract actors interested in cultural biodiversity conservation. The process reinforces their beliefs and may affect others, forming the nucleus for local ecosystem stewardship. Community biodiversity inventories are, however, no panacea for local empowerment. Processes beyond local people's and facilitators' control and unrealized expectations may negate the impacts of well-intended efforts and good practices. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Local ecological knowledge (LEK) can shed light on ecosystem change, especially in under-researched areas such as South Africa's Wild Coast. However, for ecosystem planning purposes, it is necessary to assess the accuracy and validity of LEK, and determine where such knowledge is situated in a community, and how evenly it is spread. Furthermore, it is relevant to ask: does LEK add value to science, and how do science and local knowledge complement one another? We assessed change in woodland and forest cover in the Nqabara Administrative Area on South Africa's Wild Coast between 1974 and 2001. The inhabitants of Nqabara are ‘traditional’ Xhosa-speaking people who are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods. More recently, however, infrastructural development has influenced traditional lifestyles at Nqabara, although poverty remains high and formal education levels low. We assessed LEK about changes in woodland and forest cover over the past 30 years by interviewing 11 local ‘experts,’ who were recognized as such by the Nqabara community, and 40 senior members of randomly selected households in each village. We also analyzed land-cover change, using orthorectified aerial photos taken in 1974 and 2001. Forest and woodland cover had increased by 49% between 1974 and 2001. The 11 ‘experts’ had a nuanced understanding of these changes and their causes. Their understanding was not only remarkably consistent with that of scientists, but it added considerable value to scientific understanding of the ultimate causes of land-cover change in the area. The experts listed combinations of several causal factors, operating at different spatial and temporal scales. The 40 randomly selected respondents also knew that forest and woodland cover had increased, but their understanding of the causes, and the role of fire in particular, was somewhat simplistic. They could identify only three causal factors and generally listed single factors rather than the combinations of factors listed by the experts. In some instances, their understanding even appeared to be seriously flawed. In contemporary Xhosa society, ecological knowledge is unevenly spread and held by individuals rather than by groups. Therefore, it is important to work with experts rather than randomly selected individuals in ecological studies that incorporate local knowledge. Expert local knowledge adds value to science by providing detailed insights into the ultimate causes of change, and by contributing a rare historical perspective. Scientists add value to local knowledge through their ability to study and predict obscure processes such as the impact of atmospheric change on vegetation. Scientists must, however, acknowledge that positivist studies that compare local knowledge to science are fraught with ethical and methodological challenges. Certain aspects of local knowledge, particularly in terms of fire, are sacred and do not have the same origins as Western science. Local knowledge and science can complement one another, but we advise against integrating them in a way that co-opts local knowledge for scientific purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]