RESUMO

Consuming wildmeat may protect against iron-deficiency anemia, a serious public health problem globally. Contributing to debates on the linkages between wildmeat and the health of forest-proximate people, we investigate whether wildmeat consumption is associated with hemoglobin concentration in rural and urban children (< 5 years old) in central Brazilian Amazonia. Because dietary practices mediate the potential nutritional benefits of wildmeat, we also examined whether its introduction into children's diets is influenced by rural/urban location or household socio-economic characteristics. Sampling 610 children, we found that wildmeat consumption is associated with higher hemoglobin concentration among the rural children most vulnerable to poverty, but not in the least vulnerable rural, or urban children. Rural caregivers share wildmeat with children earlier-in-life than urban caregivers, potentially because of cultural differences, lower access to domesticated meat, and higher wildmeat consumption by rural households (four times the urban average). If wildmeat becomes unavailable through stricter regulations or over-harvesting, we predict a ~ 10% increased prevalence of anemia among extremely poor rural children. This modest protective effect indicates that ensuring wildmeat access is, alone, insufficient to control anemia. Sustainable wildlife management could enhance the nutritional benefits of wildlife for vulnerable Amazonians, but reducing multidimensional poverty and improving access to quality healthcare are paramount.

Assuntos

RESUMO

The debate in the literature on the science-practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science-practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science-practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.

Formas de Pensar Compartidas en Brasil sobre la Interrelación Ciencia-Práctica en la Ecología y la Conservación Resumen El debate en la literatura sobre la interrelación ciencia-práctica sugiere una diversidad de opiniones sobre cómo conectar a la ciencia con la práctica para mejorar la conservación. La comprensión de esta diversidad es clave para tratar con las relaciones desiguales de poder, evitar la considerar únicamente de los puntos de vista dominantes, e identificar las estrategias para vincular a la ciencia con la práctica. En cambio, la vinculación entre la ciencia y la práctica debería promover las decisiones de conservación que son socialmente fuertes y científicamente informadas. Entrevistamos a científicos (ecólogos y conservadores, n = 11) y tomadores de decisiones (n = 11) en Brasil para identificar y describir los puntos de vista de los científicos y de quienes toman las decisiones sobre cómo la interrelación ciencia-práctica debería trabajar con tal de mejorar las decisiones de conservación. Usamos la metodología Q y les pedimos a los participantes que clasificaran su acuerdo con 48 declaraciones sobre cómo la interrelación ciencia-práctica debería trabajar para mejorar las decisiones de conservación. Utilizamos un análisis de componentes principales para identificar los puntos de vista compartidos. El punto de vista predominante, compartido entre los científicos y quienes toman las decisiones, se caracterizó por el valor que le dio a la integración del conocimiento científico y el estratégico para tratar los problemas ambientales. El segundo punto de vista, compartido por la mayoría de quienes toman las decisiones, se distinguió por asignarle una gran importancia a la ciencia en cuanto al proceso de toma de decisiones y a la petición de investigación relevante para los problemas. El tercer punto de vista, compartido sólo entre los científicos, se caracterizó por el rechazo a colaborar y por la percepción de los científicos como productores de conocimiento que puede ayudar a quienes toman las decisiones. La mayoría de los participantes estuvo de acuerdo en que las organizaciones deberían promover la colaboración y en que los actores y el conocimiento científico y práctico son relevantes. Los desacuerdos estuvieron relacionados con los roles específicos asignados a los actores, el deseo de colaborar, y los arreglos institucionales y de organización considerados como efectivos para vincular a la ciencia con la práctica. Nuestros resultados sugieren que existe suficiente espacio para las colaboraciones y que los impedimentos se deben principalmente a las organizaciones existentes y a los arreglos institucionales formales en lugar de a las actitudes negativas entre los científicos y quienes toman las decisiones.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Applying scientific knowledge to confront societal challenges is a difficult task, an issue known as the science-practice gap. In Ecology and Conservation, scientific evidence has been seldom used directly to support decision-making, despite calls for an increasing role of ecological science in developing solutions for a sustainable future. To date, multiple causes of the science-practice gap and diverse approaches to link science and practice in Ecology and Conservation have been proposed. To foster a transparent debate and broaden our understanding of the difficulties of using scientific knowledge, we reviewed the perceived causes of the science-practice gap, aiming to: (i) identify the perspectives of ecologists and conservation scientists on this problem, (ii) evaluate the predominance of these perspectives over time and across journals, and (iii) assess them in light of disciplines studying the role of science in decision-making. We based our review on 1563 sentences describing causes of the science-practice gap extracted from 122 articles and on discussions with eight scientists on how to classify these sentences. The resulting process-based framework describes three distinct perspectives on the relevant processes, knowledge and actors in the science-practice interface. The most common perspective assumes only scientific knowledge should support practice, perceiving a one-way knowledge flow from science to practice and recognizing flaws in knowledge generation, communication, and/or use. The second assumes that both scientists and decision-makers should contribute to support practice, perceiving a two-way knowledge flow between science and practice through joint knowledge-production/integration processes, which, for several reasons, are perceived to occur infrequently. The last perspective was very rare, and assumes scientists should put their results into practice, but they rarely do. Some causes (e.g. cultural differences between scientists and decision-makers) are shared with other disciplines, while others seem specific to Ecology and Conservation (e.g. inadequate research scales). All identified causes require one of three general types of solutions, depending on whether the causal factor can (e.g. inadequate research questions) or cannot (e.g. scientific uncertainty) be changed, or if misconceptions (e.g. undervaluing abstract knowledge) should be solved. The unchanged predominance of the one-way perspective over time may be associated with the prestige of evidence-based conservation and suggests that debates in Ecology and Conservation lag behind trends in other disciplines towards bidirectional views ascribing larger roles to decision-makers. In turn, the two-way perspective seems primarily restricted to research traditions historically isolated from mainstream conservation biology. All perspectives represented superficial views of decision-making by not accounting for limits to human rationality, complexity of decision-making contexts, fuzzy science-practice boundaries, ambiguity brought about by science, and different types of knowledge use. However, joint knowledge-production processes from the two-way perspective can potentially allow for democratic decision-making processes, explicit discussions of values and multiple types of science use. To broaden our understanding of the interface and foster productive science-practice linkages, we argue for dialogue among different research traditions within Ecology and Conservation, joint knowledge-production processes between scientists and decision-makers and interdisciplinarity across Ecology, Conservation and Political Science in both research and education.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Harvesting and trading non-timber forest products is advocated as a win-win strategy for conservation and development, yet it can produce negative ecological and socioeconomic impacts. Hence, monitoring exploitation outcomes is essential, and participatory monitoring has been suggested to be the most suitable approach. Among possible approaches, participatory monitoring is preferred because it is likely to increase people's awareness and beliefs regarding impacts or potential impacts, thus inducing behavioral changes, although the evidence in this regard is contradictory. We therefore evaluated whether people's beliefs about the potential ecological and socioeconomic impacts of non-timber forest product exploitation increased their likelihood of volunteering to monitor. We studied a community of forest inhabitants in the Brazilian Amazon who harvested and traded a commercially important non-timber forest product. Two methods of data gathering were employed: (i) a survey of 166 adults (51 households) to evaluate people's beliefs and their stated intention to engage in four different monitoring tasks and (ii) four pilot monitoring tasks to evaluate who actually participated. Based on mixed-effects regressions, the results indicated that beliefs regarding both types of impacts could predict participation in certain tasks, although gender, age and schooling were occasionally stronger predictors. On average, people had stronger beliefs about potential socioeconomic impacts than about potential ecological impacts, with the former also predicting participation in ecological data gathering. This finding reinforces the importance of monitoring both types of impacts to help achieve the win-win outcomes originally proposed by non-timber forest product trade initiatives.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Understanding the multiple ways people value forests is important, as individual values regarding nature have been shown to partly determine willingness to participate in conservation initiatives. As individual values are influenced by past experiences, the way people value forests may be related to the ecosystem services they use and receive. We here aim to investigate if people value forests because of material and non-material benefits forest provide (material and non-material values), and if these values are defined by previous experiences associated with using forest resources and having frequent contact with forests. By interviewing 363 residents across 20 landscapes varying in forest cover in a post-frontier region in Amazonia, we evaluated: (1) if the use of forest resources-especially bushmeat, important for sustenance and cash income in virtually all tropical forests-is associated with attributing higher material value to forests; (2) whether the contact with forest (estimated by local forest cover and visits to forests) is associated with attributing higher non-material value to forests. As expected, respondents from households where hunting occurs and bushmeat consumption is more frequent attributed higher material value to forests, and those living in more deforested landscapes and that visited forests less often attributed lower non-material value to forests. The importance of bushmeat in shaping the way people value forests suggests that encouraging the sustainable use of this product will encourage forest conservation. Results also point to a potential dangerous reinforcing cycle: low forest cover and the loss of contact with forests may erode forest values and facilitate further deforestation. Engaging rural communities in forest conservation initiatives is challenging yet urgent in degraded landscapes, although harnessing appreciation for bushmeat could offer a starting point.

Assuntos

RESUMO

This study evaluated whether processing non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and establishing trade partnerships between forest communities and companies enhance the outcomes of NTFP commercialization. In particular, we evaluated whether product processing, partnerships, or their combination was associated with a number of outcomes related to the well-being of forest inhabitants and forest conservation. We based our analyses on ethnographic and quantitative data (i.e., survey and systematic observations) gathered at seven communities from five societies of the Brazilian and Bolivian Amazon. Our results indicated that product processing and partnerships do not represent a silver bullet able to improve the results of NTFP commercialization in terms of well-being and conservation indicators. Compared with cases without interventions, households adopting partnerships but not product processing were most often associated with improved economic proxies of well-being (total income, NTFP income, food consumption and gender equality in income). In comparison, the combination of product processing and partnerships was associated with similar outcomes. Unexpectedly, product processing alone was associated with negative outcomes in the economic indicators of well-being. All of the investigated strategies were associated with less time spent in social and cultural activities. With respect to forest conservation, the strategies that included a partnership with or without processing produced similar results: while household deforestation tended to decrease, the hunting impact increased. Processing alone was also associated with higher levels of hunting, though it did not reduce deforestation. Our results indicate that establishing partnerships may enhance the outcomes of NTFP trade in terms of the financial outcomes of local communities, but practitioners need to use caution when adopting the processing strategy and they need to evaluate potential negative results for indicators of social and cultural activities. With respect to conservation, the three strategies are promising for reducing deforestation, but more pervasive impacts, such as hunting, might increase.

Assuntos