Designing Systematic Conservation Assessments that Promote Effective Implementation: Best Practice from South Africa

Abstract:  Systematic conservation assessment and conservation planning are two distinct fields of conservation science often confused as one and the same. Systematic conservation assessment is the technical, often computer-based, identification of priority areas for conservation. Conservation planning is composed of a systematic conservation assessment coupled with processes for development of an implementation strategy and stakeholder collaboration. The peer-reviewed conservation biology literature abounds with studies analyzing the performance of assessments (e.g., area-selection techniques). This information alone, however, can never deliver effective conservation action; it informs conservation planning. Examples of how to translate systematic assessment outputs into knowledge and then use them for "doing" conservation are rare. South Africa has received generous international and domestic funding for regional conservation planning since the mid-1990s. We reviewed eight South African conservation planning processes and identified key ingredients of best practice for undertaking systematic conservation assessments in a way that facilitates implementing conservation action. These key ingredients include the design of conservation planning processes, skills for conservation assessment teams, collaboration with stakeholders, and interpretation and mainstreaming of products (e.g., maps) for stakeholders. Social learning institutions are critical to the successful operationalization of assessments within broader conservation planning processes and should include not only conservation planners but also diverse interest groups, including rural landowners, politicians, and government employees.     

Evaluating Perceived Benefits of Ecoregional Assessments

Abstract: The outcomes of systematic conservation planning (process of assessing, implementing, and managing conservation areas) are rarely reported or measured formally. A lack of consistent or rigorous evaluation in conservation planning has fueled debate about the extent to which conservation assessment (identification, design, and prioritization of potential conservation areas) ultimately influences actions on the ground. We interviewed staff members of a nongovernmental organization, who were involved in 5 ecoregional assessments across North and South America and the Asia‐Pacific region. We conducted 17 semistructured interviews with open and closed questions about the perceived purpose, outputs, and outcomes of the ecoregional assessments in which respondents were involved. Using qualitative data collected from those interviews, we investigated the types and frequency of benefits perceived to have emerged from the ecoregional assessments and explored factors that might facilitate or constrain the flow of benefits. Some benefits reflected the intended purpose of ecoregional assessments. Other benefits included improvements in social interactions, attitudes, and institutional knowledge. Our results suggest the latter types of benefits enable ultimate benefits of assessments, such as guiding investments by institutional partners. Our results also showed a clear divergence between the respondents’ expectations and perceived outcomes of implementation of conservation actions arising from ecoregional assessments. Our findings suggest the need for both a broader perspective on the contribution of assessments to planning goals and further evaluation of conservation assessments.     

Practical Recommendations to Help Students Bridge the Research–Implementation Gap and Promote Conservation

Seasoned conservation researchers often struggle to bridge the research–implementation gap and promote the translation of their work into meaningful conservation actions. Graduate students face the same problems and must contend with obstacles such as limited opportunities for relevant interdisciplinary training and a lack of institutional support for application of research results. However, students also have a crucial set of opportunities (e.g., access to academic resources outside their degree programs and opportunities to design research projects promoting collaboration with stakeholders) at their disposal to address these problems. On the basis of results of breakout discussions at a symposium on the human dimensions of the ocean, a review of the literature, and our own experiences, we devised recommendations on how graduate students can create resources within their academic institutions, institutionalize resources, and engage with stakeholders to promote real‐world conservation outcomes. Within their academic institutions, graduate students should foster links to practitioners and promote knowledge and skill sharing among students. To institutionalize resources, students should cultivate student leaders and faculty sponsors, systematically document their program activities, and engage in strategic planning to promote the sustainability of their efforts. While conducting research, students should create connections to and engage actively with stakeholders in their relevant study areas and disseminate research results both to stakeholders and the broader public. Our recommendations can serve as a template for graduate students wishing to bridge the research–implementation gap, both during their current studies and in their future careers as conservation researchers and practitioners. Recomendaciones Prácticas para Ayudar a Estudiantes a Vencer la Brecha entre Investigación e Implementación y Promover la Conservación     

Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process

Abstract: Despite substantial growth in the field of conservation planning, the speed and success with which conservation plans are converted into conservation action remains limited. This gap between science and action extends beyond conservation planning into many other applied sciences and has been linked to complexity of current societal problems, compartmentalization of knowledge and management sectors, and limited collaboration between scientists and decision makers. Transdisciplinary approaches have been proposed as a possible way to address these challenges and to bridge the gap between science and action. These approaches move beyond the bridging of disciplines to an approach in which science becomes a social process resolving problems through the participation and mutual learning of stakeholders. We explored the principles of transdisciplinarity, in light of our experiences as conservation‐planning researchers working in South Africa, to better understand what is required to make conservation planning transdisciplinary and therefore more effective. Using the transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge (empirical, pragmatic, normative, and purposive), we found that conservation planning has succeeded in integrating many empirical disciplines into the pragmatic stakeholder‐engaged process of strategy development and implementation. Nevertheless, challenges remain in engagement of the social sciences and in understanding the social context of implementation. Farther up this knowledge hierarchy, at the normative and purposive levels, we found that a lack of integrated land‐use planning and policies (normative) and the dominant effect of national values (purposive) that prioritize growth and development limit the effectiveness and relevance of conservation plans. The transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge highlighted that we need to move beyond bridging the empirical and pragmatic disciplines into the complex normative world of laws, policies, and planning and become engaged in the purposive processes of decision making, behavior change, and value transfer. Although there are indications of progress in this direction, working at the normative and purposive levels requires time, leadership, resources, skills that are absent in conservation training and practice, and new forms of recognition in systems of scientific reward and funding.     

Using a social–ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans

One of the key determinants of success in biodiversity conservation is how well conservation planning decisions account for the social system in which actions are to be implemented. Understanding elements of how the social and ecological systems interact can help identify opportunities for implementation. Utilizing data from a large‐scale conservation initiative in southwestern of Australia, we explored how a social–ecological system framework can be applied to identify how social and ecological factors interact to influence the opportunities for conservation. Using data from semistructured interviews, an online survey, and publicly available data, we developed a conceptual model of the social–ecological system associated with the conservation of the Fitz‐Stirling region. We used this model to identify the relevant variables (remnants of vegetation, stakeholder presence, collaboration between stakeholders, and their scale of management) that affect the implementation of conservation actions in the region. We combined measures for these variables to ascertain how areas associated with different levels of ecological importance coincided with areas associated with different levels of stakeholder presence, stakeholder collaboration, and scales of management. We identified areas that could benefit from different implementation strategies, from those suitable for immediate conservation action to areas requiring implementation over the long term to increase on‐the‐ground capacity and identify mechanisms to incentivize implementation. The application of a social–ecological framework can help conservation planners and practitioners facilitate the integration of ecological and social data to inform the translation of priorities for action into implementation strategies that account for the complexities of conservation problems in a focused way.     

Conserving Connectivity: Some Lessons from Mountain Lions in Southern California

Abstract: Habitat corridors can be essential for persistence of wildlife populations in fragmented landscapes. Although much research has focused on identifying species and places critical for conservation action, the conservation literature contains surprisingly few examples of corridors that actually have been protected and so provides little guidance for moving from planning through implementation. We examined a case study from southern California that combines monitoring of radio‐collared mountain lions (Puma concolor) with an assessment of land‐protection efforts to illustrate lessons learned while attempting to maintain ecological connectivity in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. As in many places, conservation scientists have provided science‐based maps of where conservation efforts should focus. But implementing corridors is a business decision based not solely on ecological information but also on cost, opportunity cost, investment risk, and other feasibility considerations. Here, the type and pattern of development is such that key connections will be lost unless they are explicitly protected. Keeping pace with conversion, however, has been difficult, especially because conservation efforts have been limited to traditional parcel‐by‐parcel land‐protection techniques. The challenges of and trade‐offs in implementation make it clear that in southern California, connectivity cannot be bought one parcel at a time. Effective land‐use plans and policies that incorporate conservation principles, such as California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning program, are needed to support the retention of landscape permeability. Lessons from this study have broad application, especially as a precautionary tale for places where such extensive and intensive development has not yet occurred. Given how limiting resources are for biodiversity conservation, conservationists must be disciplined about where and how they attempt corridor protection: in rapidly fragmenting landscapes, the opportunity for success can be surprisingly fleeting.     

Scale Mismatches,Conservation Planning,and the Value of Social‐Network Analyses

Many of the challenges conservation professionals face can be framed as scale mismatches. The problem of scale mismatch occurs when the planning for and implementation of conservation actions is at a scale that does not reflect the scale of the conservation problem. The challenges in conservation planning related to scale mismatch include ecosystem or ecological process transcendence of governance boundaries; limited availability of fine‐resolution data; lack of operational capacity for implementation; lack of understanding of social‐ecological system components; threats to ecological diversity that operate at diverse spatial and temporal scales; mismatch between funding and the long‐term nature of ecological processes; rate of action implementation that does not reflect the rate of change of the ecological system; lack of appropriate indicators for monitoring activities; and occurrence of ecological change at scales smaller or larger than the scale of implementation or monitoring. Not recognizing and accounting for these challenges when planning for conservation can result in actions that do not address the multiscale nature of conservation problems and that do not achieve conservation objectives. Social networks link organizations and individuals across space and time and determine the scale of conservation actions; thus, an understanding of the social networks associated with conservation planning will help determine the potential for implementing conservation actions at the required scales. Social‐network analyses can be used to explore whether these networks constrain or enable key social processes and how multiple scales of action are linked. Results of network analyses can be used to mitigate scale mismatches in assessing, planning, implementing, and monitoring conservation projects. Discordancia de Escalas, Planificación de la Conservación y el Valor del Análisis de Redes Sociales     

Reorienting Systematic Conservation Assessment for Effective Conservation Planning

Abstract: Systematic conservation assessment (an information‐gathering and prioritization process used to select the spatial foci of conservation initiatives) is often considered vital to conservation‐planning efforts, yet published assessments have rarely resulted in conservation action. Conservation assessments may lead more directly to effective conservation action if they are reoriented to inform conservation decisions. Toward this goal, we evaluated the relative priority for conservation of 7 sites proposed for the first forest reserves in the Union of the Comoros, an area with high levels of endemism and rapidly changing land uses in the western Indian Ocean. Through the analysis of 30 indicator variables measured at forest sites and nearby villages, we assessed 3 prioritization criteria at each site: conservation value, threat to loss of biological diversity from human activity, and feasibility of reserve establishment. Our results indicated 2 sites, Yiméré and Hassera‐Ndrengé, were priorities for conservation action. Our approach also informed the development of an implementation strategy and enabled an evaluation of previously unexplored relations among prioritization criteria. Our experience suggests that steps taken to ensure the closer involvement of practitioners, include a broader range of social data, encourage stakeholder participation, and consider the feasibility of conservation action can improve the relevance of assessments for conservation planning, strengthen the scientific basis for conservation decisions, and result in a more realistic evaluation of conservation alternatives.     

Exposing ecological and economic costs of the research‐implementation gap and compromises in decision making

The frequently discussed gap between conservation science and practice is manifest in the gap between spatial conservation prioritization plans and their implementation. We analyzed the research‐implementation gap of one zoning case by comparing results of a spatial prioritization analysis aimed at avoiding ecological impact of peat mining in a regional zoning process with the final zoning plan. We examined the relatively complex planning process to determine the gaps among research, zoning, and decision making. We quantified the ecological costs of the differing trade‐offs between ecological and socioeconomic factors included in the different zoning suggestions by comparing the landscape‐level loss of ecological features (species occurrences, habitat area, etc.) between the different solutions for spatial allocation of peat mining. We also discussed with the scientists and planners the reasons for differing zoning suggestions. The implemented plan differed from the scientists suggestion in that its focus was individual ecological features rather than all the ecological features for which there were data; planners and decision makers considered effects of peat mining on areas not included in the prioritization analysis; zoning was not truly seen as a resource‐allocation process and not emphasized in general minimizing ecological losses while satisfying economic needs (peat‐mining potential); and decision makers based their prioritization of sites on site‐level information showing high ecological value and on single legislative factors instead of finding a cost‐effective landscape‐level solution. We believe that if the zoning and decision‐making processes are very complex, then the usefulness of science‐based prioritization tools is likely to be reduced. Nevertheless, we found that high‐end tools were useful in clearly exposing trade‐offs between conservation and resource utilization.     

Mapping Human and Social Dimensions of Conservation Opportunity for the Scheduling of Conservation Action on Private Land

Abstract Spatial prioritization techniques are applied in conservation‐planning initiatives to allocate conservation resources. Although typically they are based on ecological data (e.g., species, habitats, ecological processes), increasingly they also include nonecological data, mostly on the vulnerability of valued features and economic costs of implementation. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of conservation actions implemented through conservation‐planning initiatives is a function of the human and social dimensions of social‐ecological systems, such as stakeholders’ willingness and capacity to participate. We assessed human and social factors hypothesized to define opportunities for implementing effective conservation action by individual land managers (those responsible for making day‐to‐day decisions on land use) and mapped these to schedule implementation of a private land conservation program. We surveyed 48 land managers who owned 301 land parcels in the Makana Municipality of the Eastern Cape province in South Africa. Psychometric statistical and cluster analyses were applied to the interview data so as to map human and social factors of conservation opportunity across a landscape of regional conservation importance. Four groups of landowners were identified, in rank order, for a phased implementation process. Furthermore, using psychometric statistical techniques, we reduced the number of interview questions from 165 to 45, which is a preliminary step toward developing surrogates for human and social factors that can be developed rapidly and complemented with measures of conservation value, vulnerability, and economic cost to more‐effectively schedule conservation actions. This work provides conservation and land management professionals direction on where and how implementation of local‐scale conservation should be undertaken to ensure it is feasible.     

Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas

Conservation success is contingent on assessing social and environmental factors so that cost‐effective implementation of strategies and actions can be placed in a broad social–ecological context. Until now, the focus has been on how to include spatially explicit social data in conservation planning, whereas the value of different kinds of social data has received limited attention. In a regional systematic conservation planning case study in Australia, we examined the spatial concurrence of a range of spatially explicit social values and land‐use preferences collected using a public participation geographic information system and biological data. We used Zonation to integrate the social data with the biological data in a series of spatial‐prioritization scenarios to determine the effect of the different types of social data on spatial prioritization compared with biological data alone. The type of social data (i.e., conservation opportunities or constraints) significantly affected spatial prioritization outcomes. The integration of social values and land‐use preferences under different scenarios was highly variable and generated spatial prioritizations 1.2–51% different from those based on biological data alone. The inclusion of conservation‐compatible values and preferences added relatively few new areas to conservation priorities, whereas including noncompatible economic values and development preferences as costs significantly changed conservation priority areas (48.2% and 47.4%, respectively). Based on our results, a multifaceted conservation prioritization approach that combines spatially explicit social data with biological data can help conservation planners identify the type of social data to collect for more effective and feasible conservation actions.     

Determinants of bird conservation‐action implementation and associated population trends of threatened species

Conservation actions, such as habitat protection, attempt to halt the loss of threatened species and help their populations recover. The efficiency and the effectiveness of actions have been examined individually. However, conservation actions generally occur simultaneously, so the full suite of implemented conservation actions should be assessed. We used the conservation actions underway for all threatened and near‐threatened birds of the world (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species) to assess which biological (related to taxonomy and ecology) and anthropogenic (related to geoeconomics) factors were associated with the implementation of different classes of conservation actions. We also assessed which conservation actions were associated with population increases in the species targeted. Extinction‐risk category was the strongest single predictor of the type of conservation actions implemented, followed by landmass type (continent, oceanic island, etc.) and generation length. Species targeted by invasive nonnative species control or eradication programs, ex situ conservation, international legislation, reintroduction, or education, and awareness‐raising activities were more likely to have increasing populations. These results illustrate the importance of developing a predictive science of conservation actions and the relative benefits of each class of implemented conservation action for threatened and near‐threatened birds worldwide.     

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

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.     

Investment and the Policy Process in Conservation Monitoring

Despite decades of discussion and implementation, conservation monitoring remains a challenge. Many current solutions in the literature focus on improving the science or making more structured decisions. These insights are important but incomplete in accounting for the politics and economics of the conservation decisions informed by monitoring. Our novel depiction of the monitoring enterprise unifies insights from multiple disciplines (conservation, operations research, economics, and policy) and highlights many underappreciated factors that affect the expected benefits of monitoring. For example, there must be a strong link between the specific needs of decision makers and information gathering. Furthermore, the involvement of stakeholders other than scientists and research managers means that new information may not be interpreted and acted upon as expected. While answering calls for sharply delineated objectives will clearly add focus to monitoring efforts, for practical reasons, high‐level goals may purposefully be left vague, to facilitate other necessary steps in the policy process. We use the expanded depiction of the monitoring process to highlight problems of cooperation and conflict. We critique calls to invest in monitoring for the greater good by arguing that incentives are typically lacking. Although the benefits of learning accrued within a project (e.g., improving management) provide incentives for investing in some monitoring, it is unrealistic, in general, to expect managers to add potentially costly measures to generate shared benefits. In the traditional linear model of the role of science in policy decisions, monitoring reduces uncertainty and decision makers are rational, unbiased consumers of the science. However, conservation actions increasingly involve social conflict. Drawing insights from political science, we argue that in high‐conflict situations, it is necessary to address the conflict prior to monitoring. Las Inversiones y el Proceso de Políticas en el Monitoreo de la Conservación Sanchirico et al.     

Conflicting and Complementary Ethics of Animal Welfare Considerations in Reintroductions

Despite differences in focus, goals, and strategies between conservation biology and animal welfare, both are inextricably linked in many ways, and greater consideration of animal welfare, although important in its own right, also has considerable potential to contribute to conservation success. Nevertheless, animal welfare and animal ethics are not always considered explicitly within conservation practice. We systematically reviewed the recent scientific peer‐reviewed and online gray literature on reintroductions of captive‐bred and wild‐caught animals (mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles) to quantify the occurrence of animal welfare issues. We considered monitoring that could be indicative of the animal's welfare status and supportive management actions that could improve animal welfare (regardless of whether the aim was explicitly animal‐welfare orientated). Potential welfare issues (of variable nature and extent) were recorded in 67% of 199 projects reviewed; the most common were mortality >50%, dispersal or loss of animals, disease, and human conflict. Most (>70%) projects monitored survival, 18% assessed body condition, and 2% monitored stress levels. Animal welfare, explicitly, was referred to in 6% of projects. Supportive actions, most commonly use of on‐site prerelease pens and provision of supplemental food or water, were implemented in 79% of projects, although the extent and duration of support varied. Practitioners can address animal‐welfare issues in reintroductions by considering the potential implications for individual animals at all stages of the release process using the decision tree presented. We urge practitioners to report potential animal‐welfare issues, describe mitigation actions, and evaluate their efficacy to facilitate transparent evaluation of common moral dilemmas and to advance communal strategies for dealing with them. Currently, comparative mortality rates, health risks, postrelease stress, effectiveness of supportive measures, and behavior of individuals warrant further research to improve animal welfare in reintroductions and to increase success of such projects. Ética Conflictiva y Complementaria al Considerar el Bienestar Animal en Reintroducciones     

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.     

Terrestrial Reserve Networks Do Not Adequately Represent Aquatic Ecosystems

Abstract: Protected areas are a cornerstone of conservation and have been designed largely around terrestrial features. Freshwater species and ecosystems are highly imperiled, but the effectiveness of existing protected areas in representing freshwater features is poorly known. Using the inland waters of Michigan as a test case, we quantified the coverage of four key freshwater features (wetlands, riparian zones, groundwater recharge, rare species) within conservation lands and compared these with representation of terrestrial features. Wetlands were included within protected areas more often than expected by chance, but riparian zones were underrepresented across all (GAP 1–3) protected lands, particularly for headwater streams and large rivers. Nevertheless, within strictly protected lands (GAP 1–2), riparian zones were highly represented because of the contribution of the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. Representation of areas of groundwater recharge was generally proportional to area of the reserve network within watersheds, although a recharge hotspot associated with some of Michigan's most valued rivers is almost entirely unprotected. Species representation in protected areas differed significantly among obligate aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial species, with representation generally highest for terrestrial species and lowest for aquatic species. Our results illustrate the need to further evaluate and address the representation of freshwater features within protected areas and the value of broadening gap analysis and other protected‐areas assessments to include key ecosystem processes that are requisite to long‐term conservation of species and ecosystems. We conclude that terrestrially oriented protected‐area networks provide a weak safety net for aquatic features, which means complementary planning and management for both freshwater and terrestrial conservation targets is needed.     

How Broad-Scale Studies of Patterns and Processes Can Serve to Guide Conservation Planning in Africa

Abstract:  Analysis of large-scale biodiversity patterns can uncover general relationships and problems that need to be taken into account when conservation strategies are developed. Nevertheless, these large-scale patterns need to be supplemented with information from local studies that can identify specific problems and determine how the land can be divided between conservation and development interests. I analyzed biodiversity patterns at three different scales to show how various scales of research contributed to conservation planning. A gap analysis for all of sub-Saharan Africa revealed that the network of wildlife reserves provides insufficient protection of narrowly endemic and threatened species, mainly because such species are aggregated in certain areas with dense human populations. A more fine-grained analysis of the distribution of forest birds of eastern Africa generally confirmed the results obtained with coarse-scale data and added precision by identifying forest tracts where conservation actions should be concentrated. Detailed local distribution data for one of the prioritized areas, the Uluguru Mountains in Tanzania, suggest that the actions to halt the loss of biodiversity should be concentrated in the submontane zone, immediately adjacent to densely populated areas. To achieve conservation on the ground, these general planning tools must be supplemented with other kinds of research concerning land-use and local knowledge and with approaches that promote more sustainable development. Different types of institutions will be needed for these different tasks, but it is essential that researchers maintain a dialogue with planners in this area .