Over the weekend, Joern Fischer wrote a criticism of transdisciplinary research. I was very eager to read it because it is something I have been wondering about over the last few months too. I began commenting on his blog, but, as my comment grew longer, I thought it is perhaps a better idea to flesh out my thoughts into a full post. Overall, I agree with Joern’s misgivings, but I would go even further to suggest that he was perhaps too forgiving towards transdisciplinary research.
Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation often walk hand-in-hand. At the global scale, most species and the majority of poor people are concentrated in a narrow band near the tropics. This is also true at smaller scales, where formal protected areas for conservation are regularly situated away from urban centres and, therefore, often coincide with poor communities deprived of basic infrastructure. As a consequence, any conservation strategy that hopes to be sustainable in the long-term should pay careful attention to local socio-economic conditions.
Regular readers of this blog might know that I have a soft spot for Golden Gate Highlands National Park (GGHNP) in South Africa (e.g. the history of the park and the guide to the hiking trails). This national park happens to be in one of South Africa’s poorest regions: the Maluti a Phufong local municipality.
Consider these scary statistics for the region:
- Only 1 in every 4 people (26.8%) has successfully complete secondary school education.
- Approximately 75 % (155 429 out of 208 296) of people aged between 15 and 64 are unemployed.
- 80% of households earn less than ZAR 40 000 per annum (that’s roughly US$10 per day shared among 3.35 people per household).
There is no doubt that the region surrounding GGHNP is in dire need of rejuvenation. I suppose it’s unsurprising then that the South African Journal of Science published a commentary in December last year criticising the recently approved 10 year management plan for GGHNP. In short, the authors argued that the management plan failed to highlight the need for conservation strategies that address the harsh socio-economic realities of the region and they suggested that tourism in the region be fast-tracked to generate revenue.
Here are some snippets from their essay:
“The GGHNP management plan can only succeed in promoting biodiversity and heritage conservation if it provides livelihood opportunities that safeguard continued socio-economic benefits.”
“Park resources, if managed properly, can provide long-term sustainable benefit to individuals, communities and institutions.”
“There must be speedy documentation of cultural heritage sites to promote route tourism development.“
“The GGHNP has rich cultural and heritage resources, yet is unable to effectively preserve them and to turn these assets into tourist attractions that earn revenue and provide opportunities for local economic development.”
At first inspection, this all sounds good. They use all the right buzzwords and seem to tick all the boxes. But I couldn’t help being annoyed when reading this commentary. Along with disagreeing with its general argument, I also had other misgivings, mostly due to the misrepresentation of the current situation at GGHNP. I pointed out these errors to the editor at South African Journal of Science and these views were published last week (open access). Continue reading
Over at Ecology for a Crowded Planet, Philip Martin wrote a nice summary of a great workshop we both attended a few weeks ago. The workshop was about using new methods to increase the accuracy of expert judgements and was presented by Mark Burgman. Please check out the original post for some context.
In the comments of that post, I made a remark on the potential utility of adapting Burgman’s methods in order to get a more accurate representation of self-reported values when doing sociological studies in conservation biology. I was not as clear as I should have been, so I’ve decided to expand my comment into a more detailed post. Continue reading