People-Centered and Ecosystem-Based Knowledge Co-Production to Promote Proactive Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in Namibia

Abstract

Growing levels of uncertainty and vulnerability generated by land use conversion and climate change set demands on local communities and national institutions to build synergies between the diverse array of knowledge systems in order to provide policy makers and practitioners with the best available information to decide what urgent actions must be taken. Science policy arenas and agreements such as the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recognize the importance of different types of knowledge and the need for broad stakeholder involvement, yet the use of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in environmental decision-making processes is still underdeveloped. This study involved working with local stakeholders, using the MARISCO method (adaptive MAnagement of vulnerability and RISks at COnservation sites) to carry out a systematic situation analysis of the existing socioenvironmental conditions. The assessments were conducted in the Kavango East Region in northern Namibia with the participation of inhabitants of the Khaudum North Complex, a protected area network covering wooded savannahs belonging to the Northern Kalahari sandveld. General outcomes of the assessments and evaluations made by the local stakeholders concerning the most critical drivers of degradation of the ecosystems appeared to support existing scientific knowledge of the study area, demonstrating that community-based assessments can provide valuable information about socioecological systems where scientific data are scarce. The findings of this study also highlight the importance of power dynamics for the implementation of participatory processes and the interpretation of their outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    From Spanish: Manejo Adaptativo de Vulnerabilidad y Riesgo en Sitios de Conservación, which translates as ‘adaptive management of vulnerability and risk at conservation sites.

References

  1. ACIA (2005) Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

  2. Agrawal A (1995) Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Dev Change 26:413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A et al. (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Chang 21:995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ashley C (2000) Incentives affecting biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: the case of land use options in Namibia. Directorate of Environmental Affairs - Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia

  5. Aswani S, Lauer M (2006) Benthic mapping using local aerial photo interpretation and resident taxa inventories for designing marine protected areas. Environ Conserv 33:263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892906003183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berkes F (1999) Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor & Francis, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berkes F (2009) Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. J R Soc New Zeal 39:151–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berkes F (2002) Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. In: Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, et al. (eds) The drama of the commons. National Academic Press, Washington, D.C., p 293–321

    Google Scholar 

  9. Biggs R, Simons H, Bakkenes M et al. (2008) Scenarios of biodiversity loss in southern Africa in the 21st century. Glob Environ Chang 18:296–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Blaikie P (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Dev 34:1942–1957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blaikie P, Brown K, Stocking M et al. (1997) Knowledge in action: local knowledge as a development resource and barriers to its incorporation in natural resource research and development. Agric Syst 55:217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00008-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bouwen R, Taillieu T (2004) Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14:137–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al. (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. CMP (The Conservation Measures Partnership) (2013) Open standards for the practice of conservation, Version 3. CMP, Washington, D.C.

  15. Cooke B, Kothari U (2001) Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books, London, UK and New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  16. de Wit M, Stankiewicz J (2006) Changes in surface water supply across Africa with predicted climate change. Science (80-) 311:1917–1921. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1119929

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J et al. (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dirkx E, Hager C, Tadross M et al. (2008) Climate change vulnerability & adaptation assessment Namibia. Desert Research Foundation of Namibia & Climate Systems Analysis Group, Windhoek, Namibia

  19. Escobar A (1998) Whose knowledge whose nature? Biodiversity conservation and the political ecology of social movements. J Polit Ecol 5:53–82

    Google Scholar 

  20. Falk T (2008) Communal farmers’ natural resource use and biodiversity preservation: a new economic analysis from case studies in Namibia and South Africa. Cuvillier, Göttingen, Germany

  21. Field CB, Barros VR, Mastrandrea MD et al. (2014) Summary for policy makers. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, et al. (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability - contributions of the working group II to the fifth assessment report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, p 1–32

    Google Scholar 

  22. Funder M, Ngaga Y, Nielsen M et al. (2013) Reshaping conservation: the social dynamics of participatory monitoring in Tanzania′s community-managed forests. Conserv Soc 11:218. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.121011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gagnon CA, Berteaux D (2009) Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and ecological science: a question of scale. Ecol Soc 14:19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Government of Namibia (2002) Initial national communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia, p 79

  25. Haywood BK, Parrish JK, Dolliver J (2016) Place-based and data-rich citizen science as a precursor for conservation action. Conserv Biol 30:476–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hill R, Pert PL, Davies J et al. (2013) Indigenous land management in Australia: extent, scope, diversity, barriers and success factors. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Cairns, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hudson D, Jones R (2002) Regional climate model simulations of present-day and future climates of southern Africa. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Bracknell, UK

  28. Hulme M, Doherty R, Ngara T et al. (2001) African climate change: 1900-2100. Clim Res 17:145–168. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr017145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huntington HP (2000) Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications. Ecol Appl 10:1270–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hüttich C (2011) Mapping vegetation types in a Savanna ecosystem in Namibia: concepts for integrated land cover assessments. Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena, Germany

  31. Ibisch PL, Hobson P (2014) MARISCO: adaptive MAnagement of vulnerability and RISk at COnservation sites. Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management, Eberswalde, Germany, www.marisco.training

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibisch PL, Hobson P, Krause A et al. (2015) Great Altay Transboundary Biosphere Reserve. Development of a management plan of the proposed Great Altay Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, Republic of Kazakhstan and Russian Federation. Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management, Eberswalde, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibisch PL, Hobson PR (2012) Blindspots and sustainability under global change: non-knowledge illiterarcy as a key challenge to a knowledge society. In: Ibisch PL, Geiger L, Cybulla F (eds) Global change management: knowledge gaps, blindspots and unknowables. Nomos, Baden-Baden, Germany, p 15–54

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibisch PL, Hobson PR (2015) Lessons from case studies applying the MARISCO approach. Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management, Eberswalde, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jiao Y, Li X, Liang L et al. (2012) Indigenous ecological knowledge and natural resource management in the cultural landscape of China’s Hani Terraces. Ecol Res 27:247–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-011-0895-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kahler JS, Roloff GJ, Gore ML (2013) Poaching risks in community-based natural resource management. Conserv Biol 27:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01960.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Khumalo K, Yung L (2015) Women, human-wildlife conflict, and CBNRM: hidden impacts and vulnerabilities in Kwandu Conservancy, Namibia. Conserv Soc 13:232. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.170395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kimmerer RW (2002) Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: a call to action. Bioscience 52:432. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kothari U (2001) Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In: Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) Participation the new tyranny. Zed Books, London, UK and New York, NY, p 139–152

    Google Scholar 

  40. Laidler GJ (2006) Inuit and scientific perspectives on the relationship between sea ice and climate change: the ideal complement? Clim Change 78:407–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9064-z

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Langton M, Rhea ZM, Palmer L (2005) Community-oriented protected areas for indigenous peoples and local communities. J Polit Ecol 12:23. https://doi.org/10.2458/v12i1.21672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Leite MCF, Gasalla MA (2013) A method for assessing fishers’ ecological knowledge as a practical tool for ecosystem-based fisheries management: seeking consensus in Southeastern Brazil. Fish Res 145:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2013.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebaldi C et al. (2008) Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science (80-) 319:607–610. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152339

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mendelsohn J (2005) Forests and Woodlands of Namibia. Directorate of Forestry; Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Windhoek, Namibia

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mendelsohn J, el Obeid S (2003) Sand and water - a profile of the Kavango region. Struik, Cape Town, South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mendelsohn J, el Obeid S (2004) Okavango river - the flow of a lifeline. Struik & RAISON, Cape Town, South Africa and Windhoek, Namibia

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mercer J, Kelman I, Alfthan B, Kurvits T (2012) Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in Caribbean small island developing states: integrating local and external knowledge. Sustainability 4:1908–1932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4081908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Midgley G, Hughes G, Thuiller W et al. (2005) Assessment of potential climate change impacts on Namibia’s floristic diversity, ecosystem structure and function. Climate Change Research Group, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa

  49. Mosse D (2001) ‘People’s knowledge´, participation and patronage: operations and representations in rural development. In: Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) Participation the new tyranny. Zed Books, London, UK and New York, NY, p 16–35

    Google Scholar 

  50. NACSO (2009a) Conservancy profile. George Mukoya Conservancy. Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations, Windhoek, Namibia

  51. NACSO (2009b) Conservancy profile. Muduva Nyangana Conservancy. Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations, Windhoek, Namibia

  52. NACSO (2012) Living with wildlife - the story of Khaudum North Complex. Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations. Windhoek, Namibia

  53. NACSO (2016) The state of community conservation in Namibia — a review of communal conservancies, community forests and other CBNRM initiatives (2015 Annual Report). Namibia Association of CBNRM Support Organizations, Windhoek, Namibia

    Google Scholar 

  54. Naidoo R, Weaver LC, De Longcamp M, Du Plessis P (2011) Namibia’s community-based natural resource management programme: an unrecognized payments for ecosystem services scheme. Environ Conserv 38:445–453. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Naidoo R, Weaver LC, Diggle RW et al. (2016) Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia. Conserv Biol 30:628–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nel JL, Roux DJ, Driver A et al. (2016) Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conserv Biol 30:176–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Nielsen M, Lund J (2012) Seeing white elephants? The production and communication of information in a locally-based monitoring system in Tanzania. Conserv Soc 10:1. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.92188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Nightingale A (2003) Nature–society and development: social, cultural and ecological change in Nepal. Geoforum 34:525–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(03)00026-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Nuijten M (2005) Power in practice: a force field approach to natural resource management. Transdiscipl Environ Stud 4:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 10:430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89171-5

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Pretty J, Ward H (2001) Social capital and the environment. World Dev 29:209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pröpper M (2009a) Culture and biodiversity in Central Kavango, Namibia. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin, Germany

  63. Pröpper M (2009b) Sawing Kavango timber commons levels of action and agency upon local natural capital. In: Greiner C, Kokot W (eds) Networks, resources and economic action. Ethnographic case studies in honor of Hartmut Lang. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, p 171–188

    Google Scholar 

  64. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/ doi: ISBN 3-900051-07-0

    Google Scholar 

  65. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS et al. (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag 91:1766–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Reid H, Sahlen L, Stage J, MacGregor J (2007) The economic impact of climate change in Namibia: How climate change will affect the contribution of Namibia’s natural resources to its economy. Environmental Economics Programme Discussion Paper 07-02. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, United Kingdom

  67. Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks T, Capistrano D (eds) (2006) Bridging scales and knowledge systems - concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Reyes-Garcia V, Ruiz-Mallen I, Porter-Bolland L et al. (2013) Local understandings of conservation in southeastern Mexico and their implications for community-based conservation as an alternative paradigm. Conserv Biol 27:856–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rieprich R, Schnegg M (2015) The value of landscapes in Northern Namibia: a system of intertwined material and nonmaterial services. Soc Nat Resour 28:941–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1014598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Röder A, Pröpper M, Stellmes M et al. (2016) Assessing urban growth and rural land use transformations in a cross-border situation in Northern Namibia and Southern Angola. Land Use Policy 53:97–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Roturier S, Roué M (2009) Of forest, snow and lichen: Sámi reindeer herders’ knowledge of winter pastures in northern Sweden. Ecol Manag 258:1960–1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Salafsky N, Salzer D, Stattersfield AJ et al. (2008) A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv Biol 22:897–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Salvaterra T, Allenbach K, Hobson P et al. (2016) Exploring the potential of ecosystem-based approaches – ecosystem-based adaptation and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction. In: Policy brief with proceedings from a PLACARD session convened as part of the 4th Adaptation Futures Conference. 10–13 May, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, p 1–4

  74. Sam H, Giles M (2005) Relocating participation within a radical politics of development Development and Change 36(2):237–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Santos de Aquino A, Bocarde F, Aparecida de Souza Lima N, Ruffino ML (2007) Participative management of fishing resources in the Amazon. In: Prates AP, Blanc D (eds) Participative management of fishing resources in the Amazon. ProVárzea/Ibama, Manaus, Brazil, p 213–233

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sarvimäki A (2006) Well-being as being well—a Heideggerian look at well-being. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being 1:4–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482620500518101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH et al. (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.265

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Schick A, Hobson PR, Ibisch PL (2017) Conservation and sustainable development in a VUCA world: the need for a systemic and ecosystem-based approach Ecosyst Heal Sustain 3:e01267. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Schmink M, Wood CH (1992) Contested frontiers in Amazonia. Columbia University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  80. Schnegg M, Rieprich R, Pröpper M (2014) Culture, nature, and the valuation of ecosystem services in northern Namibia. Ecol Soc 19:art26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06896-190426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2004) Ecosystem services in Southern Africa: a regional assessment. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa

  82. Schreiber ESG, Bearlin AR, Nicol SJ, Todd CR (2004) Adaptive management: a synthesis of current understanding and effective application. Ecol Manag Restor 5:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2004.00206.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (ed) (2004) The ecosystem approach, (CBD Guidelines). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  84. Selfa T, Endter-Wada J (2008) The politics of community-based conservation in natural resource management: a focus for International Comparative Analysis. Environ Plan A 40:948–965. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Sheeran J (2008) The challenge of hunger. Lancet 371:180–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61870-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Staddon SC, Nightingale A, Shrestha SK (2015) Exploring participation in ecological monitoring in Nepal’s community forests. Environ Conserv 42:268–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291500003X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Stellmes M, Frantz D, Finckh M, Revermann R (2013) Okavango basin - earth observation. Biodivers Ecol 5:23–27. https://doi.org/10.7809/b-e.00239.23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Strohbach BJ (2013) Vegetation of the Okavango river valley in Kavango West, Namibia. Biodivers Ecol 5:321–339. https://doi.org/10.7809/b-e.00286.321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Strohbach BJ, Petersen A (2007) Vegetation of the central Kavango woodlands in Namibia: an example from the Mile 46 Livestock Development Centre. South Afr J Bot 73:391–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2007.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T et al. (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P et al. (2017) Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Tengö M, Malmer P, Brondazio E et al. (2013) The multiple evidence base as a framework for connecting diverse knowledge systems in the IPBES. Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Stockholm, Sweden

  94. Thaman R, Lyver P, Pérez E et al. (2013) The contribution of indigenous and local knowledge systems to IPBES: building synergies with science. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France

  95. Treves A, Andriamampianina L, Didier K et al. (2006) A simple, cost-effective method for involving stakeholders in spatial assessments of threats to biodiversity. Hum Dimens Wildl 11:43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200500470993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Tschakert P, Das PJ, Shrestha Pradhan N et al. (2016) Micropolitics in collective learning spaces for adaptive decision making. Glob Environ Chang 40:182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Tschakert P, van Oort B, St. Clair AL, LaMadrid A (2013) Inequality and transformation analyses: a complementary lens for addressing vulnerability to climate change. Clim Dev 5:340–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2013.828583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Tschirhart C, Mistry J, Berardi A et al. (2016) Learning from one another: evaluating the impact of horizontal knowledge exchange for environmental management and governance. Ecol Soc 21:41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08495-210241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Turpie AJ, Midgley G, Brown C et al. (2010) Climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessment for Namibia’s biodiversity and protected area system. Anchor Environmental Consultants, Tokai, South Africa, Nambia Nature Foundation and South African Institute for Environmental Assessment, Windhoek, Namibia

  100. Vera FWM (2009) Large-scale nature development - the Oostvaardersplassen Br Wildl 20:28–36

    Google Scholar 

  101. Vogel M (2006) Erfassung von Vegetationsveränderungen in Namibia mit Hilfe von Fernerkundungs-Change-Detection-Verfahren und unter Berücksichtigung rezenter Niederschlagsereignisse. Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  102. Waylen KA, Martin-Ortega J, Blackstock KL et al. (2015) Can scenario-planning support community-based natural resource management? Experiences from three countries in Latin America. Ecol Soc 20:Art 28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07926-200428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R (2001) What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ Manag 27:435–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010160

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Wollenberg E, Nawir AA, Uluk A, Pramono H (2001) Income is not enough: the effect of economic incentives on forest product conservation: a comparison of forest communities dependent on the agroforests of Krui, Sumatra and natural dipterocarp forests of Kayan Mentarang, East Kalimantan. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

    Google Scholar 

  105. Woodward FI, Lomas MR (2004) Simulating vegetation processes along the Kalahari transect. Glob Chang Biol 10:383–392. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00697.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research of this study was carried out in the context of a consultancy for the BMCC project. We would like to thank all the participants of the assessments, especially the community members of the George Mukoya and Muduva Nyangana conservancies. We are grateful to Dr. Nadine Faschina, Gerrit Bartels and Dr. Konrad Uebelhör, as well as Carolin Tischtau for helpful comments on the draft and the whole staff of the BMCC project supporting the working process. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. PLI co-conceived and supervised in the framework of the research professorships “Biodiversity and natural resource management under global change” (2009–2015) and “Ecosystem-based sustainable development” (2015 onward) that were awarded by Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development. The workshops were conducted by PLI and CS (workshops 1–3), AS (1), PH and AK (2). AS, CS, and AK processed the data. AS wrote a first draft of the text and moderated its critical revision. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the data and critical revision of further versions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Axel Schick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schick, A., Sandig, C., Krause, A. et al. People-Centered and Ecosystem-Based Knowledge Co-Production to Promote Proactive Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in Namibia. Environmental Management 62, 858–876 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1093-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Conservation
  • Ecosystem-based
  • Community-based conservation
  • ILK
  • MARISCO
  • Namibia