Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Impacts of Decentralized Environmental Governance on Andean Bear Conservation in Colombia

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decentralized environmental governance has become increasingly common across much of Latin America and in developing countries more generally, yet the impacts of decentralization on wildlife conservation remain unclear. Decentralized environmental governance is thought to improve efficiency, local compliance, and democratic potential of natural resource management. However, wildlife conservation, especially that of large mammals, poses unique challenges in the context of decentralized governance: wildlife conservation is often expensive, requires large expanses of contiguous habitat, and often offers few economic benefits. We analyzed Colombia’s decentralized environmental governance and its performance in conserving a contentious and border-crossing wildlife species, the Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus). We considered both decentralized institutions and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This analysis is informed by 67 semi-structured interviews with conservation practitioners in Colombia. We found inconsistent program implementation across the country and little information exchange among institutions. These issues quite likely contribute to exacerbated human–bear conflict and thus more Andean bear deaths suggesting that the successful coordination of large-scale wildlife conservation may yet require the leadership of strong central institutions. A few international NGOs were working to improve Andean bear conservation in Colombia, but we saw little involvement at the national level of Colombian NGOs—some of whom felt they were being unfairly outcompeted by international elites. We recommend a greater engagement with Colombian NGOs (by both donors and international NGOs) as a means through which to ensure the integrity of Andean bear conservation into the future.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Due to the sensitive nature of human-research, the data compiled from this research, such as interview transcripts and recordings, will not be made publicly available.

References

  • Andersson KP (2004) Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance. World Dev 32:233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson KP (2006) Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustain: Sci Pr Policy 2:25–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson KP, Ostrom E (2008) Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sci 41:71–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, De Loë R, Plummer R (2012) Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conserv Lett 5:245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of Regional Autonomous and Sustainable Development Corporations [ASOCARS] (2018). ASOCARS. https://asocars.org/asocars-2/. Accessed 26 Oct 2019

  • Bartley T, Andersson K, Jagger P, Laerhoven FV (2008) The contribution of institutional theories to explaining decentralization of natural resource governance. Soc Nat Resour 21:160–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batterbury SP, Fernando JL (2006) Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: an introduction. World Dev 34:1851–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benavides MF (2012) Conflicto armado, instituciones y gestión ambiental en Colombia: dimensión ambiental de las políticas públicas del Gobierno Nacional para atender a la población en situación de desplazamiento forzado. [Armed conflict, institutions and environmental management in Colombia: environmental dimensions of the national government’s public policies to serve populations in situations of forced displacement]. Master’s Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana

  • Bennett NJ, Satterfield T (2018) Environmental governance: a practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conserv Lett 11:e12600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard HR (2011) Chapter 9. Interviewing: unstructured and semistructured. In: Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman Altamira, p 210–250

  • Bernauer T, Betzold C (2012) Civil society in global environmental governance. J Environ Dev 21:62–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berreman GD (1962) Behind many masks: ethnography and impression management in a Himalayan village. Soc Appl Anthropol 4:152–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Beunen R, Patterson J (2019) Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: exploring the concept of ‘institutional work’. J Environ Plan Manag 62:12–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binningsbø HM, Dahl M, Nygård HM, Steele A, Weintraub M (2019) Colombia’s historic peace agreement with the FARC is fraying. We talked to 1,700 Colombians to understand why. The Washington Post

  • Blackman A, Hoffman S, Morgenstern R, Topping E (2004) Assessment of Colombia’s National Environmental System (SINA). Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackman A, Morgenstern R, Topping E (2006) Institutional analysis of Colombia’s autonomous regional corporations (CARs). Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357:eaan1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodzinsky S (2016) Colombia signs historic peace deal with Farc. The Guardian

  • Brown M, Cheng S, Tolisano J (2019) From threat to solution: rethinking the role of communities in nature conservation (commentary). Mongabay

  • Burger R, Owens T (2013) Receive grants or perish? The survival prospects of Ugandan non-governmental organisations. J Dev Stud 49:1284–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldecott J, Lutz E (1998) Decentralization and biodiversity conservation. Agriculture and the environment: perspectives on sustainable rural development. The World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Canal F, Rodríguez M (2008) Las Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales, quince años después de la creación del SINA [The autonomous regional corporations, fifteen years after the creation of SINA]. Gobernabilidad, instituciones y medio ambiente en Colombia, p 303–389

  • Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Glob Envir Change 10:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellanos A, Laguna A, Clifford S (2011) Suggestions for mitigating cattle depredation and resulting human-bear conflicts in Ecuador. Int Bear News 20:16–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin M (2004) A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Mag 17:17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciucci P, Boitani L, Francisci F, Andreoli G (1997) Home range, activity and movements of a wolf pack in central Italy. J Zool 243:803–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark AM (1995) Non-governmental organizations and their influence on international society. J Int Aff 48:507–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark DA, Slocombe S (2011) Adaptive co-management and grizzly bear-human conflicts in two northern Canadian Aboriginal communities. Hum Ecol 39:627–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement F (2010) Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a “politicised” institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sci 43:129–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook NJ, Wright GD, Andersson KP (2017) Local politics of forest governance: why NGO support can reduce local government responsiveness. World Dev 92:203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosse M, Sachetti JFDM, Mannise N, Acosta M (2014) Genetic evidence confirms presence of Andean bears in Argentina. Ursus 25:163–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker D, Smith C, Forstchen A, Hare D, Pomeranz E, Doyle-Capitman C, Schuler K, Organ J (2016) Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century. Conserv Lett 9:290–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dowsley MGM (2007) The development of multi-level governance for the management of polar bears in Nunavut Territory, Canada. Dissertation, McGill University

  • Dupar MK, Badenoch N (2002) Environment, livelihoods, and local institutions: decentralization in mainland Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton K (2006) The downside of decentralization: armed clientelism in Colombia. Secur Stud 15:533–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman Public Relations Worldwide (2019) 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2019-02/2019_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_Global_Report.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020.

  • Føllesdal A (1998) Subsidiarity. J Polit Philos 6:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foundation Grupo Argos (2019). Grupo Argos. https://www.grupoargos.com/en-us/media/news/colombian-initiative-conservamos-la-vida-is-recognized-as-one-of-the-best-public-private-programs-in-the-world Accessed 16 October 2019

  • Global Biodiversity Information Facility [GBIF] (2020) GBIF home page. https://www.gbif.org Accessed 13 Jan 2020

  • Goldstein I, Paisley S, Wallace R, Jorgenson JP, Cuesta F, Castellanos A (2006) Andean bear–livestock conflicts: a review. Ursus 17:8–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein I, Velez-Liendo X, Paisley S, Garshelis DL (2008) Tremarctos ornatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22066/0. Accessed 13 Nov 2016

  • Gómez Torres M (2005) Política fiscal para la gestión ambiental en Colombia [Fiscal policy for environmental management in Colombia]. vol 107. Serie Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago de Chile

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregersen HM, Contreras-Hermosilla A, White A, Phillips L (2004) Forest governance in federal systems: an overview of experiences and implications for decentralization. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta, Indonesia

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila T, Andersson K (2018) Policy design and the added-value of the institutional analysis development framework. Policy Polit 46:309–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes G (2011) Conservation’s friends in high places: neoliberalism, networks, and the transnational conservation elite. Glob Environ Polit 11:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudock AC (1995) Sustaining Southern NGOs in resource‐dependent environments. J Intern Dev 7:653–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez Londoño AM, Uribe Botero E (2002) Medio ambiente y desarrollo económico: Priorización de la inversión ambiental con criterios económicos [Environment and economic development: prioritization of environmental investment with economic criteria]. Fundacion para la Educacion Superior y el Desarrollo, Bogota, Colombia

    Google Scholar 

  • International Union for the Conservation of Nature (2017) Tremarctos ornatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-1

  • Ismail Z (2019) Advantages and value of funding NGOs in the global South. UK Department for International Development, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson JP, Sandoval-A S (2005) Andean bear management needs and interactions with humans in Colombia. Ursus 16:108–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kajimbwa M (2006) NGOs and their role in the global south. Intern J Not-for-Profit Law 9:58–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Kattan GH, Franco P, Rojas V, Morales G (2004) Biological diversification in a complex region: a spatial analysis of faunistic diversity and biogeography of the Andes of Colombia. J Biogeogr 31:1829–1839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiwango WA, Komakech HC, Tarimo TMC, Martz L (2015) Decentralized environmental governance: a reflection on its role in shaping wildlife management areas in Tanzanai. Trop Conserv Sci 8:1080–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight RR, Blachard BM, Eberhardt LL (1988) Mortality and population sinks for Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1973-1985. Wildl Soc Bull 16:121–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostka G, Nahm J (2017) Central–local relations: recentralization and environmental governance in China. China Q 231:567–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson AM (2003) Decentralisation and forest management in Latin America: towards a working model. Pub. Adm Dev 23:211–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson AM, Soto F (2008) Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:213–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:297–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood M, Davidson J, Curtis A, Stratford E, Griffith R (2010) Governance principles for natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 23:986–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB (2000) Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ 76:312–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mance H (2007) El ascenso y declive del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente 1993-2006 [The rise and decline of the Ministry of the Environment 1993-2006]. Documento de Políticas Públicas. Foro Nacional Ambiental 11:1–12

  • Manor J (1999) The political economy of democratic decentralization. Directions in development. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr Maldonado J (2001) Programa Nacional Para la Conservación en Colombia del Oso Andino–Tremarctos ornatus [National program for the conservation of the Andean bear-Tremarctos ornatus-in Colombia]. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Colombia

  • Nasiritousi N (2019) NGOs and the environment. In: Davies T (ed) Routledge handbook of NGOs and international relations. Routledge, Oxon, United Kingdom, p 329–342

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2005) Doing institutional analysis: digging deeper than markets and hierarchies. In: Menard C, Shirley MM (ed) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, Boston, Massachusetts, p 918–848

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud J 39:7–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM (2007) Going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15176–15178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco-Vega R (2014) The impact of Elinor Ostrom’s scholarship on commons governance. Policy Matters 19:23–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia (2017) Informacion cartografica (Shape) Limite Parques Nacionales [Cartographic information (Shape) National Park Boundaries]. Bogotá, Colombia

  • Parra-Romero Á, Galindo-Tarazona R, González-Maya JF, Vela-Vargas IM (2019) Not eating alone: Andean bear time patterns and potential social scavenging behaviors. Therya 10:49–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pening Gaviria J (2003) Evaluación del proceso de descentralización en Colombia [Evaluation of the decentralization process in Colombia]. Econía y Desarro 2:123–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Pensulo C (2015) NGOs in Malawi: what happens when donors leave? The Guardian, Blantyre

  • Peyton B (1980) Ecology, distribution, and food habits of spectacled bears, Tremarctos ornatus, in Peru. J Mammal 61:639–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peyton B (1999) Spectacled bear conservation action plan. In: Bears: status survey and conservation action plan. p 157–198

  • Piragauta Vargas EA (2020) Aprovechamiento forestal por area de jurisdicción CARS periodo 2000-2006 [Forest use by CAR jurisdiction for the period of 2000-2006]. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales [IDEAM], Bogotá, Colombia

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot J (2002) Democratic decentralization of natural resources: institutionalizing popular participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot JC (2004) Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot JC, Agrawal A, Larson AM (2006) Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev 34:1864–1886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribot JC, Lund JF, Treue T (2010) Democratic decentralization in sub-Saharan Africa: its contribution to forest management, livelihoods, and enfranchisement. Environ Conserv 37:35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Becerra M (2009) ¿Hacer más verde al estado colombiano? [Greening the Colombian state?] Revista de. Estudios Soc 32:18–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez J et al. (2007) Globalization of conservation: a view from the south. Science 317:755–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Castro D, Contento S, Grajales D, Reyes S, Reyes Amaya NR, Rodríguez C (2015) Evaluación del estado de aplicación del Programa Nacional para la Conservación en Colombia del Oso Andino (Tremarctos ornatus) [Evaluation of the state of implementation of the National Program for the Conservation of the Andean bear in Colombia]. Rev Biodivers Neotropical 5:36–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz‐Garcia M (2003) Molecular population genetic analysis of the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) in the Northern Andean Area. Hereditas 138:81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachedina HT (2008) Wildlife is our oil: conservation, livelihoods and NGOs in the Tarangire ecosystem, Tanzania. Dissertation, University of Oxford

  • Scarlett L, McKinney M (2016) Connecting people and places: the emerging role of network governance in large landscape conservation. Front Ecol Environ 14:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D, Nadin V, Seaton K (2000) The application of subsidiarity in the making of European environmental law. Eur Environ 10:85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RJ, Verissimo D, Leader-Williams N, Cowling RM, Knight AT (2009) Let the locals lead. Nat 462:280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley J (1979) The ethnographic interview. Press, Inc., Long Grove, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • Sriskandarajah D (2015) Five reasons donors give for not funding local NGOs directly. The Guardian

  • Sullivan L (2019) Conservation in context: toward a systems framing of decentralized governance and public participation in wildlife management. Rev Policy Res 36:242–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor D, Clark TW (2005) Management context: people, animals, and institutions. In: Clark TW, Rutherford MB, Casey D (ed) Coexisting with large carnivores. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 28–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomás Blanco J, Rozo J, Herrera E, Sanclemente G, David Vargas J, Javier Páez J, Valencia A (2016) Evaluación de operaciones de las Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales y de Desarrollo Sostenible, que mida la capacidad con la que cuentan para lograr sus objetivos y proponer acciones de mejora para el fortalecimiento integral de las mismas y el mejoramiento de la gestión ambiental en el país [Evaluation of the operations of the Autonomous Regional Corporations and Sustainable Development Corporations, which measures the capacity with which they have to achieve their objectives and proposes improvement actions for the integral strengthening of them and the improvement of environmental management in the country]. Departamento Nacional de Planeación, Bogotá DC

  • Torres D, Lobo A, Ascanio R, Lobo G (1995) Monitoring the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) populations in the watershed of the Capaz River, Merida State, Venezuela. MEMORIA Soc de Cienc Naturales La Salle 143:25–40

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Biodiversity Programme (2014) Megadiverse countries. Biodiversity A-Z. https://www.biodiversitya-z.org/content/megadiverse-countries. Accessed 20 March 2020

  • Uribe E (1996) Colombia. In: Lutz E, Caldecott J (eds) Decentralization and biodiversity conservation. The World Bank, Washington, DC, p 7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • US Agency for International Development [USAID] (2009) Democratic decentralization programming handbook. Washington, DC

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Multinational species conservation fund. https://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2007/MultinationalSpeciesConservationFund.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2020

  • Velez-Liendo X, García-Rangel S (2017) Tremarctos ornatus. IUCN. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22066/123792952 Accessed 13 Sep 2019

  • Wells MP (1998) Institutions and incentives for biodiversity conservation. Biodivers Conserv 7:815–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werker E, Ahmed FZ (2008) What do nongovernmental organizations do? J Econ Perspect 22:73–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Wide Fund for Nature (2017) Planning for sustainability and responsible exits. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/Sustainability_and_Exit_Strategies_March_2017.pdf Accessed 13 Sep 2019

  • Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H, Galaz V, Hahn T (2008) Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zaidi SA (1999) NGO failure and the need to bring back the state. J Int Dev 11:259–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zukowski B, Ormsby A (2016) Andean bear livestock depredation and community perceptions in northern Ecuador. Hum Dimens Wildl 21:111–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all those who graciously volunteered their time to participate in this study. We thank M. Guarnizo Pulido, V. Guarnizo Pulido, and D. Zambrano for serving as interpreters throughout the study. Finally, we thank J. Velásquez Runk, P. Dunne, D. Markewitz, and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript. An earlier version of this manuscript was published as part of RRH’s dissertation at the University of Georgia (https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13418.85448).

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the National Geographic Society (Grant # EC-331r-18) and a research and conservation grant from the International Association for Bear Research and Management. This research was additionally supported by several departments at the University of Georgia including the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, the Center for Integrative Conservation Research, the Latin American and Caribbean Studies Institute, and the Graduate School.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RRH designed the study, conducted the interviews, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. NN and RJC provided critical guidance in the development and implementation of the research and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhianna R. Hohbein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The Institutional Review Board at the University of Georgia approved all research conducted for this study (Protocol ID #STUDY00005270). All who were interviewed for this research participated in this study knowingly and gave their consent.

Consent for publication

All authors are aware of this submission and consent to this manuscript being published in Environmental Management.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Guide

Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview Guide

  • What is your role within [this organization]?

  • How much of a priority is Andean bear conservation for your region?

  • Could you describe your organization’s efforts towards Andean bear conservation? What are the specific threats or problems being addressed and how?

  • Are there any particular successes that you would like to highlight? (Change in policy, improved public perceptions, acquisition of funding, e.g.)

  • Where do you see your organization’s efforts related to Andean bear conservation going into the future? What are the factors that will determine your organization’s ability to achieve this long-term vision?

  • What kinds of obstacles does your organization face when it comes to Andean bear conservation work or conservation work more generally?

  • What do you believe are some of the largest obstacles that organizations face when it comes to Andean bear conservation work in Colombia, overall? What is it that makes Andean bear conservation so difficult?

  • Does your organization have any formal collaborative arrangements with any CARs; NGOs, whether local or international; or any other kind of organization within which Andean bear conservation is advanced?

  • Who all do you talk to about Andean bear conservation?

  • Do you have any challenging relationships with other organizations? What makes these relationships challenging?

  • Do you believe that there is sufficient communication among the various environmental entities operating in your region? What works well and what doesn’t? Any ideas for what exactly needs to be improved?

  • How would you describe the communication with PNN? With the Ministry of the Environment?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hohbein, R.R., Nibbelink, N. & Cooper, R.J. Impacts of Decentralized Environmental Governance on Andean Bear Conservation in Colombia. Environmental Management 68, 882–899 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01532-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01532-4

Keywords

Navigation