Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Toward successful implementation of conservation research: A case study from Vietnam

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A number of different approaches have been used to explain the successes and failures of biodiversity conservation strategies in developing countries. However, to date, little attention has been paid toward assessing the influence of knowledge transfer between science, policy, and conservation practices in the implementation of these strategies. Vietnam’s Pu Luong Cuc Phuong Conservation Area is a globally important ecosystem, situated within a limestone landscape and inhabited by hundreds of local communities. Biodiversity conservation has become an important part of sustainable development in this area. This study analyzes three conservation strategies employed in the Pu Luong Cuc Phuong Conservation Area by applying the Research–Integration–Utilization (RIU) model of scientific knowledge transfer. Our analyses reveal weaknesses in scientific knowledge transfer arising from low-quality research and poor integration strategies. Based on our results, we developed recommendations to improve research and integration in an effort to enhance science-based policy support.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from Böcher and Krott (2016) and Böcher (2016)

Fig. 2

Map by Dinh Vu Xuan 2016

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W.M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington, B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, B. Vira, et al. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306: 1146–1149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Adrianzén, M.A. 2013. Improved cooking stoves and firewood consumption: Quasi-experimental evidence from the Northern Peruvian Andes. Ecological Economics 89: 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., and A. Chhatre. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Development 34: 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apel, U., O.C. Maxwell, T.N. Nguyen, M. Nurse, R.K. Puri, and V.C. Trieu. 2002. Collaborative management and conservation: A strategy for community based natural resource management of special use forest in Vietnam—Case studies from Pu Luong Nature Reserve. Cambridge, UK: Thanh Hoa Province. Fauna & Flora International/World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arcese, P., J. Hando, and K. Campbell. 1995. Historical and present-day anti-poaching efforts in Serengeti. In Serengeti II: Dynamics, management, and conservation of an ecosystem, ed. A.R.E. Sinclair, and P. Arcese, 506–533. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, M. 2002. Clarifying the links between forests and poverty reduction. The International Forestry Review 4: 231–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balint, P.J. 2006. Improving community-based conservation near protected areas: The importance of development variables. Environmental Management 38: 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, C.B., D.R. Lee, and J.G. McPeak. 2005. Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resource conservation. World Development 33: 193–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. 2011. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation. Regional Environmental Change 11: 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bene, J.G., H.W. Beall, and A. Coote. 1977. Trees, food and people: Land management in the tropics. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensch, G., and J. Peters. 2015. The intensive margin of technology adoption–Experimental evidence on improved cooking stoves in rural Senegal. Journal of health economics 42: 44–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 15188–15193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagwat, S.A., K.J. Willis, H.J.B. Birks, and R.J. Whittaker. 2008. Agroforestry: A refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology Evolution 23: 261–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., and P.H. Pattberg. 2012. Global environmental governance reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M. 2012. A theoretical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. Forest Policy and Economics 16: 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M. 2016. How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer. Forest Policy and Economics 68: 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M., and M. Krott. 2014. The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: The case of the “decision support system forest” and climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 3641–3656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M., and M. Krott. 2016. Science makes the world go round: Successful scientific knowledge transfer for the environment. Basel: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J.S., M.A. Franzen, C.M. Holmes, M.N. Grote, and M.B. Mulder. 2006. Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 20: 1528–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, J.S., K.A. Waylen, and M.B. Mulder. 2012. How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 21265–21270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal 168: 6–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapason, L., and S. van den Hove. 2009. The debate on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES): Exploring gaps and needs. Idées pour le débat 1.

  • Christensen, J. 2004. Win-win illusions. Conservation 5: 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dharmawan, B., M. Böcher, and M. Krott. 2016. The failure of the mangrove conservation plan in Indonesia: Weak research and an ignorance of grassroots politics. Ocean and Coastal Management 130: 250–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dharmawan, B., M. Böcher, and M. Krott. 2017. Failure of science-based win-win solution in fishery management: Learnings from Segara Anakan Waters, Central Java, Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 141: 82–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., and P.C. Stern. 1998. Science, values, and biodiversity. BioScience Policy Forum 48: 441–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Do Thi, H., M. Krott, and M. Böcher. 2017. The success of scientific support for biodiversity conservation policy: The case of Ngoc Son Ngo Luong Nature Reserve in Vietnam. Journal for Nature Conservation 38: 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresen, E., B. DeVries, M. Herold, L. Verchot, and R. Müller. 2014. Fuelwood savings and carbon emission reductions by the use of improved cooking stoves in an Afromontane Forest, Ethiopia. Land 3: 1137–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, P.J., and A. Kiss. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298: 1718–1719.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2002a. Detailed proposal for development of the Pu Luong-Cuc Phuong Limestone Landscape Conservation Project. Hanoi: Vietnam Country Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2002b. Baseline survey report: Survey of communes in Mai Chau. FFI Vietnam, Hanoi: Tan Lac and Lac Son Districts of Hoa Binh Province.

    Google Scholar 

  • FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2002c. Preliminary village survey: Surveys of villager in Thanh Son, Ha Trung and Lung Cao Communes, Ba Thuoc District. FFI Vietnam, Hanoi: Thanh Hoa Province.

    Google Scholar 

  • FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2003a. A survey of hunting status and collection of non-timber forest products in Pu Luong Nature Reserve and its surrounding forests. Hanoi: FFI Vietnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2003b. Options for gun control program. Discussion paper for presentation to hunting workshop. Hoa Binh, Vietnam.

  • FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2005. Report on development initiatives in the buffer zone in Hoa Binh. Pu Luong Cuc Phuong limestone landscape conservation project. Hanoi: FFI Vietnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2006. Implementation completion report phase 1: Pu Luong—Cuc Phuong Limestone Landscape Conservation Project. Hanoi: Vietnam Country Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • FFI (Fauna and Flora International). 2009. Implementation completion report phase 2: Pu Luong-Cuc Phuong Limestone Landscape Conservation Project. Hanoi: Vietnam Country Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, S.T., J. Sayer, and J. du Toit. 2007. Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and development: A conceptual framework. Ecology and Society 12: 2–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2001. Toward a “best practice” of constructing “serviceable truths”. In Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis, ed. M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn, and J.R. Ravetz, 97–118. Policy Studies Review Annual No. 12. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

  • Heim, J., and M. Böcher. 2016. CITES and science: Using the RIU model to analyze institutionalized scientific policy advice in Germany for the case of ivory trade. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 19: 159–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R., and F. Flintan. 2001. Integrating conservation and development experience: A review and bibliography of the ICDP literature. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, M. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hussein, A. 2015. The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work 4: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002. Energy and poverty. World energy outlook. Paris: International Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanagawa, M., and T. Nakata. 2007. Analysis of the energy access improvement and its socio-economic impacts in rural areas of developing countries. Ecological Economics 62: 319–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koetz, T., P. Bridgewater, S. van den Hove, and B. Siebenhüner. 2008. The role of the subsidiary body of scientific, technical and technological advice to the convention on biological diversity as science-policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy 11: 505–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koetz, T., P. Bridgewater, C. Miller, R. Norgaard, and R.A. Pielke. 2009. Science-policy interfaces for more effective governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services: Institutional mismatches, shifting paradigms, obstructions, and opportunities. Concept note for IPBES. Retrieved 17 July 2017, from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2783-2009.40.pdf.

  • Krott, M. 2005. Forest policy analysis. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krott, M. 2012. Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics 16: 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., J. Wang, and X. Deng. 2008. Rocky land desertification and its driving forces in the karst areas of rural Guangxi, Southwest China. Journal of Mountain Science 5: 350–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, J.C., and D.G. Ockwell. 2010. A handbook of environmental management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J.B. 2006. Energy balance and economic benefits of two agroforestry systems in northern and southern China. Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment 116: 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manibog, F.R. 1984. Improved cooking stoves in developing countries: Problems and opportunities. Annual Review of Energy 9: 199–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McShane, T.O. 2003. Protected areas and poverty. Policy Matters 12: 52–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N. 2009. Environmental politics: Stakeholders, interests, and policymaking. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner-Gulland, E.J., and N. Leader-Williams. 1992. A model of incentives for the illegal exploitation of black rhinos and elephants: Poaching pays in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Journal of Applied Ecology 29: 388–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, T., F. Momberg, N.X. Dang, and N. Lormee. 2003. Vietnam primate conservation status review 2002. Part II: Leaf monkeys, 145–164. Hanoi: Frankfurt Zoological Society and Fauna and Flora International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagasaka, K., M. Böcher, and M. Krott. 2016. Science-policy interaction: The case of the forest and forestry revitalization plan in Japan. Land Use Policy 58: 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesshöver, C., R. Müssner, K. Henle, and I. Sousa Pinto. 2008. Linking biodiversity research and policy in Europe. Ambio 37: 138–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesshöver, C., J. Timaeus, H. Wittmer, A. Krieg, N. Geamana, S. van den Hove, J. Young, and A. Watt. 2013. Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 22: 99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesshöver, C., M. Vandewalle, H. Wittmer, E.V. Balian, E. Carmen, I.R. Geijzendorffer, and S. Schindler. 2016. The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation 25: 1215–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W.L. 2005. Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, 6th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, J.F. 1995. The dangers of conservation by rural development—a case-study from the forests of Nigeria. Oryx 29: 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, H.M., P.W. Leadley, V. Proença, R. Alkemade, J.P. Scharlemann, J.F. Fernandez-Manjarrés, M.B. Araujo, P. Balvanera, et al. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330: 1496–1501.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings, C., A. Duraiappah, A. Larigauderie, and H. Mooney. 2011. The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 331: 1139–1140.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • PLNR (Pu Luong Nature Reserve). 2010. Report on investment project for Pu Luong Nature Reserve 2006–2010. Pu Luong Nature Reserve.

  • Pregernig, M. 2014. Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: Examples from conservation and environmental policy. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 3615–3639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pregernig, M., and M. Böcher. 2012. Normative and analytical perspectives on the role of science and expertise in environmental governance. In Environmental governance: The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness, ed. K. Hogl, E. Kvarda, R. Nordbeck, and M. Pregernig, 199–219. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quang Tuan, B., and H. Huy Ngoc. 2016. Exploitation and use of bioenergy during the Implementation of Vietnam’s green growth strategy: Status and policy recommendations. Vietnam Social Sciences 2: 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • RIGMR (Research Institute on Geology and Mineral Resources). 2003. Geological characteristics of the Pu Luong Nature Reserve and surrounding areas. Hanoi, Vietnam: RIGMR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salafsky, N., and E. Wollenberg. 2000. Linking livelihoods and conservation: A conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Development 28: 1421–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salafsky, N., H. Cauley, G. Balachander, B. Cordes, J. Parks, C. Margoluis, S. Bhatt, C. Encarnacion, et al. 2001. A systematic test of an enterprise strategy for community-based biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 15: 1585–1595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saterson, K.A., N.L. Christensen, R.B. Jackson, R.A. Kramer, S.L. Pimm, M.D. Smith, and J.B. Wiener. 2004. Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 18: 597–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schirmer, M. 2014. Biomass and waste as a renewable and sustainable energy source in Vietnam. Journal of Vietnamese Environment 6: 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroth, G., G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L. Vasconcelos, and A.M.N. Izac (eds.). 2004. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J.M., J.L. Rachlow, and R.T. Lackey. 2008. The science-policy interface: What is an appropriate role for professional societies. AIBS Bulletin 58: 865–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sesan, T. 2012. Navigating the limitations of energy poverty: Lessons from the promotion of improved cooking technologies in Kenya. Energy Policy 47: 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long, and D.C. Wege. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world: Priorities for biodiversity conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevanov, M., M. Böcher, M. Krott, S. Krajter, D. Vuletic, and S. Orlovic. 2013. The research, integration and utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research institutes in Serbia and Croatia. Forest Policy and Economics 37: 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderland, T.C.H., C. Ehringhaus, and B.M. Campbell. 2007. Conservation and development in tropical forest landscapes: a time to face the trade-offs? Environmental Conservation 34: 276–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tu, D.T., O. Saito, Y. Yamamoto, and A. Tokai. 2010. Scenarios for sustainable biomass use in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment 1: 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urmee, T., and S. Gyamfi. 2014. A review of improved Cook stove technologies and programs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 33: 625–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallmo, K., and S.K. Jacobson. 1998. A social and environmental evaluation of fuel-efficient cook-stoves and conservation in Uganda. Environmental Conservation 25: 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R.T. 2005. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 360: 471–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, M.P., and T.O. McShane. 2004. Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. Ambio 33: 513–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. 2011. Why do ICDPs fail? The relationship between agriculture, hunting and ecotourism in wildlife conservation. Resource and Energy Economics 33: 55–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A., P. Stedman-Edwards, and J. Mang. 2000. The root causes of biodiversity loss. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF, and IUCN. 1994. Centres of plant diversity: A guide and strategy for their conservation, vol. 3. Cambridge: IUCN Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J.C., K.A. Waylen, S. Sarkki, S. Albon, I. Bainbridge, E. Balian, and D. McCracken. 2014. Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: Having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zingerli, C. 2005. Colliding understandings of biodiversity conservation in Vietnam: Global claims, national interests, and local struggles. Society and Natural Resources 18: 733–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We greatly appreciate the financial support of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Vietnamese Government Fund (911 Scholarship). This research was supported by the Chair Group of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, George-August University of Göttingen, Germany, and Vietnam National University of Forestry. We thank all of the experts and officials involved in the study, particularly those from Fauna and Flora International Vietnam, PLNR, NSNLNR, and CPNP for providing valuable data. We owe a debt of gratitude to local people in PLNR and NSNLNR who gave their time to participate in interviews, provide much practical information and share their knowledge, experiences, and opinions with us. Finally, we would like to thank four anonymous referees for their very helpful comments on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair Group of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy, George-August University of Göttingen, Büsgenweg 3, 37077, Göttingen, Germany

    Huong Do Thi, Max Krott & Nataly Juerges

  2. College of Land Management and Rural Development, Vietnam National University of Forestry, Xuan Mai town, Chuong My district, Hanoi, Vietnam

    Huong Do Thi

  3. Chair of Political Science and Sustainable Development, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Zschokkestr. 32, 39016, Magdeburg, Germany

    Michael Böcher

Authors
  1. Huong Do Thi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Max Krott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Böcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nataly Juerges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huong Do Thi.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 55 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Do Thi, H., Krott, M., Böcher, M. et al. Toward successful implementation of conservation research: A case study from Vietnam. Ambio 47, 608–621 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0999-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0999-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation