Bridging theory and practice: learning
from 13 years of Conservation planning
in South Africa
Chuma B. Chinzila
Mathieu Rouget
Structure
• Background
• Hypothesis
• Methods
• Framework
• Preliminary results
• Conclusion & way forward
Background
Quality and quantity of conservation planning tools and techniques has
improved since 2003
But there remains a science-action gap because of:
• lack of documentation (publication) of successfully implemented conservation
planning initiatives
(Ehrenfeld, 2000; Maddock and Benn, 2000; Balmford, 2003; Knight et
al., 2006; Sarkar et al., 2006; Knight et al., 2008; Cadman et al., 2010;
Reyers et al., 2010).
Hypothesis
1. The quality and quantity of conservation science has grown over
the past 13 years but there is little published evidence of
implementation.
2. South African conservation planning shows more practice than is
highlighted in literature.
Method
• Systematic Review for the period 2003 to 2015:
International literature
(124)
South African
Practice
South African Literature
(124)
Biodiversity
Planning Forum
(Community of
Practice)
(124)
Framework
Biodiversity planning
Assessments
Level 1 Theme
Products
Priority Area Identification,
Target setting
Level 2 Theme
Plans: Maps &
Guidelines
Implementation
Land use decision
making (LUDM)
PAES
Restoration
Level 3 Theme
Development Application
EIA
SDF (Long-term planning)
Formal
Informal
Invasive spp., ecological
infrastructure
Preliminary Results
Warning:
…the following slides contain lots of graphs which may
be offensive to sensitive viewers, viewer discretion is
advised.
Level 1 theme focus
50
44
36
%
40
30
20
10
10
3
0
Assessment
BPF
SA Lit
Products
Implementation
Level 1 Theme
Generic
%
Level 2 theme focus
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
49.4
26.7
3.3
BPF
SA Lit
1.3
Level 2 Theme
Content focus
Problem
O.M
Solution Data
O.M
Adaptive Evaluation
Mgt.
Stakeholder Monitoring
engagement
Mainstreaming
BPF
22.5
6.7
22.5
29.2
9
5.6
0
4.5
SA
Lit
38.7
12
21.3
6.7
13.3
5.3
2.7
0
%
Ecosystem focus
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
54.5
51
4.4 5.2
4.4
All ecosyst Fresh Water
BPF
SA Lit
Marine
Terrestrial
Ecosystem
Ecosyst
Specific
Geographical focus
80
70.3
%
60
52.2
40
20
10.8
0
0
Local
BPF
SA Lit
National
Global
Geographical focus
Change in focus over time – SA Lit.
120
100
%
80
60
40
20
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
Assessment
Product
Implementation
Generic
Conclusion
Focus
General
Ecosystem
Geographical
SA Literature
Assessment: problem oriented methods
Terrestrial
Local
SA Practice
Implementation: adaptive management
All ecosystems
National
Conclusion contd…: Gaps
Literature
• Products
• Implementation
• Mainstreaming
Practice
• Ecosystem specific focus on
Beach and grassland ecosystem
• Monitoring
Preliminary results reinforce the disparities between science and
practice: what scientists are writing about does not reflect practice
Way forward
We acknowledge that the practitioners may not be able to actively
participate in documenting their work, as such, we suggest:
• Strategic collaboration between scientist (academic institution) and
practitioners
• Establish scientific departments/sections within practice agencies to:
• Document practice
• Interpret science to practitioners and vice versa
***We look forward to seeing the whole picture after complete
analysis and incorporating international literature
Thank you!
Suggestions, comments…., questions?