land

Article
Beyond Calendars and Maps: Rethinking Time and
Space for Effective Knowledge Governance in
Protected Areas
Claudia Múnera-Roldán 1, * , Dirk J. Roux 2,3 , Matthew J. Colloff 1 and Lorrae van Kerkhoff 1
1 Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601,
Australia; [email protected] (M.J.C.); [email protected] (L.v.K.)
2 Scientific Services, South African National Parks, George 6530, South Africa; [email protected]
3 Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela University, George 6530, South Africa
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-261-251-865




Received: 10 July 2020; Accepted: 22 August 2020; Published: 25 August 2020


Abstract: Protected area managers rely on relevant, credible, and legitimate knowledge. However,
an increase in the rate, extent, severity, and magnitude of the impacts of drivers of change
(e.g., climate change, altered land use, and demand for natural resources) is affecting the response
capacity of managers and their agencies. We address temporal aspects of knowledge governance
by exploring time-related characteristics of information and decision-making processes in protected
areas. These areas represent artefacts where the past (e.g., geological periods and evolutionary
processes), the present (e.g., biodiversity richness), and the future (e.g., protection of ecosystem
services for future generations) are intimately connected and integrated. However, temporal horizons
linked with spatial scales are often neglected or misinterpreted in environmental management plans
and monitoring programs. In this paper, we present a framework to address multi-dimensional
understandings of knowledge-based processes for managing protected areas to guide researchers,
managers, and practitioners to consider temporal horizons, spatial scales, different knowledge systems,
and future decisions. We propose that dealing with uncertain futures starts with understanding the
knowledge governance context that shapes decision-making processes, explicitly embracing temporal
dimensions of information in decision-making at different scales. We present examples from South
Africa and Colombia to illustrate the concepts. This framework can help to enable a reflexive practice,
identify pathways or transitions to enable actions and connect knowledge for effective conservation
of protected areas.

Keywords: protected areas; knowledge governance; cross-scale management; knowledge systems;

temporal dimensions; time

1. Introduction
Protected areas are artefacts where the past, present, and future are connected and integrated.
As public assets, these designated conservation areas are boundary objects—spaces where multiple
actors share information and interact [1], connecting diverse social-ecological elements, each with
specific temporalities. Elements from the past are represented by landscapes, geological and ecological
processes, refuges as sites and symbols of Pleistocene extinctions and historical climates [2], or the deep
time evidence of the unfolding relationships between people and nature. Through time, human societies
have evolved narratives that reflect different ways of conceptualizing, interpreting, and interacting with
nature, justifying what is considered important or of value (including tangible and intangible values)
and how to manage nature. In this context, protected areas represent the stage on which particular

Land 2020, 9, 293; doi:10.3390/land9090293 www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2020, 9, 293 2 of 21

societal interpretations of nature are played out [3]. Human agency is expressed in conceiving and
deciding what, why, and how nature in these protected areas needs to be conserved.
As complex social-ecological systems, protected areas comprise multiple temporal and spatial
scales where human and non-human actors connect [4], although not necessarily at the same pace.
Time-related characteristics in ecological systems include ecological and evolutionary processes
including variables such as seasonality, frequency, and duration of interacting biotic and abiotic
processes that are organized hierarchically [5,6]. For human societies, time provides the cues for specific
practices, for instance, traditional local and Aboriginal communities organize their activities according
to natural, seasonal tempos (i.e., harvesting, ceremonies, fishing), using customary and experiential
knowledge that comes from memories and stories transmitted from one generation to the next. In this
perspective, knowledge is active, rather than static and processed [7]; memories represent information
from the environment that has been filtered and interpreted by human agents [8]. For modern human
societies, time is entrained to deal with administrative issues, the creation of daily routines embedded
in time-related metaphors like calendars, clocks, diaries, and time zones. In the case of protected
areas, time is related with management and operational plans to meet conservation goals, with specific
timeframes for implementation measured in months or years.
Managing and planning biodiversity conservation is complex, with inherent uncertainties and
contested interests affecting decision-making [9]. In managing for environmental sustainability—including
protected areas—practitioners rely on relevant, credible, and legitimate information for their
decision-making processes [10]. Although advances have been made to better integrate information for
managing natural resources, two issues are still evident: the constant call for better, more effective science
indicates a persistent frustration and perceived lag between science and action [11], and there remain
many cultural and institutional barriers to effectively use scientific information [12,13].
Unpredictable change is inherent to managing protected areas as complex systems and managers
often are prepared to deal with it [14]. However, the increase in frequency and severity of impacts
of drivers of change [15] affects institutional and individual capacity to respond to such events and
use information for decision-making; in part, because of the inherent tensions managers face in
reconciling management timescales and ecological timescales. For example, the speed and rate of
extreme climate events and their impacts can extend beyond both the timeframe of a management
plan and boundaries of a protected area or a country; its effects overlapping different temporal and
spatial scales and cascading across biophysical systems [16]. Such events limit the ability of managers
to identify and use climate information for decision-making processes [17,18], design monitoring
systems, and comprehend ecological transformations and how people and nature respond to climate
change [19,20]. In short, the additional complexity of climate variability limits the capacity of managers
to design conservation strategies that effectively address adaptation to climate change.
What does time mean for managing protected areas under uncertain changing conditions, and how
can people plan for, and select the best information to deal with unexpected changes? To help answer
these questions, we propose that careful consideration of temporal and spatial aspects could provide
benefits for knowledge creation and its application for managing natural resources in times of high
uncertainty and rapid change. We argue that the linear conceptualization of temporal dimensions,
implemented and reinforced through the use of modern calendars and clocks (as well as timetables,
diaries and agendas), might be constraining our capacity to understand complex interactions in
social-ecological systems at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Land managers operate in at least two
spatio-temporal scales: the here and now and day-to-day of their responsibilities, as well as the scale at
which social-ecological processes play out in the longer term at a landscape or regional scale [21,22].
However, managers are often constrained by the need to respond to specific timeframes mandated by
the tools for management or urgent responses to meet administrative or political objectives, rather than
operating at more extensive spatio-temporal scales beyond administrative constraints and maps [23].
To facilitate a multi-dimensional understanding of knowledge-based processes, we propose that
dealing with uncertain futures starts with a better understanding of the knowledge governance context
Land 2020, 9, 293 3 of 21

and decision-making processes involved in adapting protected areas management to climate change.
Drawing primarily from civic epistemologies studies [24], the manuscript is divided in four sections.
In the first section we present concepts related to time, presenting the idea of the “eternally unfolding
present” [25,26] to enable actionable knowledge and practice under uncertain futures. The second
section focuses on knowledge governance, and the implications for decision-making in the context of
protected areas management. In the third section we propose a framework that can help understand
time-related issues in relation to identifying, accessing, and using knowledge in ways that reflect the
multi-dimensional scales within which protected areas operate. In the fourth section we illustrate
our concepts with practical examples from the South African National Parks (SANParks) experience
with Strategic Adaptive Management, and interviews performed during a study of knowledge
governance under climate change in Colombia [18]. In the concluding section, we highlight the
importance of understanding time related processes in planning and practice, to facilitate addressing
multidimensional processes where protected areas managers operate.

2. Timescapes and Time Perspective

2.1. Understanding Time: Connecting Past, Present, and Future

Time helps human societies, individuals, and institutions to plan and organize activities, connect
with specific moments in history, and, in separating the past from the future, it facilitates the making of
prospective decisions [27,28]. In every society, different conceptions and perceptions of time coexist.
A key assumption in planning for the future is that time is “continuous, linear, unidirectional and
irreversible” [28] (p. 140); time is continuous in that it keeps moving on and does not comprise discrete
units, unidirectional in that one event follows the other, even if repeated in cycles, and irreversible
in that it cannot go backwards. The perception of time as linear or circular is not only a subjective
construction but also a cultural one [28].
In modern industrial societies, and the management of natural resources, time is the “ . . .
disciplining coordination metrics of modern clocks and calendar . . . by which modern society measures
and responds to change and categorically distinguishes the ‘past’ from the ‘future’” [27] (p. 3).
Ecological processes and ecological responses to external variables (including human disturbances)
operate in longer spatial and temporal scales. This inherent mismatch between human planning
and the rhythms of nature constrains the capacity to recognize, access, and use alternative tempos
from Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK); such knowledge comprises individual and collective
memories, their relation to and interpretation of territory, and environmental change [29].
From a temporal perspective, the duality of nature and society that is inherent in natural
resource management does not exist in Indigenous societies [27,30]. For example, a landscape
represents both abstract and physical aspects, where time and space are intrinsically related and
evident (i.e., in geological eras, evolutionary processes, and human habitation). A landscape is
created in the eyes and mind of the observer, so its boundaries depend, in part, on the observer’s
capability for interpretation and imagination [30] and represent both tangible and intangible elements
of cultural relationships between people and nature. From landscapes, we can move to the idea of
timescapes as described by Adam [30], to acknowledge complex environmental phenomena and inherent
temporalities relevant to social-ecological systems. Timescapes encompass time-related characteristics
(seasons, rhythms, pace, cycles, environmental change, memories) linked to the natural environment.
The concept acknowledges change and how past events and memories influence the present while
offering options for the future: “A timescape perspective enables us to integrate scientific and everyday
knowledge and the constitutive cultural Self with the workings of nature” [30] (p. 55).
In protected areas and in the context of climate change, timescapes can help integrate diverse
forms of knowledge to understand how climate change-related impacts cascade across scales [16] and
levels of governance, including different temporal and spatial scales that go beyond the boundaries of
protected areas. A timescape includes the complex responses to changes in social-ecological systems,
Land 2020, 9, 293 4 of 21

the different interpretations of risk, and the urgency to act. It implies active learning from past events
and diverse actors, crafting new knowledge in the present, and envisioning future scenarios under
climate change.

2.2. Temporal Dynamics and Conservation Goals

This interaction of different timelines (past, present, future) is common in biodiversity conservation
and climate adaptation studies. However, sometimes knowledge-related work does not explicitly
consider temporalities. Knowledge baselines for managing protected areas are often based on
species inventories, which are limited to a specific location and time. Long-term monitoring can
address temporal coverage from single inventories [31]. Defining indicators of the conservation goals,
alongside Thresholds of Potential Concern (TPC) can help managers and scientists to identify levels
of unacceptable change in the system under management [32,33]. Ecological responses have specific
temporal hierarchies, representing long-term system variability [6]. Understanding the differences
between individual ecological responses (events) and processes can facilitate the identification of
information needs and the design of monitoring systems. Monitoring ecological processes and
responses—not just particular biotic groups—can provide a better understanding of the complex,
non-linear processes of ecological responses through time, and help to understand patterns and
trajectories across scales (see e.g., [5] for a watershed case covering multiple protected areas, and [34]
for long term elephant and fire savannah management in Kruger National Park).
As drivers of change and their impacts operate at multiple scales, monitoring systems might
consider units beyond the protected area boundaries to facilitate an understanding of the complex
dynamics of social-ecological systems. Tools for forecasting and prediction can help to visualize
scenarios for the future and identify information needs for conservation goals [35,36]. These prediction
tools have an important temporal basis enabling time perspective: being aware of how events follow
each other over time, and the role of past events in shaping the choices made today for the future [37].
It emphasizes the role of everyday practice, experience and learning, placing an actor (individuals and
institutions) in an “eternally unfolding present” [25,26].
Memory is an important element of time-related perspectives. In “The importance of a certain
slowness”, Cilliers [8] describes the relevance of knowledge and memory, and its role to help anticipation
of what is to come as complex systems unfold over time. He points out that memory is the “persistence of
certain states of the system, of carrying something from the past over into the future”. This does
not mean to glorify the past, but allowing past events to linger in the present is how we can process
information, interpret new events to help inform anticipation of the future, and counter the illusion
that “if we live quickly and efficiently in the present we are somehow closer to reality” [8] (p. 108).
Knowledge creation is a social process that requires learning, reflection, and dialogue, all of which take
time. Integrating diverse forms of knowledge and memories provide a means to interpret the changes
and evaluate the rhythm, impacts, and extent of drivers of change.
As different stakeholders in protected areas usually hold a diversity of beliefs, values,
and knowledge, and different interpretations of time and change, exploring knowledge governance
arrangements can help to identify potential political, cultural or customary tensions when selecting and
applying knowledge for planning [38]. In the next section, we discuss how these temporal dimensions
connect with knowledge-based processes.

3. Knowledge Governance: Accessing, Using, and Sharing Information

3.1. Creating Meaning, Crafting Knowledge

Words and stories shared by a group shape its identity and create meaning for mutual ideas
and concepts. Meaning is produced through interactions with the world and reinforced by the
selected choice of words, language, and metaphors used in everyday interactions [39]. This collective
creation of meaning is closely connected with knowledge creation. Knowledge-based processes are
Land 2020, 9, 293 5 of 21

context-dependent: institutions, rules, geographies, as well as individual and collective preferences,

shape how knowledge is created, shared, and applied. A variety of cultural and political settings frame
how people perceive, understand, and respond to natural phenomena and processes, including the
‘how’, ‘what’, and ‘whose’ of knowledge and its use [40].
Acknowledging the complexity and varied forms of knowledge, in this paper we consider
two domains: scientific knowledge, and ILK [41]; ILK evokes the strong, long-standing linkages
of Indigenous people, but also of more ‘recent’ communities (e.g., pastoralists or farmers) to their
natural environments, and their specific interpretations of environmental change. Protected areas
provide a good example of the interplay (or lack thereof) between knowledge and action produced by
different actors operating at different spatial and temporal scales. As a ‘community of practice’ [39],
protected area managers reinforce meaning through maps, regulations, and management plans,
the implementation of which is measured in calendar time. In contrast, Indigenous communities
create meaning and make sense of their world through dreams, stories, ceremonies, and traditional
practices, where calendars and clocks are less relevant [42]. As explained by Cuvi [43] (p. 81), ILK1 is
created through practice, learning, and openness to experiment. These individual and collective
interpretations of the world, with different understandings of risk and future climates, can lead to
different environmental rules and standards, which can then enable or constrain adaptation options [29].
In managing complex social-ecological systems, it is important to acknowledge the plurality of visions
and human dimensions shaping science-policy relationships [44].
In doing their work, protected area managers are expected to find, produce, and use information
to connect management objectives with specific time horizons for their implementation, monitoring
and evaluation [45]. In deciding what knowledge to use for planning and making decisions to deal
with changing environments, protected area managers are conditioned by their decision contexts.
Gorddard et al. [46] explain the decision-context as a societal construction whereby held human values
(such as the motivation to conserve nature), societal and institutional rules (formal and informal actions,
norms and practices for managing and planning), and knowledge (the diverse ways used by people to
make sense and understand the world) influence how people make decisions. When certain values or
rules predominate it affects how certain forms of knowledge are included or excluded, depending on
what values, rules and knowledge the decision makers consider credible, legitimate and important
(see examples of values, rules, and knowledge interactions from Australia in [46,47]; for Colombian
examples, see [48]). In the next section, we provide details of this knowledge-practice interaction.

3.2. Producing, Co-producing and Governing Knowledge

In linking science with management decisions, there is a trend to move from the knowledge deficit
model [11] to co-production as a way to promote actionable science while considering the complexity
of challenges in managing natural resources under climate change [49]. Although co-production has
different definitions, we follow Wyborn et al. [50] (p, 3.2): “processes that iteratively unite ways of
knowing and acting—including ideas, norms, practices, and discourses leading to mutual reinforcement
and reciprocal transformation of societal outcomes”. This definition addresses context-related aspects
of producing and applying knowledge and the governance of knowledge-based processes in situations
where there are different interpretations and ways of creating meaning in the setting of goals, as is the
case for protected areas.
Knowledge exchange, understood as processes of creating, sharing, interpreting, accessing and
using knowledge, is one way of understanding the interplay that is required for co-production, and is
not straightforward [13]. Understanding contexts and barriers can facilitate the identification of
options to enable knowledge exchange for more efficient decision-making and management. Such an
approach requires an understanding of the governance of knowledge: the overarching rules of how

1 Here ILK is inferred by the authors; in Cuvi (2019) Indigenous knowledge is mentioned, but does not refer explicitly to ILK.
Land 2020, 9, 293 6 of 21

societies engage in knowledge creation (including the preferred types of knowledge for making
decisions) and how to share, protect, use, or access that knowledge [38]. Knowledge governance
“can help to understand the role of knowledge and learning in the governance of complex societal
issues” [51], including knowledge-based arrangements (formal and informal rules) for decision making,
and facilitate more effective interactions between knowledge and practice. Knowledge governance is
often confused with knowledge management, however the latter involves the day-to-day practice of
organization along with accessing and using information and is not considered here.
Understanding knowledge governance can help to address temporal mismatches when deciding
how to address conflicts of interests, identify ways to move beyond traditional practices and embrace
innovative options for managing natural resources. A first step is to identify existing knowledge
governance systems, for example the so-called ‘loading dock’ model [50,52], as well as institutional
arrangements in use, for example boundary organizations, knowledge exchange, and embedded
researchers [13,53]. These models are often framed by high-level processes and complex arrangements
that shape the way society governs knowledge-based processes (known as civic epistemology),
which therefore influence knowledge systems (such as institutional arrangements for science-policy
interaction), as well as interventions and knowledge management responses for the application and
translation of knowledge into action [38].
Knowledge-based processes (including co-production) might benefit from explicitly embracing
different temporal dimensions. In collaborative interdisciplinary research, different perceptions of
the urgency to solve problems, and the different paces to create knowledge by different disciplines
and communities of practice, influence how we define timeframes for action [54]. In the next section,
we present alternatives to explicitly explore the diverse conceptions of time, how it is conveyed in
knowledge-based processes, to open opportunities for productive collaboration and dialogue with
multiple stakeholders in and around the protected area, rather than mismatched understandings based
on preconceptions or assumptions of time.

4. Framework for Multidimensional Knowledge-based Processes

“Some years ago, we started reflecting on fragile ecosystems and climate change, and we realized,
what are we going to do with the glaciers? Who is working on that? What management actions
are needed?”
Manager, Colombian National Parks, 2016

In its conception and implementation, management of natural assets often neglects or misinterprets
temporal horizons when designing environmental monitoring programs and decision-making
processes. To facilitate an understanding of time in relation to knowledge processes and decision
making, we propose a framework to evaluate current knowledge-based processes in protected areas
management and planning, as a guide to understanding the timescapes in which managers operate.
Acknowledging that management of conservation goals operates within spatial and temporal limits,
the framework is a guide to addressing the complex interactions of multidimensional management
in a practical way while identifying options to move beyond constrained and utilitarian concepts of
time (such as calendars) in relation to knowledge selection, usage, and the implementation of policies.
Each protected area context is different, and it is likely that some managers are already applying some
of these ideas. The framework aims to enable managers to navigate options for integrating practice
(e.g., management effectiveness), applying science and technical knowledge (e.g., monitoring systems),
and connecting diverse knowledge systems and memories to understand social-ecological processes
and responses to drivers of change. For example, ILK can provide a richer vision of social-ecological
processes, based on multigenerational observations and practice [55].
The framework is based on the idea of ecological reflexivity [56], involving recognition (monitoring
impacts and system changes while anticipating future conditions), reflection (learning from past
events, rethinking values and practices and envisioning), and response (reviewing objectives and
Land 2020, 9, 293 7 of 21

values and reconfiguration of processes and practices). We integrate these elements into a simplified
version of protected areas decision making (Figure 1). The framework includes the idea of the
here-and-now that protected area managers face every day in their jobs. The present represents the
living memory (including previous learning) gained by practice, anticipation of what is going to
Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
happen, and careful observation of the outcomes. We present some guidance questions (Figure 2
and Appendix A) intended to facilitate the reflexive process, guide discussions, and help managers
Appendix A) intended to facilitate the reflexive process, guide discussions, and help managers
exploring multidimensional knowledge-based processes in their current practice. These questions
exploring multidimensional knowledge-based processes in their current practice. These questions
can happen as part of a deliberative process to update management plans or monitoring systems and
can happen as part of a deliberative process to update management plans or monitoring systems and
can guide managers navigate and understand how current knowledge systems address time across
can guide managers navigate and understand how current knowledge systems address time across
scales. The framework and suggested options are not prescriptive, but aim to guide the discussion
scales. The framework and suggested options are not prescriptive, but aim to guide the discussion to
to identify what information is useful, whose knowledge is relevant, and elements to consider in
identify what information is useful, whose knowledge is relevant, and elements to consider in
designing monitoring systems that allow managers to capture systems dynamics in space and time.
designing monitoring systems that allow managers to capture systems dynamics in space and time.

Figure 1. A
A framework
framework to to address
address multi-dimensional
multi-dimensional knowledge-based processes for management of
protected areas. The day-to-day practice on the left focuses on monitoring social-ecological processes
and anticipating or thinking about future conditions of the the system. The reflexive practice (center)
system. The
emphasizes
emphasizes learning
learningfrom previous
from knowledge-based
previous processes,
knowledge-based rethinking
processes, assumptions
rethinking and knowledge
assumptions and
systems,
knowledge and envisioning
systems, expectations.
and envisioning To the right,
expectations. the right,
To the strategic practice level
the strategic focuses
practice level on how on
focuses to
rearticulate or transition to alternative forms of knowledge and management. Modified
how to rearticulate or transition to alternative forms of knowledge and management. Modified from from Dryzek
and Pickering
Dryzek [56].
and Pickering [56].

The first category

The first category isis the day-to-day practice,
the day-to-day practice, or
or operational
operational level,
level, which
which represents
represents the activities to
the activities to
meet
meet thethestrategic
strategicobjectives,
objectives,including
including anticipating
anticipating changes
changes andand monitoring
monitoring current
current conditions.
conditions. This
This level is critical to provide feedback to strategic decisions and update planning.
level is critical to provide feedback to strategic decisions and update planning. Then, an intermediate Then,
an intermediate
level level of reflexive
of reflexive practice, to allowpractice,
learning toabout
allowpast
learning about
projects, past projects,
planning planningrethinking
and activities, and activities,
the
rethinking the effectiveness of knowledge systems used to understand change,
effectiveness of knowledge systems used to understand change, and envisioning expectations for the and envisioning
expectations
future. Finally, forthe
the future.level
strategic Finally, the strategic
corresponds with level corresponds
decisions with
related to decisions
broad, relatedlong-term
overarching, to broad,
overarching,
goals that span long-term goals that
geographical and span geographical
temporal and can
scales. These temporal
includescales. These
setting can include
collective visionssetting
for a
collective
protected area and surrounding landscapes, align management plans with Indigenous Plans ofwith
visions for a protected area and surrounding landscapes, align management plans Life
Indigenous Plans
(a participatory of Life instrument
planning (a participatory planning
to reimagine instrument
Indigenous to reimagine
futures), Indigenous
developing futures),
and managing a
developing and managing
network of protected areas,a or
network of protected
complying areas, or complying
with international with international conventions.
conventions.
Land 2020, 9, 293 8 of 21
Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

Figure2.2. Illustrative
Figure Illustrative example
example of
of the
the guiding
guidingquestions
questionsand
andoptions
optionsforfor
managers, to to
managers, guide thethe
guide
discussionabout
discussion aboutmultidimensional
multidimensionalknowledge-based
knowledge-basedprocesses.
processes. Tables
TablesA1–A3
A1, A2,expand
and A3the
expand the at
questions
questions
each level. at each level.

Theinformation
The informationrequired
required to to understand
understand changes
changesininecological
ecologicalfunctions
functionsand thethe
and cascade effects
cascade effects
of disturbances across scales require more than data collected over narrow
of disturbances across scales require more than data collected over narrow temporal and spatialtemporal and spatial scales
[57]. [57].
scales The relationship
The relationshipbetween information
between needs and
information needs decision-making timeframes
and decision-making might have
timeframes might
different interpretations in management and planning [18] (p. 45), affecting
have different interpretations in management and planning [18] (p. 45), affecting how information how information is
produced, selected, and used. Moreover, our lack of clear knowledge
is produced, selected, and used. Moreover, our lack of clear knowledge about the type, speed, about the type, speed, and
extent
and of of
extent ecosystem
ecosystem transformation
transformation as consequence
as consequence of climate
of climatechange
changechallenges
challengeshowhow we wemakemake
decisions, our interpretation of time, affecting knowledge-based processes for managing protected
decisions, our interpretation of time, affecting knowledge-based processes for managing protected areas.
areas. For example, when designing monitoring systems, scientists and managers often omit the
For example, when designing monitoring systems, scientists and managers often omit the response
response timeframes of ecological processes, or use incomplete datasets that do not reflect the
timeframes of ecological processes, or use incomplete datasets that do not reflect the interconnectedness
interconnectedness of ecosystem processes at different spatial and temporal scales [5] or the
of ecosystem processes at different spatial and temporal scales [5] or the underlying complexity of
underlying complexity of ecosystem services and the processes that provide them. In this sense, we
ecosystem services and the processes that provide them. In this sense, we understand ecosystem services
understand ecosystem services as biophysically and socially co-created; their use and interpretation
asevolve
biophysically
over time andaccording
socially co-created; their use and
to societal preferences interpretation
[58]. As ecosystems,evolve over timeand
biodiversity according
social to
societal preferences [58]. As ecosystems, biodiversity and social processes are
processes are structured hierarchically across temporal and spatial scales, protected area managersstructured hierarchically
across temporal
can benefit fromand spatialaddressing
explicitly scales, protected
temporalarea managers
scales, can
territorial benefit from
dynamics explicitlyprocesses
and ecological addressing
temporal
when usingscales, territorialand
knowledge dynamics and ecological processes when using knowledge and information.
information.
Careful
Carefullinking
linking ofof management
managementeffectiveness
effectiveness times,
times, withwith long-term
long-term monitoring
monitoring results
results can helpcan
help visualize
visualize changes
changes and and responses
responses whilewhile allowing
allowing learning,
learning, testingtesting of management
of management options,options,
the
the effectiveness
effectiveness of information
of information collected
collected and evaluation
and evaluation of thresholds
of thresholds of change.
of change. At the strategic
At the strategic level,
the rethinking
level, the rethinkingof information
of information and knowledge
and knowledge needsneedsinvolves a process
involves of collective
a process reflexivity
of collective on
reflexivity
how to adjust knowledge systems for managing change and understanding
on how to adjust knowledge systems for managing change and understanding that management that management of of
futureecological
future ecologicaltransformation
transformation requires
requires dynamic
dynamicmanagement,
management,learninglearning and
andeventually
eventually rethinking
rethinking
and
and changingpractices,
changing practices,structures
structures andand conservation
conservationapproaches
approachesconsistent
consistent with
withwhat
whathashas
been learnt
been learnt
and observed. Although this re-articulation is not straightforward, it can occur
and observed. Although this re-articulation is not straightforward, it can occur as small transitionsas small transitions in in
Land 2020, 9, 293 9 of 21

Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

current approaches that facilitate reframing knowledge governance processes and incorporating other
current
forms approaches
of knowledge thatsee
(e.g., facilitate reframingtransitions
four conceptual knowledgetogovernance processes
enable future and in
adaptation incorporating
[48]).
other forms of knowledge (e.g., see four conceptual transitions to enable future
The example illustrated in Figure 3 shows how ecological processes and information adaptation in [48]).
needs
on conservation goals distribute across spatio-temporal scales to support predictions ofneeds
The example illustrated in Figure 3 shows how ecological processes and information on
ecological
conservation goals distribute across spatio-temporal scales to support predictions of ecological
responses and change over the longer term. Anticipatory processes can benefit in setting TPCs,
responses and change over the longer term. Anticipatory processes can benefit in setting TPCs, and
and reflecting on the observed responses of biota to climate and other drivers of change, managers
reflecting on the observed responses of biota to climate and other drivers of change, managers and
and researchers will be able to better understand the mechanisms of climate impacts, the sensitivity of
researchers will be able to better understand the mechanisms of climate impacts, the sensitivity of
natural systems and implications for transformation in the protected area. Human needs and their
natural systems and implications for transformation in the protected area. Human needs and their
dependence on ecosystem services play an important role in defining conservation goals, but also as
dependence on ecosystem services play an important role in defining conservation goals, but also as
underlying
underlyingdrivers of of
drivers environmental
environmental change.
change.Social
SocialTPCs
TPCscancancomplement
complementecological
ecologicalones
onestotoallow
allowan
integral understanding
an integral of processes
understanding and and
of processes responses of the
responses social-ecological
of the system
social-ecological [59].
system [59].

Figure 3. Overview
Figure 3. Overview ofofsocial-ecological
social-ecologicalprocesses
processes and and information
information needs needson onconservation
conservationgoals goals
forfor
managing
managing protected
protected areas
areas acrossspatio-temporal
across spatio-temporal scales,
scales, from the the short-term
short-termand andlocal
localscale
scale(bottom)
(bottom)
to the
to the long-term,
long-term, large
large scale
scale (top).Information
(top). Information from
from local
local level
level can
can help
helptotounderstand
understandconservation
conservation
goals
goals andand social-ecological
social-ecological responses
responses across
across scales,scales,
and the and the overall
overall performance
performance of ecological
of ecological processes
andprocesses andData
functions. functions. Data at
collected collected at the
the local local
scale scale
(e.g., (e.g., inventories)
inventories) are limited
are limited to a moment
to a moment in
in time
time and space; long-term monitoring can address temporal coverage
and space; long-term monitoring can address temporal coverage from single inventories. Identifyingfrom single inventories.
Identifying
early warnings early
likewarnings
Thresholds like of
Thresholds
PotentialofConcern
Potential(TPC)
Concern (TPC) facilitates
facilitates an understanding
an understanding of
of systems
systems responses to drivers of change. Drivers of change can be events at local
responses to drivers of change. Drivers of change can be events at local level/small temporal scales, level/small temporal
scales, or
or located at located at larger spatiotemporal
larger spatiotemporal scales,
scales, even eventhe
outside outside the protected
protected area, their area, their cascading
impacts impacts
cascading across biophysical
across biophysical systems. systems.

Human
Human responsestotoenvironmental
responses environmental change
change play
play an
an important
importantrole
roleininthe
thedynamic
dynamicnature
natureof of
knowledge
knowledge production.
production. These
These responses
responses cancan include
include changes
changes in agricultural
in agricultural practices,
practices, reforestation
reforestation and
and restoration efforts, human migrations or shifts in use of natural resources [20]. Observing and
restoration efforts, human migrations or shifts in use of natural resources [20]. Observing and
recognizing these responses within and outside the protected area can facilitate learning and
recognizing these responses within and outside the protected area can facilitate learning and experiential
experiential management, which is essential to enabling adaptive practices, while adjusting
Land 2020, 9, 293 10 of 21

management, which is essential to enabling adaptive practices, while adjusting information needs,
timeframes, and planning, which is essential for moving into the strategic practice level.
Finally, it is important to recognize the knowledge governance and decision-making context in the
protected area. Each case is different and human perceptions and interpretations of the conservation
values influence the creation of knowledge for managing these areas. An open dialogue with relevant
stakeholders might allow agreement about objectives and desired future goals as well as identify the
most relevant socio-ecological processes that require monitoring and management, while defining the
thresholds of potential concern and limits of acceptable change [9,59]. In understanding the type of
information available, including the timeframes for which climate information exists, managers can
reflect on current practices and management questions, update planning tools, and improve decision
making processes.

5. Reconciling Calendar Time with Reflexive Practice

So far, we have considered a framework for multidimensional knowledge-based processes for
protected areas management. We emphasize that recognizing temporal dynamics related to production
of knowledge is essential to support decision making and planning of social-ecological systems. It can
help in understanding complex temporal patterns, the interaction at different geographical scales,
and biotic responses to different drivers of change [6]. However, some questions remain outstanding.
Environmental managers in the Anthropocene need to be more aware of driver-response dynamics
through time and rethink temporal horizons and spatial scales, given the complex context under which
multiple actors interact and make decisions [4]. We suggest this framework can help reconcile the
different motivations for protecting natural assets when defining and implementing management and
adaptation options under uncertain and changing conditions.
Calendar timeframes are useful when dealing with administrative issues, assessing changes in the
conditions and guiding future management [60]. Independent on the knowledge model in use, applying
a reflexivity process for the management of protected areas can facilitate a time perspective approach
and identify relevant information from past events, while observing, documenting, and learning from
previous practices, and investing that knowledge in new meaning in the present and into the future.
This approach includes thinking about what information is available now or what information might
be relevant to understand socio-ecological processes and responses in relation to the conservation goals,
while reflecting on the biophysical characteristics that span through space and time and can support an
understanding of ecological responses to climate change. In this context, the time perspective can help
design monitoring systems with a more systemic vision and facilitate adaptation to a changing climate.
We present examples from South Africa and Colombia to illustrate how calendar times can be
reconciled with reflexive practice. An ongoing collaboration between the authors helped to infer
how this is happening in each country. The different governance models and knowledge systems of
these countries allowed the authors to explore—through an inductive process—the assumptions for
the framework. The example from South Africa comes from SANParks extensive experience with
adaptive management; for Colombia, we used data collected through a co-production and knowledge
governance study [18].

5.1. South African Approach: Strategic Adaptive Management and Reflexivity

How different is the framework presented here (Figure 1) from adaptive management?
Adaptive management has become a foundation of effective environmental management in contexts
characterized by high levels of ecological uncertainty [61]. It stems from acknowledging that ecological
(and social-ecological) systems are complex, that understanding of such systems is imperfect and
partial, and that the responsible way to proceed with management in these contexts is to learn by
doing, and to adapt actions as new understanding emerges. It achieves this by integrating research,
planning, management, and monitoring in repeated cycles of learning [62]. Adaptive management
Land 2020, 9, 293 11 of 21

is a systematic approach to improving the management process by purposefully learning from the
outcomes of management actions.
Strategic Adaptive Management (SAM) is a version of adaptive management that has been
iteratively developed and implemented by SANParks for more than 20 years [9,63]. SAM has been
applied to a variety of social-ecological challenges, from relatively narrow (e.g., management of elephant
populations [64]) to extremely broad (e.g., management of a national park; for more information,
see Roux et al. in review) application contexts. Regardless of the context, SAM consists of four
interlinked and dynamic sub-processes [65]: adaptive governance (co-producing the ‘rules of the game’
at a range of levels, from national legislation to park policy to local rules shaped by stakeholder norms
and values); adaptive planning (co-creating a vision and management objectives for addressing a specific
social-ecological challenge); adaptive implementation (designing and implementing management
measures, research experiments and monitoring programs to action the above objectives and enable
learning from their outcomes); and adaptive evaluation (assessing and reflecting on the outcomes of
implementation against the vision and objectives, to inform ongoing learning and adaptation).
During adaptive planning, diverse stakeholders participate in face-to-face dialogues during which
they deliberate the social values, changing contexts (social, technological, economic, environmental,
and political) and vital attributes (special or unique features) of the social-ecological system of concern
that should guide future decision making. These dialogues provide the basis for jointly articulating a
vision and setting management objectives. The tacit knowledge of participants, which reflects past
experiences, converges into an explicit vision statement and objectives for directing management in
the future.
During adaptive implementation, ongoing engagement between agency scientists,
park management, and stakeholder groups enables the consideration of multiple knowledge sources,
including experiential and tacit understanding as well as science-based information, to inform decision
options. Selected management actions are implemented in conjunction with complementary research
projects and monitoring programs, to enable purposeful learning by doing. Monitoring of key
indicators, and setting TPCs for these indicators, serve as forms of feedback to stimulate reflection,
especially when thresholds are being approached or exceeded.
Adaptive evaluation refers to formal and informal assessment of and reflection on progress
towards achieving the vision and set objectives, in line with the reflexive level. Lessons learned
through these processes provide forms of feedback to, at least in theory, update or adapt the rules
of the game (adaptive governance), the vision and objectives (adaptive planning) and management
actions, research agendas, and monitoring programs (adaptive implementation). The SAM process
incorporates memories and prior knowledge of stakeholders to anticipate and articulate a desired
future state, which in turn guides sense-making in the present through combined actions, monitoring,
learning, and research.
The SAM approach aligns to some degree with the framework. However, even SAM, with its
strong emphasis on getting “consensus on a desired future state across a range of value systems” [62],
has shortcomings. Park management plans are embedded in national legislation, which render their
planning, implementation, and evaluation processes less flexible, responsive, and adaptive to natural
social-ecological cycles than ideal [62] (e.g., policy determines when a plan gets revised, and not
necessarily readiness of the social-ecological system; compliance culture stifles experimentation;
and resource constraints limits dialogue with stakeholders). However, there are opportunities
to rearticulate the rules. For example, where management plans include a program on climate
change, ongoing learning about, and improved understanding of, climate as a driver of social
and ecological change will help to update the normative rules of the game, to better understand
information needs for climate adaptation, update monitoring systems, facilitate envisioning options,
and rethinking assumptions.
Land 2020, 9, 293 12 of 21

5.2. Colombian Protected Areas: Linking Knowledge and Management Beyond the Calendar
The Colombian protected areas national agency has been actively working to understand
the hazards and impacts related to climate change and their implications for managing protected
areas. The Future-proofing Conservation project worked with protected area managers to rethink
management options in the context of climate change and uncertainty about future socio-ecological
transformation [48]. Using semi-structured interviews, the quotes below were documented by C.M.
during the project to identify the different forms of knowledge related to climate and ecosystem
services that are used for long-term planning and management, and how knowledge governance can
be enhanced for strategic thinking and decision making. Full details on the methodological approach
and methods are presented in Munera and van Kerkhoff [18]. The quotes in this manuscript have not
been published previously.
Knowledge creation is an evolving process of past experiences and everyday interaction with
the world, in which reflection is encouraged and learning is incorporated into practice. In Colombia,
managers recognize these attributes, and are in the process of implementing reflexive practice: “we have
[scientific] information; [now] is a moment to stop, review and analyse what we have, looking at the
future, to identify gaps, reflect on other issues we would need to cover and to develop a long-term
vision for managing protected areas” (Int. 3). This quote demonstrates the relevance of practices
of learning, collaboration, and openness to change. In applying long-term thinking, it is important
to consider choices and decisions made today, while being open to accepting and using alternative
knowledges to understand territorial processes to support implementation of conservation strategies
and connect with different concepts of time and knowledge.
For Colombian protected areas the learning process is allowing reflection on current practices to
integrate risk into management and better connect with territory: “we are working on understanding
if restoration is an adaptation action or not, what criteria we need to consider and how to apply it in
practice to decide if we need to update zoning in the management plan. Managing risk is helping to
better understand the territory and identify places where landslides can affect indigenous communities
or farmers” (Int. 4). This process is facilitating managers to integrate other forms of knowledge
alongside scientific information, enabling the strategic thinking necessary to manage uncertain futures
and planning for climate adaptation [18].
Climate change and uncertainty of climate-related information have been reported as a major
barrier for making decisions [66], so is the poor understanding of climate change impacts and
mechanisms of climate sensitivity for species and ecological processes [17]. These limitations,
plus a sense of urgency in trying to avoid ecological change, might prevent managers from fully
considering social-ecological dynamics and potential mismatches in the information available to them.
Climate change is opening the door to update current practice: “climate change is forcing us to look
beyond the boundaries of the protected area and have more integral planning” (Int. 12). Although this
openness to incorporating new knowledge was in response to a technical deficit (a lack of instruments
for monitoring climate variables), it demonstrates that it is possible to rethink practice [18]. Instead of
a reactive use of information, when a climate event triggers a response [66], managers can benefit
from careful consideration of how past events have shaped present-day ecosystems, and cross-scale
ecological responses of the conservation goals. Such considerations include the identification of
conditions that may trigger other responses and can give managers agency to identify the most relevant
information to act as the future unfolds.
A diversity of worldviews in a context of managing protected areas and knowledge-based processes
can facilitate the reconfiguration and rethinking of managing multidimensional protected areas systems.
Indigenous communities have specific timescapes, intrinsically linked with their interpretation of
the environment across temporal and spatial scales. In their view, life and nature are not seen as
discrete units, but as processes that have specific cycles linked with belief systems and cosmology.
For Indigenous groups, decisions on their land requires revisiting their ancestral history [42,55], a view
that demonstrates a deep time perspective and connectedness with the territory. Some Colombian
Land 2020, 9, 293 13 of 21

protected areas that are co-managed by indigenous groups are in the process of adjusting modern
administrative timeframes to local tempos, set by nature and people’s connection with it [42,67],
and, when setting meetings, managers need to consider environmental rhythms (e.g., river flows),
customs (e.g., funerals, wakes, and dreams) and their timing with nature. Although these parks are
managed under State rules, local practices have been influencing the way the National Protected Areas
agency interprets their role and governance in areas inhabited by Indigenous communities [42].

5.3. Implications for Future Management

As we started developing the ideas for this manuscript, an unprecedented bushfire season ravaged
parts of Australia. Although bushfires are expected every summer, their severity and extent had
enormous impacts on National Parks, wildlife, and livelihoods, challenging the response capacity to
deal with them and questioning how to integrate Aboriginal customary practices of fire management.
Fire regimes in Australia are well documented, especially in relation with the human practices and
Aboriginal knowledge [68]. Aboriginal customary practices to manage the land using fire have been
proven to reduce the density of shrubby understory plants and fuel loads, thereby reducing the intensity
of bushfires [69,70]. Incorporating Indigenous fire management into Australian protected areas can be
regarded as a direct adaptation measure to manage dynamic ecosystems under a changing climate or
as an indirect adaptation measure, which aims to maintain ecosystems in their current configuration,
depending on context and perspective [71]. Integrating ILK with modern technology and science
can be beneficial, but requires changes in knowledge governance hierarchies, reflection on future
expectations of conservation goals, and defining how much change managers and local communities
are willing to accept to facilitate system monitoring, management, and action [72].
Understanding and accepting change (ecological change, change in practice, change in knowledge,
and change in the territory) is a first step to rethink management of biodiversity under changing
environmental conditions and climate. This perspective constitutes a shift in the way we conceptualize
nature and management, and therefore the epistemic context and responses. In documenting dynamics
of change and adaptation in epistemic communities (specifically practitioners and researchers working
in ecological restoration), Hirsch and Long [73] found that when practitioners move their expectations
from stable climates and ecological models to recognize the possibility that historic conditions and
preconceived assumptions of nature might no longer exist, they were able to reorient practice and
goals. This shift in thinking and practice might bring new paradigms, concepts, perspectives, and
ideas, enabling the integration of new information and knowledge for strategic adaptive management.
Through a reflexive practice, managers, local communities, and other relevant stakeholders
(information providers included) can discuss and identify TPCs and limits of acceptable change and
identify management responses in relation to change, while adapting information needs. This shift in
the science-practice paradigm is reported in Kruger National Park [9], where SAM was a response from
managers who realized that instead of avoiding change, it would be better to understand and anticipate
it, while working to identify conservation goals and thresholds of potential concern. This re-framing
allows a transition from business-as-usual management to an approach where the complexity of
social-ecological dynamics is recognized. Rapid change is embraced to allow room for co-learning, to
understand change and the multiple values, knowledge, and interpretations of nature.
The interaction between different epistemic communities can help to update knowledge-based
processes, as reported for Colombian protected areas [18]. This interaction demonstrates that
biodiversity conservation planning processes can accommodate a range of different outcomes
and worldviews, while recognizing how environmental decisions connect or impact other sectors.
Anticipating the future is not about speculating, but being able to consider future consequences of
decisions made today, having agency and willingness to change and take action, question current
alternatives, being able to connect with other forms of knowledge, disciplines, and stakeholders,
and being aware of others (nature or society) when making decisions [37].
Land 2020, 9, 293 14 of 21

6. Conclusions
The framework we present provides some guidance to connect multiple dimensions where
knowledge and decision-making interact in the management of protected areas. We consider it
is adaptable to specific context and circumstances, considering the knowledge governance model
in use, and taking advantage of managers’ experience and daily interaction with social-ecological
systems to facilitate learning and co-production. Also, the framework incorporates a recognition that
social-ecological processes and drivers of change have different time horizons and operate at different
spatial scales. Rethinking and changing knowledge systems in use can take advantage of the diverse
ways people make sense of the present and envision the future.
The custodianship of the present for future generations is augmented by an appreciation of the past
and the acknowledgement of the plurality of knowledge systems. Use of diverse knowledge systems
takes advantage of a richer set of memories, facilitating the process of anticipation and adaptation to
new conditions, dealing with surprises, and reconciling collective agendas and expectations [8,74].
In a context of climate change, governance determines how we respond to new and uncertain climate
impacts, and influences whether and how strategies are implemented [75]. Considering the challenges
posed by climate change, and other drivers, we need more flexible management of biodiversity and
ecosystem services while incorporating multiple visions, temporalities, processes, and interpretations
of the world. The concept of timescapes [30], can help managers to understand time related
processes in their areas, rethink assumptions, and explicitly consider and integrate multidimensional
knowledge-based processes in mental models and practice. For example, because timescapes encompass
seasons, natural rhythms and cycles, and memories of natural events, they can be used in TPC thinking
and SAM by paying greater attention to changes in the return interval and seasonal shifts in events
related to drivers of change, such as bushfires, floods, droughts, and cyclones. The effects of such
changes on the integrity of protected areas and surrounding landscapes, and the consequences for
achievability of management objectives then form a basis for a more reflexive approach to management.
Reconciling calendar management times with reflexive practice is possible, as we have presented
here. South Africa National Parks is working on it, while Colombian protected areas have been
accommodating diverse knowledge systems to complement technical knowledge and transitioning to
adjust practices and rules. Although we probably will not find an ultimate suitable and cost-effective
solution to deal with complex problems in a rapidly changing world, as Fernández [11] (p. 172) points
out, we need to remember “new circumstances and context, including past solutions, require ongoing
work because we are dealing with co-evolving systems”. Accepting this challenge requires for us to
stop, contemplate, and understand the moment, as well as to be conscious about how our actions and
knowledge are connected and can impact future social, political, and ecological outcomes. Embracing
a bit of slowness is important to better identify, evaluate, and deploy the knowledge required to deal
with future changes, beyond just responding to “efficient” calendar times. We finish quoting an old
Italian proverb: chi va piano, va sano e va lontano (whoever goes slowly, goes safely and goes far).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.M.-R., M.J.C., D.J.R., L.v.K.; investigation C.M.-R., D.J.R., L.v.K.;
formal analysis: C.M.-R.; writing, review and editing, C.M.-R., D.J.R, M.J.C, L.v.K. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: Some of the information presented here was collected during the Future-Proofing
Conservation project where C.M. and L.v.K. where involved, funded by Luc Hoffmann Institute and with
collaboration from Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia-PNN and WWF Colombia. C.M has a scholarship
from the Endeavour Leadership Program. We thank Carina Wyborn (Luc Hoffmann Institute) for reviewing the
manuscript and her valuable comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Land 2020, 9, 293 15 of 21

Appendix A

Table A1. Guiding questions for protected area managers to facilitate the reflexivity process in
multidimensional knowledge-based processes, and options to consider for the day-to-day practice level.
Words highlighted in bold represent some key ideas and issues to consider.

Guiding Questions Options References

Constant dialogue between managers, practitioners
and scientists to follow up system responses and
‘novelties. Even under a loading dock knowledge
transfer model, managers can have a dialogue with
scientists to refine information needs.
What is the current model of knowledge Co-production, interdisciplinarity and socio-cultural
[12,13,50,52,53]
governance in use? diversity to integrate local knowledge can facilitate
understanding of different needs, expectations, and
social-ecological responses.
Evaluate costs and needs for data collection,
including where to host the data, funding, and
capacity to analyse and interpret it in the long term
Inventories and surveys provide a first glimpse of
conservation goals status but are limited to narrow
spatio-temporal scales.
What is the main conservation goal (e.g., Evaluate survey characteristics, frequency of data
biophysical attributes, ecosystems collected, and applicability of results. Historical data
services, ecological processes) and what can be useful to understand the system and anticipate [5,31,76,77]
information better capture conservation responses, important to evaluate availability and
goals responses to drivers of change? quality (e.g., gaps in time or space) of datasets.
Identify indicators that can help understand climate
change as a factor influencing ecological integrity
(e.g., early warnings systems-floods and droughts)
Conservation objectives can have a narrow or broad
spatio-temporal scale; drivers of change can be
inside, or outside the protected area.
Evaluate which methods for data collection best
Where are the ecological processes and captures processes and drivers of change at
[5,31,78,79]
drivers of change located? different scales.
Identify the quality and origin of the drivers of
change (e.g., endogenous change,
exogenous-agriculture, anthropogenic climate
change-related)
Information about social-ecological responses at
smaller spatial scales (and over short periods) can
help, over time, to connect to broader scales (even if
this is not the original objective) but requires
consistency to avoid information gaps.
What temporal and spatial scales are
Consider establishing long-term monitoring
more relevant to monitor conservation [5,78]
systems of ecological processes and monitoring
goals and social-ecological processes?
impacts of external drivers of change.
Understand persistence time of conservation goals
to improve design of monitoring systems and
observe responses and trends to anticipate
future changes
Define indicators and thresholds of potential
concern of these indicators, co-produced with
managers, scientists, and communities to track
How much change are managers and social-ecological responses, define future
stakeholders willing to accept in expectations, limits of acceptable change and [32,57,59,80,81]
relation of social-ecological systems? decide when to intervene.
Complementary to quantitative tools, qualitative
tools can help predict system responses and
cascade effects of disturbances
Land 2020, 9, 293 16 of 21

Table A2. Guiding questions for protected area managers to facilitate the reflexivity process in
multidimensional knowledge-based processes at the reflexive practice level. Words highlighted in bold
represent some key ideas and issues to consider.

Guiding Questions Options References

Evaluate if current information systems and
data quality allow managers and other
relevant stakeholders to understand
Are managers and scientists understanding ecological processes, functions, and responses
response times and social-ecological to disturbances. [9,31,82–84]
systems responses? Conceptual models and mental maps can
help design monitoring, understand system
dynamics, connect knowledge systems, and
identify management options
Allow time for co-learning and evaluate
social-ecological responses in deciding if,
What was learnt from the previous practice and when to intervene, including
[48,85]
and monitoring? understanding and learning from human
responses to ecological transformation
through time
Review and update monitoring systems to
capture knowledge and learning from
different actors and facilitate future decisions.
Are current monitoring systems and Evaluate if monitoring system timeframes
management effectiveness processes are adequate to follow social-ecological
adequately capturing responses and responses, inform decision-making processes, [78,86]
changes of socio-ecological systems across communicate risks, and facilitate stakeholder
temporal and spatial scales? engagement.
Evaluate if management effectiveness results
can help to understand changes in
social-ecological systems
Evaluate and update thresholds of potential
concern to ensure monitoring systems are
Can observations from stakeholders
capturing ecological responses across scales
outside the protected area and local
and enabling action. [18,59]
knowledge, help to understand human and
Identify potential collaborators for
nature responses to drivers of change?
monitoring ecological processes outside the
protected area
Under conditions of uncertainty and complex
systems, envisioning and futures thinking
Are future expectations for the conservation
approaches can help visualize future [35,36,48]
goals in the still valid and relevant?
scenarios and identify actions that can be
done in the present
Land 2020, 9, 293 17 of 21

Table A3. Guiding questions for protected area managers to facilitate the reflexivity process in
multidimensional knowledge-based processes at the strategic planning level. Words highlighted in
bold represent some key ideas and issues to consider.

Guiding Questions Options References

Identify complementary management and
adaptation options (e.g., stewardship programs,
corridors, community conservation).
Evaluate if conservations goals are still relevant
Under scenarios of ecological
or need to be reframed to address stakeholder
change, is the long-term vision
visions while addressing future climate change.
of the protected area inclusive of
Participatory workshops, face-to-face dialogues, [48,78]
the beliefs, livelihoods, and
or co-production to reconcile different
expectations of different
expectations about the future.
stakeholder groups?
Evaluate changes in perception of values about
the protected area and identify how to allow
access to conservation benefits without
compromising ecological integrity.
Update standards and rules (including funding)
to improve monitoring systems and enable action;
evaluate adequacy of funding.
How do we improve and update
Co-design strategies for knowledge
monitoring systems and
co-production can help identify options to
knowledge governance models [12,48,87]
rearticulate knowledge governance models to
to facilitate strategic planning in
deal with uncertain futures.
a context of high uncertainty?
Evaluate management options, identify new
alternatives and barriers that constrain adaptive
management
Consider the voices and expertise from diverse
stakeholders in and outside the protected area
Are there options for cross-scale
to enable a dialogue and participatory strategic
management and knowledge
planning. This can help evaluate responses and [48]
co-production in and outside
rethink current practices while finding a balance
protected area boundaries?
between the requirement of protected area
management and the social-ecological context.
Evaluate strategic alliances between different
groups for collecting, analysing, and sharing
Are decision-making processes information (e.g., private sector, academia, local
and knowledge systems still communities).
[46]
valid to deal with new conditions Identify which rules and norms might need to
and navigate ecological change? change to facilitate integrating diverse
knowledge systems to facilitate adaptation in the
short and long-term

References
1. Star, S.L.; Griesemer, J.R. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and
Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1989, 19,
387–420. [CrossRef]
2. Haffer, J. Speciation in Amazonian Forest Birds. Science 1969, 165, 131–137. [CrossRef]
3. Wakild, E. A Panorama of Parks: Deep Nature, Depopulation, and the Cadence of Conserving Nature. In A
Living Past; Soluri, J., Leal, C., Pádua, J.A., Eds.; Berghahn Books: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 246–265.
4. Cumming, G.S.; Allen, C.R.; Ban, N.C.; Biggs, D.; Biggs, H.C.; Cumming, D.H.M.; De Vos, A.; Epstein, G.;
Etienne, M.; Maciejewski, K.; et al. Understanding protected area resilience: A multiscale, social-ecological
approach. Ecol. Appl. 2015, 25, 299–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Land 2020, 9, 293 18 of 21

5. Colloff, M.; Overton, I.C.; Henderson, B.L.; Roberts, J.; Reid, J.R.W.; Oliver, R.L.; Arthur, A.D.; Doody, T.M.;
Sims, N.C.; Ye, Q.; et al. The use of historical environmental monitoring data to test predictions on cross-scale
ecological responses to alterations in river flows. Aquat. Ecol. 2018, 52, 133–153. [CrossRef]
6. Ryo, M.; Aguilar-Trigueros, C.A.; Pinek, L.; Muller, L.A.; Rillig, M.C. Basic Principles of Temporal Dynamics.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 723–733. [CrossRef]
7. Goodall, H. Riding the Tide: Indigenous Knowledge, History and Water in a Changing Australia. Environ. Hist.
2008, 14, 355–384. [CrossRef]
8. Cilliers, P. On the importance of a certain slowness. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2006, 8, 106–113.
9. Freitag, S.; Biggs, H.; Breen, C. The spread and maturation of strategic adaptive management within and
beyond South African national parks. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 19. [CrossRef]
10. Clark, W.C.; Van Kerkhoff, L.; Lebel, L.; Gallopin, G. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4570–4578. [CrossRef]
11. Fernández, R.J. How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts.
Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 64, 171–176. [CrossRef]
12. Cvitanovic, C.; McDonald, J.; Hobday, A.J. From science to action: Principles for undertaking environmental
research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making. J. Environ. Manag. 2016,
183, 864–874. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Cvitanovic, C.; Hobday, A.; Van Kerkhoff, L.; Wilson, S.K.; Dobbs, K.; Marshall, N. Improving knowledge
exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources:
A review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 112, 25–35. [CrossRef]
14. Hopkins, A.; McKellar, R.; Worboys, G.; Good, R. Climate change and protected areas. In Protected Area
Governance and Management; Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I., Eds.; ANU Press:
Canberra, Australia, 2015; pp. 495–530.
15. Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the
Work of its Seventh Session: Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service; Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Paris, France, 2019.
16. Dunlop, M.; Brown, P.R. Implications of Climate Change for Australia’s National Reserve System: A Preliminary
Assessment. Report to the Department of Climate Change, February 2008; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2008.
17. Buotte, P.C.; Peterson, D.L.; McKelvey, K.S.; Hicke, J.A. Capturing subregional variability in regional-scale
climate change vulnerability assessments of natural resources. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 169, 313–318.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Múnera, C.; van Kerkhoff, L. Diversifying knowledge governance for climate adaptation in protected areas
in Colombia. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 94, 39–48. [CrossRef]
19. Watson, J.E.M. Human responses to climate change will seriously impact biodiversity conservation: It’s time
we start planning for them. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 1–2. [CrossRef]
20. Maxwell, S.L.; Venter, O.; Jones, K.R.; Watson, J.E. Integrating human responses to climate change into
conservation vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2015, 1355,
98–118. [CrossRef]
21. Smit, I.P.; Riddell, E.S.; Cullum, C.; Petersen, R. Kruger National Park research supersites: Establishing
long-term research sites for cross-disciplinary, multiscaled learning. Koedoe 2013, 55, 1–7. [CrossRef]
22. Sinclair, A.R.; Walker, B. The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity; Islander
Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
23. Pasquini, L.; Cowling, R.M. Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation
in local government: Evidence from the Western Cape, South Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2015, 17,
1121–1140. [CrossRef]
24. Miller, C.A. Civic Epistemologies: Constituting Knowledge and Order in Political Communities.
Sociol. Compass 2008, 2, 1896–1919. [CrossRef]
25. Cook, S.N.; Wagenaar, H. Navigating the Eternally Unfolding Present: Toward an Epistemology of Practice.
Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2012, 42, 3–38. [CrossRef]
26. West, S.; van Kerkhoff, L.; Wagenaar, H. Beyond “linking knowledge and action”: Towards a practice-based
approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interventions. Policy Stud. 2019, 40, 534–555. [CrossRef]
Land 2020, 9, 293 19 of 21

27. Kolinjivadi, V.; Almeida, D.V.; Martineau, J. Can the planet really be saved in Time? On the temporalities of
socionature, the clock and the limits debate. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2019, 1–23. [CrossRef]
28. Bell, W. Foundations of Futures Studies: Human Science for a New Era, Volume 1, History Purposes and Knowledge;
Transaction Publishers: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1997.
29. Adger, W.N.; Dessai, S.; Goulden, M.; Hulme, M.; Lorenzoni, I.; Nelson, D.R.; Naess, L.O.; Wolf, J.; Wreford, A.
Are there social limits to daptation to climate change? Clim. Chang. 2009, 93, 335–354. [CrossRef]
30. Adam, B. Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards; Taylor & Francis Group:
London, UK, 1998.
31. Beever, A.E.; Woodward, A. Design of ecoregional monitoring in conservation areas of high-latitude
ecosystems under contemporary climate change. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 1258–1269. [CrossRef]
32. Rogers, K.; Biggs, H. Integrating indicators, endpoints and value systems in strategic management of the
rivers of the Kruger National Park. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 439–451. [CrossRef]
33. Rogers, K.; Saintilan, N.; Colloff, M.; Wen, L. Application of Thresholds of Potential Concern and Limits of
Acceptable Change in the condition assessment of a significant wetland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185,
8583–8600. [CrossRef]
34. Smit, I.P.; Archibald, S. Herbivore culling influences spatio-temporal patterns of fire in a semiarid savanna.
J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 56, 711–721. [CrossRef]
35. Clark, J.S. Ecological Forecasts: An Emerging Imperative. Science 2001, 293, 657–660. [CrossRef]
36. Cork, S. Using futures thinking to support ecosystem assessments. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services;
Potschin, R.H.-Y.M., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 170–187.
37. Ahvenharju, S.; Minkkinen, M.; Lalot, F. The five dimensions of Futures Consciousness. Futures 2018, 104,
1–13. [CrossRef]
38. Van Kerkhoff, L.; Pilbeam, V. Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making:
A knowledge governance approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 73, 29–37. [CrossRef]
39. Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. In Learning in Doing: Social,
Cognitive and Computational Perspectives; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998.
40. Roncoli, C.; Crane, T.; Orlove, B. Fielding Climate Change in Cultural Anthropology. In Anthropology and
Climate Change from Encounters to Action; Crate, S.A., Nuttall, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2009.
41. Lam, D.P.M.; Hinz, E.; Lang, D.; Tengö, M.; Von Wehrden, H.; Martín-López, B. Indigenous and local
knowledge in sustainability transformations research: A literature review. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 25. [CrossRef]
42. Ungar, P.; Premauer, J. Attending to the Pulses of the Territory: Local Officers, National Parks, and Indigenous
Territories in Colombia. In Environmental Cultural Studies: Through Time: The Luso-Hispanic World Issues on
Line; Prádanos, L.I., Beilin, K., Conolly, K., McKay, M., Eds.; Hispanic Issues On Line 24: Nashville, TN, USA,
2019; pp. 80–97.
43. Cuvi, N. Indigenous Imprints and Remnants in the Tropical Andes. In A Living Past; Soluri, J., Leal, C.,
Pádua, J.A., Eds.; Berghahn Books: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 67–90.
44. Goldman, M.J.; Turner, M.D.; Daly, M. A Critical Political Ecology of Human Dimensions of Climate Change:
Epistemology, Ontology, and Ethics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2018, 9, e526. [CrossRef]
45. Worboys, G.; Lockwood, M.; Kothari, A.; Feary, S.; Pulsford, I. Protected Area Governance and Management;
IUCN, Ed.; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2015.
46. Gorddard, R.; Colloff, M.; Wise, R.M.; Ware, D.; Dunlop, M. Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as
change in the decision context. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 57, 60–69. [CrossRef]
47. Colloff, J.M.; Gorddard, R.; Dunlop, M. The Values-Rules-Knowledge Framework in Adaptation Decision-Making:
A Primer; CSIRO Land and Water: Canberra, Australia, 2018.
48. Van Kerkhoff, L.; Munera, C.; Dudley, N.; Guevara, O.; Wyborn, C.; Figueroa, C.; Dunlop, M.; Hoyos, M.A.;
Castiblanco, J.; Becerra, L. Towards future-oriented conservation: Managing protected areas in an era of
climate change. Ambio 2018, 48, 699–713. [CrossRef]
49. Beier, P.; Hansen, L.J.; Helbrecht, L.; Behar, D. A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science.
Conserv. Lett. 2016, 10, 288–296. [CrossRef]
50. Wyborn, C.; Datta, A.; Montana, J.; Ryan, M.; Leith, P.; Chaffin, B.; Miller, C.; Van Kerkhoff, L. Co-Producing
Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2019,
44, 319–346. [CrossRef]
Land 2020, 9, 293 20 of 21

51. Gerritsen, L.A.; Stuiver, M.; Termeer, C.J.A.M. Knowledge governance: An exploration of principles, impact,
and barriers. Sci. Public Policy 2013, 40, 604–615. [CrossRef]
52. Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B.
Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [CrossRef]
53. Roux, D.J.; Kingsford, R.T.; Cook, C.N.; Carruthers, J.; Dickson, K.; Hockings, M. The case for embedding
researchers in conservation agencies. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 1266–1274. [CrossRef]
54. Freeth, R.; Caniglia, G. Learning to collaborate while collaborating: Advancing interdisciplinary sustainability
research. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 247–261. [CrossRef]
55. Turner, N.; Spalding, P.R. We might go back to this; drawing on the past to meet the future in northwestern
North American indigenous communities. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 18. [CrossRef]
56. Dryzek, J.S.; Pickering, J. The Politics of the Anthropocene; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019.
57. Barboza, F.R.; Ito, M.; Franz, M. Biodiversity and the Functioning of Ecosystems in the Age of Global Change:
Integrating Knowledge Across Scales. In YOUMARES 8–Oceans Across Boundaries: Learning from Each Other;
Jungblut, S., Liebich, V., Bode, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2018;
pp. 167–178.
58. Scholes, J. Climate Change and Ecosystem Services. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2016, 7, 537–550. [CrossRef]
59. Biggs, H.; Ferreira, S.; Ronaldson, S.F.; Grant-Biggs, R. Taking stock after a decade: Does the ‘thresholds of
potential concern’ concept need a socio-ecological revamp? Koedoe 2011, 53, 60–68. [CrossRef]
60. Hockings, M.; Leverington, F.; Cook, C. Protected area management effectiveness. In Protected Area Governance
and Management; Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I., Eds.; ANU Press: Canberra,
Australia, 2015; pp. 889–928.
61. Gregory, R.; Ohlson, D.; Arvai, J. Deconstructing adaptive management: Criteria for applications to
environmental management. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16, 2411–2425. [CrossRef]
62. Van Wilgen, B.W.; Biggs, H.C. A critical assessment of adaptive ecosystem management in a large savanna
protected area in South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 1179–1187. [CrossRef]
63. Rogers, K.; Bestbier, R. Development of A Protocol for the Definition of the Desired State of Riverine Systems in
South Africa; Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Pretoria, South Africa, 1997.
64. Biggs, H.C.; Slotow, R.; Scholes, B.; Carruthers, J.; Van Aarde, R.; Kerley, G.; Twine, W.; Grobler, D.;
Bertschinger, H.; Grant, C.; et al. Towards Integrated Decision-Making for Elephant Management. In Elephant
Management: A Scientific Assessment for South Africa; Scholes, R.J., Mennell, K.G., Eds.; Wits University Press:
Johannesburg, South Africa, 2008; pp. 537–586.
65. Novellie, P.; Biggs, H.; Roux, D. National laws and policies can enable or confound adaptive governance:
Examples from South African national parks. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 66, 40–46. [CrossRef]
66. Jones, L.; Champalle, C.; Chesterman, S.; Cramer, L.; Crane, T.A. Constraining and enabling factors to using
long-term climate information in decision-making. Clim. Policy 2016, 17, 551–572. [CrossRef]
67. Premauer, J.; Berkes, F. A Pluralistic Approach to Protected Area Governance: Indigenous Peoples and
Makuira National Park, Colombia. Ethnobiol. Conserv. 2015, 4, 1–16.
68. Enright, N.J.; Thomas, I. Pre-European fire regimes in Australian ecosystems. Geogr. Compass 2008, 2,
979–1011. [CrossRef]
69. Ens, E.; Finlayson, M.; Preuss, K.; Jackson, S.; Holcombe, S.; Finlayson, C.M. Australian approaches for
managing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2012, 13,
100–107. [CrossRef]
70. Russell-Smith, J.; Cook, G.D.; Cooke, P.M.; Edwards, A.C.; Lendrum, M.; Meyer, C.; Whitehead, P.J. Managing
fire regimes in north Australian savannas: Applying Aboriginal approaches to contemporary global problems.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 11 (Suppl. 1), e55–e63. [CrossRef]
71. Tanner-McAllister, S.L.; Rhodes, J.; Hockings, M. Managing for climate change on protected areas: An adaptive
management decision making framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 204, 510–518. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Steffensen, V. Fire Country: How Indigenous Fire Management Could Help Save Australia; Hardie Grant Travel:
Melbourne, Australia, 2020; p. 240.
73. Hirsch, S.L.; Long, J. Adaptive Epistemologies: Conceptualizing Adaptation to Climate Change in
Environmental Science. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2020. [CrossRef]
Land 2020, 9, 293 21 of 21

74. Cornell, S.E.; Berkhout, F.; Tuinstra, W.; Tàbara, J.D.; Jäger, J.; Chabay, I.; De Wit, B.; Langlais, R.; Mills, D.;
Moll, P.; et al. Opening up knowledge systems for better response to global environmental change.
Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 28, 60–70. [CrossRef]
75. Dovers, S.R.; Hezri, A.A. Institutions and policy processes: The means to the ends of adaptation.
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 212–231. [CrossRef]
76. Lemieux, C.J.; Beechey, T.J.; Gray, P.A. Prospects for Canada’s protected areas in an era of rapid climate
change. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 928–941. [CrossRef]
77. Pearson, S.; Lynch, A.J.J.; Plant, R.; Cork, S.; Taffs, K.H.; Dodson, J.; Maynard, S.; Gergis, J.; Gell, P.;
Thackway, R.; et al. Increasing the understanding and use of natural archives of ecosystem services, resilience
and thresholds to improve policy, science and practice. Holocene 2015, 25, 366–378. [CrossRef]
78. Johnson, F.A.; Eaton, M.J.; McMahon, G.; Nilius, R.; Bryant, M.R.; Case, D.J.; Martin, J.; Wood, N.J.; Taylor, L.
Global change and conservation triage on National Wildlife Refuges. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 14. [CrossRef]
79. Isbell, F.; Gonzalez, A.; Loreau, M.; Cowles, J.; Díaz, S.; Hector, A.; Mace, G.M.; Wardle, D.A.; O’Connor, M.I.;
Duffy, J.E.; et al. Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 2017,
546, 65–72. [CrossRef]
80. Biggs, H.C.; Rogers, K.H. An adaptive system to link science, monitoring and management in practice.
In The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity; Sinclair, A.R., Walker, B., Eds.;
Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 59–80.
81. Moon, K.; Blackman, D. A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists. Conserv. Biol.
2014, 28, 1167–1177. [CrossRef]
82. Groves, C.R.; Game, E.T.; Anderson, M.G.; Cross, M.; Enquist, C.; Ferdaña, Z.; Girvetz, E.; Gondor, A.;
Hall, K.R.; Higgins, J.; et al. Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation planning.
Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 1651–1671. [CrossRef]
83. Moon, K.; Guerrero, A.M.; Adams, V.M.; Biggs, D.; Blackman, D.A.; Craven, L.; Dickinson, H.; Ross, H.
Mental models for conservation research and practice. Conserv. Lett. 2019, 12, e12642. [CrossRef]
84. Jordan, C.; Urquhart, G.; Kramer, D. On Using Mental Model Interviews to Improve Camera Trapping:
Adapting Research to Costeño Environmental Knowledge. Conserv. Soc. 2013, 11, 159–175. [CrossRef]
85. Wyborn, C.; Van Kerkhoff, L.; Dunlop, M.; Dudley, N.; Guevara, O. Future oriented conservation:
Knowledge governance, uncertainty and learning. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 25, 1401–1408. [CrossRef]
86. Hermans, L.; Haasnoot, M.; Ter Maat, J.; Kwakkel, J.H. Designing monitoring arrangements for collaborative
learning about adaptation pathways. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 69, 29–38. [CrossRef]
87. Dixon, K.M.; Cary, G.J.; Worboys, G.L.; Banks, S.C.; Gibbons, P. Features associated with effective biodiversity
monitoring and evaluation. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 238, 108221. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).