Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-wr9vw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-28T02:21:45.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perception of conservation strategies and nature’s contributions to people around Chingaza National Natural Park, Colombia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

Sara Pedraza ,
Adriana Sanchez ,
Nicola Clerici ,
Libertad Ospina ,
Alexandra Quintero  and
Francisco J Escobedo Open the ORCID record for Francisco J Escobedo [Opens in a new window]
Sara Pedraza
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Carrera 24 # 63C–69, Bogotá DC, 111221, Colombia
Adriana Sanchez
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Carrera 24 # 63C–69, Bogotá DC, 111221, Colombia
Nicola Clerici
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Carrera 24 # 63C–69, Bogotá DC, 111221, Colombia
Libertad Ospina
Affiliation:
Programa de Preparación para la Adaptación Nacional al Cambio Climático, Fondo Acción DNP, Carrera 7 # 32–33, Bogotá DC, 110221, Colombia
Alexandra Quintero
Affiliation:
Parque Nacional Natural Chingaza, Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia, Calle 74 No. 11–81, Bogotá DC, 110221, Colombia
Francisco J Escobedo*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Universidad del Rosario, Carrera 24 # 63C–69, Bogotá DC, 111221, Colombia
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Francisco J Escobedo, Email: fjescobe@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A conventional conservation strategy is establishing protected areas to help combat anthropogenic and climate change impacts on tropical ecosystems, but the effectiveness of these measures is often hampered in upland areas by resource conflicts among armed groups, citizens and government institutions. Improved governance and community participation are key to effectively conserving these areas, yet little is known regarding citizen perceptions in such places. Here, a representative protected area in Colombia is used in order to analyse rural and urban citizen perceptions regarding conservation, conflicts with guerrilla groups and nature’s contributions to people (NCPs) around Chingaza National Natural Park. We used on-site, semi-structured in-person surveys, geospatial data and statistics to understand these perceptions and the roles of armed conflict and deforestation. Perceptions on ecosystem degradation were correlated with deforestation and past guerrilla attacks. Age and place of residence were influential pro-conservation factors, while younger respondents were most willing to invest time in conservation activities. Air purification and water supply and quality were the most identified NCPs and citizens differentiated conservation-related recreation activities from natural resource extraction. We suggest that the legacy of past armed conflict still affects conservation strategies and communities living near tropical highland protected areas.

Keywords

armed conflictcommunity participationdeforestationGlobal Southgovernanceprotected areas

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 158 - 165
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Foundation for Environmental Conservation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aditya, V, Ganesh, T (2018) Deciphering forest change: linking satellite-based forest cover change and community perceptions in a threatened landscape in India. Ambio 48(7): 790–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Álvarez-Salas, LM, Gómez-Aguirre, AM, Cano-López, WA (2016) Percepciones de los servicios ecosistémicos en el complejo de páramos Frontino–Urrao, departamento de Antioquia, Colombia. Biota Colombiana 17(2): 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, H, Segura, M, Sierra, E (2017) Percepción local de los servicios ecosistémicos ofertados en fincas agropecuarias de la zona seca del norte del Tolima, Colombia. Luna Azul 45: 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, B (2007) The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 34(3): 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baral, N, Heinen, JT (2006) The Maoist people’s war and conservation in Nepal. Politics and the Life Sciences 24(1–2): 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baral, N, Heinen, JT (2007) Resources use, conservation attitudes, management intervention and park–people relations in the Western Terai landscape of Nepal. Environmental Conservation 34(1): 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaudreau, A, Levin, P (2014) Advancing the use of local ecological knowledge for assessing data-poor species in coastal ecosystems. Ecological Society of America 24(2): 244–256.Google ScholarPubMed
Brien, L, Townsend, M, Ebden, M (2008) Environmental Volunteering: Motivations, Barriers and Benefits. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Forestry Trust and Forestry Commission, pp. 7–120.Google Scholar
Brown, AD, Kappelle, M (2001) Introducción a los bosques nublados del neotrópico: una síntesis regional. Bosques nublados del neotrópico. Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica: Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBIO), pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
Canavire-Bacarreza, G, Diaz-Gutierrez, JE, Hanauer, MM (2018) Unintended consequences of conservation: estimating the impact of protected areas on violence in Colombia. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 89: 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clerici, N, Cote-Navarro, F, Escobedo, FJ, Rubiano, K, Villegas, JC (2019) Spatio-temporal and cumulative effects of land use-land cover and climate change on two ecosystem services in the Colombian Andes. Science of the Total Environment 685: 1181–1192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council on Foreign Relations (2019) Global Conflict Tracker [www document]. URL https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/?category=usGoogle Scholar
DANE (2005) Boletines Censo General 2005. Reseñas Municipales. Bogotá, Colombia: DANE.Google Scholar
De Pourcq, K, Thomas, E, Arts, B, Vranckx, A, Léon-Sicard, T, Van Damme, P (2015) Conflict in protected areas: who says co-management does not work? PLoS ONE 10(12): e0144943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pourcq, K, Thomas, E, Arts, B, Vranckx, A, Léon-Sicard, T, Van Damme, P (2017) Understanding and resolving conflict between local communities and conservation authorities in Colombia. World Development 93: 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pourcq, K, Thomas, E, Elias, M, Van Damme, P (2019) Exploring park–people conflicts in Colombia through a social lens. Environmental Conservation 46: 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz, AM, Sánchez, F (2004) A Geography of Illicit Crops (Coca Leaf) and Armed Conflict in Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes, CEDE.Google Scholar
Durán, CA (2009) Gobernanza en los Parques Nacionales Naturales colombianos: reflexiones a partir del caso de la comunidad Orika y su participación en la conservación del Parque Nacional Natural Corales del Rosario y San Bernardo. Revista de Estudios Sociales 32: 60–73.Google Scholar
Fergusson, L, Romero, D, Vargas, JF (2014) The Environmental Impact of Civil Conflict: The Deforestation Effect of Paramilitary Expansion in Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes, CEDE, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
Garavito-González, L, Gómez-Zarate, P, Palacio-Tamayo, D (2018) Gobernanza territorial en los páramos Chingaza y Sumapaz-Cruz Verde. Una comparación de sus principales actores y problemáticas. Perspectiva Geográfica 23(1): 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Antolínez, C (2016) Conflictos socioambientales derivados de la declaración del Parque Nacional Natural Chingaza en zonas de producción campesina. Master’s thesis. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.Google Scholar
Hansen, MC, Potapov, PV, Moore, R, Hancher, M, Turubanova, SA, Tyukavina, Aet al. (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342: 850–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, C, Márquez, JRG, Krueger, T (2018) A local perspective on drivers and measures to slow deforestation in the Andean–Amazonian foothills of Colombia. Land Use Policy 77: 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IDEAM (2019) Resultados Monitoreo de la Deforestación 2018. Instituto de hidrología, meteorología y estudios ambientales. Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Ambiente.Google Scholar
Kadykalo, AN, López-Rodriguez, MD, Ainscough, J, Droste, N, Ryu, H, Ávila-Flores, Get al. (2019) Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’. Ecosystems and People 15: 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalamandeen, M, Gillson, L (2006) Demything ‘wilderness’: implications for protected area designation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landholm, DM, Pradhan, P, Kropp, JP (2019) Diverging forest land use dynamics induced by armed conflict across the tropics. Global Environmental Change 56: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lele, S, Wilshusen, P, Brockington, D, Seidler, R, Bawa, K (2010) Beyond exclusion: alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics. Science Direct 2: 94–100.Google Scholar
Lund, JF, Balooni, K, Puri, L (2010) Perception-based methods to evaluate conservation impact in forests managed through popular participation. Ecology and Society 15(3): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machlis, GE, Hanson, T (2008) Warfare ecology. BioScience 58: 729–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marta-Pedroso, C, Freitas, H, Domingos, T (2007) Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecological Economics 62(3–4): 388–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner-Gulland, EJ, McGregor, JA, Agarwala, M, Atkinson, G, Bevan, P, Clements, T, Daw, T (2014) Accounting for the impact of conservation on human well-being. Conservation Biology 28(5): 1160–1166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, N, Mittermeier, RA, Mittermeier, CG, da Fonseca, GAB, Kent, J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nolte, C (2016) Identifying challenges to enforcement in protected areas: empirical insights from 15 Colombian parks. Fauna & Flora International 50(2): 317–322.Google Scholar
Núñez, D, Nahuelhual, L, Oyarzún, C (2006) Forests and water: the value of native temperate forests in supplying water for human consumption. Ecological Economics 58: 606–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohyver, M, Moniaga, JV, Restisa-Yunidwi, K, Irfa-Setiawan, M (2017) Logistic regression and growth charts to determine children nutritional and stunting status: a review. Procedia Computer Science 116: 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordway, EM (2015) Political shifts and changing forests: effects of armed conflict on forest conservation in Rwanda. Global Ecology and Conservation 3: 448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillemer, K, Wells, NM, Meador, RH, Schultz, L, Henderson, CR, Cope, MT (2016) Engaging older adults in environmental volunteerism: the retirees in service to the environment program. The Gerontologist 57(2): 367–375.Google Scholar
PNN (2019) Parques Nacionales. Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia [www document]. URL http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/es/sistema-de-parques-nacionales-naturalesGoogle Scholar
Prem, M, Saavedra, S, Vargas, J (2014) End-Of-Conflict Deforestation: Evidence From Colombian’s Peace Agreement [www document]. URL http://vox.lacea.org/files/Working_Papers/lacea_wps_0021_prem_saavedra_vargas.pdfGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing [www document]. URL https://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Radachowsky, J, Ramos, VH, McNab, R, Baur, EH, Kazakov, N (2012) Forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala: a decade later. Forest Ecology and Management 268: 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Agudelo, CA, Bello, LC (2014) ¿El valor de algunos servicios ecosistémicos de los Andes colombianos?: transferencia de beneficios por meta – análisis. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Universitas Scientiarum 19(3): 301–322.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Salguero, M, Rubiano, N, González, A, Lulle, T, Bodnar, Y, Velásquez, Set al. (2007) Ciudad, espacio y población: El proceso de urbanización en Colombia. Universidad Externado de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia: Centro de Investigación sobre Dinámica Social.Google Scholar
Russell, I (2005) A National Framework for Youth Action and Engagement. Executive Summary to the Russell Commission. Richmond, UK: HMSO, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
SPNN (2018) Informe de rendición de cuentas sistema de parques nacionales naturales de Colombia [www document]. URL http://www.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Rendicion-de-Cuentas-Junio-18.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sundqvist, A (2018) Local Perceptions of Changes in Ecosystem Services and Climate. Case study in Ecuadorean Sierra. MSc thesis. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
Takahashi, B, Selfa, T (2014) Predictors of pro-environmental behavior in rural American communities. Environment and Behavior 47(8): 856–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas-Rios, O, Pedraza, P (2003) Parque Nacional Natural Chingaza. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pedraza et al. supplementary material

Pedraza et al. supplementary material

Download Pedraza et al. supplementary material(File)
File 258.2 KB