IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v131y2021ics1389934121001490.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The politics behind scientific knowledge: Sustainable forest management in Latin America

Author

Listed:
  • Soler, Rosina
  • Lorenzo, Cristian
  • González, Joel
  • Carboni, Lucas
  • Delgado, Juan
  • Díaz, Mayra
  • Toro Manríquez, Mónica D.R.
  • Alejandro, Huertas Herrera

Abstract

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) seeks to achieve an equilibrium in the economic, social and environmental value of all types of forests. This practice contrasts with the conventional view of managing forests, in which the focus is productivity. Thus, discussions about conventional forest management versus sustainable forest management play a central role in the political and scientific agendas. However, knowledge production and its direction can be biased by different contextual factors such as the way funding is assigned by each country, institutional priorities, and constraints on international cooperation. With this paper, we aim to analyze the contribution of scientific knowledge produced in Latin America within the sustainable forest management research landscape by applying a literature review method (Scopus database for 2015–2018 period). Our results show a similar contribution of national and foreign funds and institutions supporting scientific knowledge about SFM in Latin America. Foreign funding comes mainly from United States of America, and Europe. Latin American authors lead high proportion of scientific articles, and authorship gender was more equitable between male and female researchers. The studies were mostly focused on conservation combined with productivity goals, as well as pure conservation goals, although social studies and restoration goals were also present. Our findings highlight a significant contribution to the paradigm shift in half of the scientific articles. Some studies provided recommendations (specific or general) derived from their results, but we did not detected a clear relationship with funding origin. Moreover, we found that the high contribution to the paradigm shift (studies supporting SFM instead of traditional management) came from institutions based in Latin America. This article aims to contribute to discussions related to scientific funding in Latin America, the North-South scientific relations, and the future of forest in times of climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Soler, Rosina & Lorenzo, Cristian & González, Joel & Carboni, Lucas & Delgado, Juan & Díaz, Mayra & Toro Manríquez, Mónica D.R. & Alejandro, Huertas Herrera, 2021. "The politics behind scientific knowledge: Sustainable forest management in Latin America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:131:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121001490
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102543
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934121001490
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102543?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koch, Susanne, 2018. "“Identifying enabling factors of science-policy interaction in a developing country context: A case study of South Africa's environment sector”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 36-45.
    2. Jonathan Adams, 2012. "The rise of research networks," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7420), pages 335-336, October.
    3. Ramirez, Luisa F. & Belcher, Brian M., 2020. "Crossing the science-policy interface: Lessons from a research project on Brazil nut management in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Borrass, Lars & Kleinschmit, Daniela & Winkel, Georg, 2017. "The “German model” of integrative multifunctional forest management—Analysing the emergence and political evolution of a forest management concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 16-23.
    5. Nathalie Seddon & Beth Turner & Pam Berry & Alexandre Chausson & Cécile A. J. Girardin, 2019. "Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 84-87, February.
    6. van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2020. "How effective are forests in mitigating climate change?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    8. Richard Van Noorden, 2014. "The impact gap: South America by the numbers," Nature, Nature, vol. 510(7504), pages 202-203, June.
    9. Leopoldo Galicia & Leticia Gómez-Mendoza & Víctor Magaña, 2015. "Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies in temperate forests in Central Mexico: a participatory approach," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 21-42, January.
    10. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Michele Catanzaro & Giuliana Miranda & Lisa Palmer & Aleszu Bajak, 2014. "South American science: Big players," Nature, Nature, vol. 510(7504), pages 204-206, June.
    12. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Foreign donors driving policy change in recipient countries: Three decades of development aid towards community-based forest policy in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 39-53.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rachele Venanzi & Francesco Latterini & Walter Stefanoni & Damiano Tocci & Rodolfo Picchio, 2022. "Variations of Soil Physico-Chemical and Biological Features after Logging Using Two Different Ground-Based Extraction Methods in a Beech High Forest—A Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dyoni M de Oliveira & Marcos S Buckeridge & Wanderley D dos Santos, 2017. "Ten Simple Rules for Developing a Successful Research Proposal in Brazil," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-6, February.
    2. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Policy changes resulting in power changes? Quantitative evidence from 25 years of forest policy development in Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 419-431.
    3. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    4. Hugo Confraria & Fernando Vargas, 2019. "Scientific systems in Latin America: performance, networks, and collaborations with industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 874-915, June.
    5. Nikki Funke & Dave Huitema & Arthur Petersen, 2024. "Boundary work to what end? Analysing the acid mine drainage case in Gauteng, South Africa," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 393-405.
    6. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    7. Svein Kyvik & Ingvild Reymert, 2017. "Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 951-967, November.
    8. Hasnaoui, Ameni & Krott, Max, 2019. "Forest governance and the Arab spring: A case study of state forests in Tunisia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 99-111.
    9. Jeffrey Demaine, 2022. "Fractionalization of research impact reveals global trends in university collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2235-2247, May.
    10. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    11. H. Damon Matthews & Kirsten Zickfeld & Alexander Koch & Amy Luers, 2023. "Accounting for the climate benefit of temporary carbon storage in nature," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Kate Dooley & Ellycia Harrould‐Kolieb & Anita Talberg, 2021. "Carbon‐dioxide Removal and Biodiversity: A Threat Identification Framework," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 34-44, April.
    13. Sarah R. Weiskopf & Forest Isbell & Maria Isabel Arce-Plata & Moreno Di Marco & Mike Harfoot & Justin Johnson & Susannah B. Lerman & Brian W. Miller & Toni Lyn Morelli & Akira S. Mori & Ensheng Weng &, 2024. "Biodiversity loss reduces global terrestrial carbon storage," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Islam, Kazi Nazrul & Rahman, Mohammad Mahfuzur & Jashimuddin, Mohammed & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Islam, Kamrul & Faroque, Mohiuddin Al, 2019. "Analyzing multi-temporal satellite imagery and stakeholders' perceptions to have an insight into how forest co-management is changing the protected area landscapes in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 70-80.
    15. Li, Menghui & Yang, Liying & Zhang, Huina & Shen, Zhesi & Wu, Chensheng & Wu, Jinshan, 2017. "Do mathematicians, economists and biomedical scientists trace large topics more strongly than physicists?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 598-607.
    16. Olivia FitzGerald & Catherine Matilda Collins & Clive Potter, 2021. "Woodland Expansion in Upland National Parks: An Analysis of Stakeholder Views and Understanding in the Dartmoor National Park, UK," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    17. A. Velez-Estevez & P. García-Sánchez & J. A. Moral-Munoz & M. J. Cobo, 2022. "Why do papers from international collaborations get more citations? A bibliometric analysis of Library and Information Science papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7517-7555, December.
    18. Eirini Triantafyllidou & Anastasia Zabaniotou, 2022. "From Theory to Praxis: ‘Go Sustainable Living’ Survey for Exploring Individuals Consciousness Level of Decision-Making and Action-Taking in Daily Life Towards a Green Citizenship," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 113-139, March.
    19. Li, Feng & Miao, Yajun & Yang, Chenchen, 2015. "How do alumni faculty behave in research collaboration? An analysis of Chang Jiang Scholars in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 438-450.
    20. Elomina, Jerbelle & Pülzl, Helga, 2021. "How are forests framed? An analysis of EU forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:131:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121001490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.