From parachuting to partnership: Fostering collaborative research in protected areas

Abstract Research in protected areas (PAs) is often dominated by scientists from outside the conservation agencies managing them. This can potentially lead to misalignment with local needs, insensitivity to the local context and a lack of investment in and use of local expertise. These issues often arise when international researchers work in another country without local engagement (known as ‘parachute science’). Despite PAs being key end users of actionable science, there is limited understanding of the prevalence and impact of parachute science in these areas. Here, we investigate parachute versus collaborative research in two national parks in the Global South (Kruger National Park, South Africa; Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina) and one park from a developed economy (Kakadu National Park, Australia). To explore the prevalence, risks, benefits and complexities of research practices, we analyse the patterns of authorship, funding and acknowledgement in a random sample of peer‐reviewed papers from research conducted in these parks. Our findings show a higher incidence of potential parachute science in Kruger National Park (18% of papers with only out‐of‐country authors) compared to Nahuel Huapi (4%) and Kakadu (2%) national parks. However, the occurrence of internationally collaborative research (national and international authors) was double in Global South parks (35%–38%) than in the Australian park (18%). The study illustrates the potential benefits of international collaboration for PAs, including increased research productivity, expanded funding sources and possibly higher impact and visibility of published studies. PAs in developed countries may have fewer opportunities to obtain those benefits. Most papers, even those with in‐country authors, lacked authors affiliated with the agency managing the PA and often failed to even acknowledge these agencies. This suggests the potential for a different form of parachute science (which we term ‘park parachuting’) in which lack of local involvement may hamper integration of research with management. Synthesis and applications : Establishing conditions that foster collaboration between national and international researchers, and between PA agency staff and external researchers (regardless of their nationality), would enable parks to better serve as catalysts for research collaboration. This collaborative approach can facilitate access to additional funding, enhance research capacity, increase research productivity and amplify research impact.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Ecology
Published
2024-11-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14814
Citations
13
Primary Topic
Outdoor and Experiential Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.37
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From parachuting to partnership: Fostering collaborative research in protected areas

Carly N. Cook, Dirk J. Roux, Roberto J. Fernández, M. F. Menvielle et al.
13 citations
Journal of Applied Ecology
Outdoor and Experiential Education
8.37
article

From parachuting to partnership: Fostering collaborative research in protected areas

Carly N. Cook, Dirk J. Roux, Roberto J. Fernández, M. F. Menvielle, Izak P. J. Smit, Hervé Fritz, Llewellyn C. Foxcroft, Nicholas A. Macgregor, Edson Gandiwa, Narendra Singh, S. Mabuza, B. M. Mthombeni
article en
13 citations

Abstract

Abstract Research in protected areas (PAs) is often dominated by scientists from outside the conservation agencies managing them. This can potentially lead to misalignment with local needs, insensitivity to the local context and a lack of investment in and use of local expertise. These issues often arise when international researchers work in another country without local engagement (known as ‘parachute science’). Despite PAs being key end users of actionable science, there is limited understanding of the prevalence and impact of parachute science in these areas. Here, we investigate parachute versus collaborative research in two national parks in the Global South (Kruger National Park, South Africa; Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina) and one park from a developed economy (Kakadu National Park, Australia). To explore the prevalence, risks, benefits and complexities of research practices, we analyse the patterns of authorship, funding and acknowledgement in a random sample of peer‐reviewed papers from research conducted in these parks. Our findings show a higher incidence of potential parachute science in Kruger National Park (18% of papers with only out‐of‐country authors) compared to Nahuel Huapi (4%) and Kakadu (2%) national parks. However, the occurrence of internationally collaborative research (national and international authors) was double in Global South parks (35%–38%) than in the Australian park (18%). The study illustrates the potential benefits of international collaboration for PAs, including increased research productivity, expanded funding sources and possibly higher impact and visibility of published studies. PAs in developed countries may have fewer opportunities to obtain those benefits. Most papers, even those with in‐country authors, lacked authors affiliated with the agency managing the PA and often failed to even acknowledge these agencies. This suggests the potential for a different form of parachute science (which we term ‘park parachuting’) in which lack of local involvement may hamper integration of research with management. Synthesis and applications : Establishing conditions that foster collaboration between national and international researchers, and between PA agency staff and external researchers (regardless of their nationality), would enable parks to better serve as catalysts for research collaboration. This collaborative approach can facilitate access to additional funding, enhance research capacity, increase research productivity and amplify research impact.

Journal of Applied EcologyVol. 62(1)
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (FR), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), South African National Parks (ZA), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR), University of Kent (GB), Universidad de Buenos Aires (AR), Stellenbosch University (ZA), University of the Free State (ZA), Agricultural Plant Physiology and Ecology Research Institute (AR), Scientific Services (ZA), Director of National Parks (AU), Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZW), National Space Activities Commission (AR), ACT Government (AU), Monash University (AU), University of Pretoria (ZA), Nelson Mandela University (ZA)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Outdoor and Experiential Education
8.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.