Participatory Action Research for Conservation and Development: Experiences from the Amazon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written and nicely introduces and analyzes a broad selection of engaged western Amazonian scholarship through a PAR framework.  Because of the number of case studies, the article could not spend many words on introducing the varied elements (TEK etc...) that fit within the PAR umbrella.  That said, the authors should not limit citizen science to environmental monitoring alone given the breadth of engaged citizen science approaches.  Also, the authors could make more of the strength of these partnerships between host country (UFAC, UAP etc...) and abroad institutions (primarily UF?) and how these long standing collaborations provide deep engagement and trust between stakeholders as well as consistent long term presence in the research area that ensures robust participation and communication across scales.

Author Response

Author responses to reviews of “Participatory Action Research for Conservation and Development: Experiences from the Amazon”

Reviewer 1

Reviewer 1 (henceforth R1) liked the manuscript and provided a short review. We found two comments in R1’s review.

1. R1 suggests that citizen science should not be equated only with environmental monitoring.

We agree, and have consequently modified the wording there to note that citizen science may include environmental monitoring, among other activities.

2. R1 argues that the narrative could say more about the collaborative partnerships behind many of the experiences reported.

We agree that collaboration is often important in research, including participatory action research. We have edited the manuscript in a few places to note collaborations involving organizational support from the University of Florida with local and regional organizations.  However, collaboration is itself a big topic, and we cannot elaborate on the specifics of those relationships without burdening the text and distracting from the focus on participation and action.

Reviewer 2 Report

• In the introduction, the broad definitions of seven major concepts are not that helpful for understanding the issues surrounding PAR in this context, and the discussion is not specific to conservation and development. Suggest condensing that section to one paragraph or eliminating. 
• Line 191, Figure 1: Where do this figure come from? Needs attribution and citations.
• Throughout the paper, the reference to western Amazon seems very vague. That is a vast and diverse area, within the boundaries of multiple countries, with many ethnicities and should be noted. What else ties these cases together?
• Line 194: What "work on PAR"? Needs citations here and throughout the paragraph.
• Line 196: What are "knowledge funds", versus simply "knowledge"? Or are they financial funds?
• Line 352: What participatory workshops? Were they PAR methods, or other methods?
• For the Colombia case, it is not clear that this was PAR. Did the local participants define the research questions? How did those findings relate to climate resilience and influence their actions?
• Line 391: I don't think "owned" is the correct term. "Titled" might be more appropriate, as these peoples have occupied this area for generations, but only recently gained title.
• Again, for the TIPNIS example, this seems to be a collaborative research project, with multi-stakeholder involvement, but it is not PAR. PAR requires cycles of learning, where researchers and local stakeholders incrementally learn together, adjust their activities and adapt their research activities based on what they learn.
• Line 490: The river is more commonly referred to in English by its Portuguese name: Madeira.
• For the COP-L case study and the others, same comment. This seems to be an interesting case of multi-stakeholder knowledge production and the application of participatory fieldwork by a range of researchers. However, it does not seem to have been PAR in the sense that it did not evidence learning cycles.
• This article present a diverse and vast set of experiences across a wide-ranging geography. There is a lot to learn from them. The experience represent a variety of knowledge co-production approaches among diverse stakeholders. While not PAR per se, they do demonstrate how multi-stakeholder engagement is occurring in this region.
• However, apart from being in the Amazon and representing diverse multi-stakeholder knowledge production scenarios, it is not clear what ties these experiences together. More reflection on the approaches and commonalities, lessons-learned and failures is needed in order to understand why these are all presented here. Perhaps not all cases are needed in order to synthesize an argument about participatory methods or multi-stakeholder engagement processes. But more clarity on the argument is needed.
• Who are the stakeholders? Stakeholders are not a homogenous group. They are diverse, with tensions and conflict among them, as are communities and families. Better understanding and discussion is needed about that reality. Reflection on how women, Indigenous People's, young people, Afro-descendants have different experiences in these multi-stakeholder interventions is needed too.

Author Response

Author responses to reviews of “Participatory Action Research for Conservation and Development: Experiences from the Amazon”

Reviewer 2

Reviewer 2 provided extensive comments on the manuscript, often focusing on definitions of key terms and the space dedicated to certain elements of the argument. We thank R2 for their close reading of our manuscript. Below we note each of R2’s comments in the order provided along with our responses.

1. R2 comments on the background review (not the introductory) section, which has several approaches to research, and suggests that the section should be reduced to a paragraph.

This comment anticipates later comments by R2, which call for a tighter focus on a strict definition of PAR. That was not our intent. Rather, we seek to discuss diverse experiences from the Amazon that involve diverse participatory approaches to research with the intent of applying findings in one way or another in action. We have therefore edited the introduction to re-situate PAR and other approaches in a broader perspective on various avenues to pursue research that is participatory and/or action oriented. That means the paper does not intend to focus solely on PAR in its purest form. Consequently, we have kept the background section in order to recognize a constellation of literatures that are also relevant to research that highlights participation and an action orientation.

2. R2 cites the Figure 1 and asks for a citation of the source.

As we note in the text, the figure is ours. We do however draw on other process models, and we cite several sources in the previous paragraph, notably references 54-61.

3. R2 questions our focus on the western Amazon as the context for our cases. Specifically R2 asks here and elsewhere about what ties the cases together.

As the manuscript notes, the cases come from the same region, which has more or less shared challenges to conservation and development, and thus permits comparisons. We also note that all of the cases share experiences with approaches to research that highlight stakeholder participation and an action orientation. We further note their distinct contributions, whether via data collection, monitoring, or knowledge exchange, which serves the purpose of supporting our arguments to recognize diverse approaches to PAR. That helped drive the design of the study and selection of the cases. We have edited the manuscript to make sure these points are evident.

4. R2 comments on a sentence a few lines after their comment 2, again asking for citations regarding Figure 1.
5. R2 questions our use of the term “knowledge funds”, and asks if that is a financial term.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is a really important contribution to the field, giving concrete examples of participatory action research (PAR) with considerations to take into account for anyone interested in this sort of practice. Additionally, it’s well organized and clear. I congratulate the authors in writing this paper!

My major comments center around recommendations that would strengthen the cases and conclusions through a stronger framing/context of the paper:

• A stronger literature/historical presentation of participatory action research. As is currently presented, the Background section focuses on a handful of approaches to PAR (some of which are presently trendy within academic literature), without giving background on PAR itself. While it is true that PAR has multiple origins, the approaches presented can be interpreted as being the origins of PAR itself if there is no explicit discussion of the history of PAR in the region (further exemplified by the fact that the references in this section, #19-53, only include 1 reference from before 2000, when, at the very least in Latin America, Orlando Fals Borda organized the first PAR conference in Colombia in the 1970s, see Rahman, 2008, although Fals Borda’s work can be directly cited successfully). I recommend that the first paragraph focus on that history and then bring in these current approaches that complement the PAR concepts. This will also clarify the importance of “action” in PAR, which many of the approaches described in this section do not necessitate (citizen science, for example, does not by definition require action; see Shirk et al. 2012 and Eitzel et al. 2017). 

For each section, I also suggest making clear how these approaches interact/contribute to current practice of PAR, rather than simply describing them. This will make the last topic sentence in the section, “These and other traditions of inclusive approaches to research can be seen as constituting specific versions of PAR” (L. 168-169) stronger, as it will be made clear under what conditions these approaches could be considered a version of PAR. For specific comments in each approach:

• The last sentence of the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) section is confusing (L. 115-116). Why is the opportunity to combine TEK with western science in turn to the previous statements? You could strengthen this description when discussing directly how it relates to PAR. You mention the participatory methods, but PAR necessitates action. Looking back at Whyte et al. 2013, which is cited, the recommendation is to “focus more on creating long term processes that allow the different implications of approaches to knowledge in relation to stewardship goals be responsibly thought through.” Here, it shows how the participatory method itself is the action and you could make that clearer, while also highlighting that how TEK relates to research is case-dependent and a reflection of the collaboration and people involved. In many cases, there has been a push towards not combining TEK with western science (see, for example, Reid et al. 2019).
• The first sentence regarding decolonization of research is misleading: “TEK can be seen as consonant with calls for the decolonization of research” (L. 117), yet it isn’t necessarily that, as many indigenous scholars writing about decolonization of research focus on the importance of refusal of research (Tallbear, 2013), and on the importance of focusing on structural and material change over content change (Tuck & Yang, 2012). While the second sentence suggests this, the rest of the paragraph focuses on knowledge management practices that are built upon indigenous ontologies. This is more akin to “indigenizing” than it is “decolonizing” (see Chilisa, 2012, and Cull, 2018). While they are deeply interrelated, the latter needs to address a structural change in order to do the work of decolonization. This could also be directly addressed when relating decolonization of research to the “action” component in PAR.
• Citizen science is a tricky one, because it has multiple disciplinary origins (see Shirk et al. 2012 and Eitzel et al. 2017), and the implications of its use in environmental monitoring is important, because, as citizen science is currently used in the literature, it has ample possibilities for going against the political principles of PAR. Specifically, in the text, authors say “it is often motivated by stakeholder priorities on challenging the conclusions of authorities, often governments, about issues of health and safety, notably environmental health.” (L. 151-153). Yet, this is often not the case. In biodiversity monitoring, the most popular technological tools (eBird and iNaturalist) are not motivated by the idea of challenging the conclusions of authorities, but by the thrill of birdwatching for participants and answering big questions about birds by ornithologists (eBird), and decentralized projects for participants and answering big questions about biodiversity by its creators (iNaturalist). Furthermore, there is a real danger in governments adhering to international agreements like the SDGs, but depending on free labor by local peoples to actually meet it or track it (Vohland et al. 2019). I would qualify L. 151-153 if it is demonstrated that this is a primary motivation for citizen science. Regardless, because citizen science is mostly associated with technological solutions and data collection, there needs to be a discussion about what the “action” is, and whether it involves a true empowerment of participants or whether it is in the benefit of the researchers and/or authorities only. Citizen science affords space to do both, but it is often not thoughtfully engaged.

• Clarifying the different conditions of PAR and conceptual figure. In the abstract (l. 29-30), authors state “Due to stakeholder mobilization, research in the Amazon is now necessarily participatory.” Yet, this is not true of ALL research in the Amazon (in ecology, for example, there are current demands against “helicopter” or “parachute” science, because it is still very prevalent, see, for an example of a demand, Nuñez et al., 2021). Additionally, the language around mobilization and collectivity can be nuanced. Are “collective” and “collaborative” being used interchangeably? I would argue that they do not imply the same practices. What are the differences between stakeholder participation, stakeholder mobilization, knowledge mobilization, collective translation, and collaborative actions? (L. 47-50) Clarifying these different moments and practices will be easier once there is also a stronger conceptual presentation of PAR, but as it reads, it can seem confusing by using jargon interchangeably, then assigning causes (mobilization → more participation → mobilization?). This has consequences too in the conceptual framework. Is the research process linear? As a similar comment to clarify the framework, the examples do not support the clear-cut contributions of stakeholders and researchers. For example, under “proposal development, methodology”, stakeholders contribute their networks of people to participate and inequalities, and researchers contribute rules of methodology (Fig. 1; L. 212-213). Yet, in the first case study, indigenous ontology directly influences the methodology. Is the ontology a network of participants (while it can be a motivation for people to participate, it’s not always the network itself) or an inequality? I feel that the figure is a bit prescriptive on what different groups of people can bring to the research process. The text can do more work in clarifying what these different things mean (is direct action always collaborative?), but the figure could be less prescriptive to give flexibility for case-dependency. 

Minor comments/grammatical suggestions:

• Throughout the paper, the Madeira River is spelled as “Madera” River. Please change to Madeira.
• Pictures of some of the case studies would be awesome! Additionally, I found myself wanting to see a map of the Knowledge Exchange Train route.
• L. 23-27 The second sentence is awkward. I recommend changing to “The Amazon is an example of such a context. It is the epicenter of conservation and development issues of global importance…” However, while I personally agree with the sentence, you’ll need to justify this more strongly in the paper if you want to claim it in the abstract. Is it the epicenter? Why is it the epicenter? You could adjust by getting rid of the superlative claim: “The Amazon is an example of such a context: Diverse stakeholders are engaged in environmental governance to address global issues of climate change, conservation, and sustainable development.”
• L. 32 delete “of” (so it reads, “we provide an overview of several experiences implementing PAR…”
• L. 92-93 Sentence is confusing, I suggest, “Transdisciplinarity refers to the conduct of research that goes beyond both a researcher’s home discipline and academia in general.” 
• L. 176 “The above review” instead of “The foregoing review”
• L. 314 “That has prompted questions of adaptation” (get rid of attention, it’s confusing)
• L. 502 delete “at” so it reads “Construction of additional dams will bring further impacts.”
• L. 668-669 Were the droughts also record-setting?
• L. 682-683 Confusing sentence, “This set of circumstances thus led to calls for a tri-national but regional PAR response” (seems like maybe it’s missing a “not only” but I would just stick to either tri-national or regional not both, and regional is a difficult to define word, so suggest the more precise the better)
• L. 723-726 This first sentence is confusing because the sentence structure calls for an opposition, “Whereas MMGR relied on diverse institutions … to create the early warning system, MMGR partners broaden social participation…” These don’t seem to be opposing. You could simply go in to MMGR partners… as your full first sentence.
• L. 794 “making stops at train stations along a railway line” (delete “as”)
• L. 857-872 This paragraph does not make it clear whether the three versions of the KET occurred or not. 
• L. 893 I would make this part of the earlier paragraph since you have the last point of the list here (or make them into smaller paragraphs).
• L. 998-999 This is a very important point that should be repeated throughout the discussion.
• L. 1036-1046 The lines regarding the politicization of knowledge seem to come out of nowhere. How does this relate to the case studies? How does PAR work to combat “fake news”? Is knowledge ever not political?

While I believe addressing these comments would make the paper much stronger, I recommend publication regardless of whether the changes are made. The case studies stand on their own.

Suggested References

Cull, I., et al. 2018. Decolonization and Indigenization. Pulling Together: A guide for front-line staff, student services, and advisors. https://opentextbc.ca/indigenizationfrontlineworkers/chapter/decolonization-and-indigenization/

Nuñez et al., 2021. Making ecology really global. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 36(9): 766-769.

Reid et al. 2019. “Two-Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish and Fisheries doi: 10.1111/faf.12516

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper discussed experiences of Participatory Action Research (PAR) in the Western Amazon, and how the approaches support environmental conservation and sustainable development. This is an interesting topic and aligns with the focus of the journal.  The study used a case study method and adopted a reflective process to capture the experience of implementing several PAR. The paper has the potentials to contribute to the knowledge domain related to sustainable management of natural resources. It sounds that the article went through a review process, and I can confirm that the authors made some improvements to the earlier draft.

However, there are a few issues that the authors should take into consideration for improving the article.

• The data processing and analysis have not been clearly articulated. Although the authors provided figure 1 to articulate the researcher's contribution to the research process, it is unclear what data they retain and how they use it to the analysis. Did they use reflective journals? Observation? Did they follow any coding procedure? The method section needs some improvement to discuss data sources and analysis.
• The discussion section also needs some improvement. At its current format, the discussion has not been grounded to the current bodies of literature. I would suggest authors select a few specific patterns to answer whether and how the selected approaches support environmental conservation and sustainable development. For example, the issues related to participation/power relationships, leadership and knowledge co-production should be discussed by comparing and contrasting with the existing literature.
• I like to applaud the authors for bringing the issue of political polarization and misinformation in relation to PAR for environmental conservation. The authors can engage with the current literature on misinformation and climate change to expand the findings to the overall discipline.

Author Response

See comments in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This manuscript presents five contrasting uses of Participatory Action Research in the Amazon area, addressing a range of unfolding issues influencing local stakeholders in their distinct theaters. Although the manuscript is particularly long and could benefit from some shortening, it is well written.

I have the following minor comments/suggestions to make, not in order of importance but rather of appearance in the text:

Line 144-149: It is awkward to start five sentences in a row with the same two words. I suggest some rewording, for e.g. you could write 'It' in lieu of 'Knowledge exchange' on L 144-145, then replace 'Knowledge exchange' on L 145-146 with 'and'. There is a bit of a similar issue on L 667-671.

L 157: The part on 'whether of illegal resource use' in this sentence is hard to follow. Please reword sentence to clarify.

L 368: The part 'therefore organisation representing' does not fit well in this sentence. Please modify.

L 375-378: This sentence is incorrect. Please edit. Perhaps you just need to delete 'While' on L 375.

L 413: 'elevational' would be a better term than 'altitudinal' here.

L 555: Please complete which Table you are referring to.

L 734: This reference has not been picked by your bibliographic software and transformed into a number like for the others. Also on L 879.

L 864-866: Please revise this sentence for clarity. It is a bit hard to follow.

L 881: To accord with the rest of the sentence, it should be 'they' instead of 'we'.

L 1015: This sentence while fine in itself, begs the thought 'How could each experience be improved?' For example, if the PAR was to be redone, what would be better to avoid, and what more could be done/suggested? This could be discussed based on the insights and experience of the authors.

References: The references listed contain a mix of works with titles either normally written or written with capitalization of the first letter of each [main] word. Compare for example number 2 and 5 or number 6 and 7. Standardization is required.

In some References, many authors are listed and in others, only the first author is named followed by et al. For example compare references 42, 43, 46, 49, 51, 52 with reference 58. Standardization is required.

Author Response

See comments in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I did not find that my initial comments were adequately addressed, or were not addressed at all.

Author Response

See attached file. There should be author responses to 11 reviewer comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf