Governance of Protected Areas Based on Effectiveness and Justice Criteria: A Qualitative Study with Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Coding

Abstract

Effective and fair governance of protected areas (PAs) is essential for their ecological and social sustainability, particularly in contexts of high biodiversity and sociopolitical tensions. This study assessed the governance system of the Serranía del Perijá Regional Natural Park (SPRNP) in Colombia using criteria of effectiveness and justice, through a qualitative methodology grounded in thematic analysis. The research was based on semi-structured interviews and a focus group, with intentional coding supported by artificial intelligence using ATLAS.ti 25 software, which enhanced efficiency and pattern recognition in the construction of a semantic network. This AI-assisted coding approach represents an innovative methodological contribution to the qualitative assessment of PA governance. The findings highlight centralized governance, weak community participation, limited institutional presence, and power asymmetries that undermine equity in decision-making. The exclusion of the Yukpa people from the PA declaration process illustrates broader challenges of Indigenous recognition in Latin American governance contexts. Based on these findings, the study proposes three prospective governance scenarios—community-centered, inter-institutional coordination, and public–private articulation—which offer practical pathways for transforming governance. The study concludes that achieving more equitable and inclusive governance requires institutional strengthening, power redistribution, and the recognition of local knowledge. A viable solution may emerge from an adaptive combination of the proposed scenarios.

1. Introduction

Protected areas (PAs) play a crucial role in conserving ecological integrity and often in sustaining the livelihoods of local communities around the world. Therefore, their management extends beyond ecological concerns, as they are embedded within socio-ecological systems shaped by political, economic, and social dynamics. In this context, good governance emerges as a key factor in ensuring their effectiveness, although it faces challenges in institutional settings with limited capacity for action and issues related to the representation and participation of key stakeholders in decision-making processes [1].

Most research on PAs focuses on the effects of protection, with insufficient understanding of the social impacts and perceptions of residents [2]. The limited recognition of local communities as key stakeholders, along with their exclusion from governance systems, undermines their sense of ownership over conservation strategies and negatively affects the effectiveness of Pas [3]. Knowledge and perceptions regarding the benefits and costs of PAs can vary significantly among communities surrounding these areas, profoundly influencing management outcomes and the achievement of conservation goals [4]. Stakeholder perceptions may also help identify potential “paper parks” and highlight gaps that must be addressed to transform them into effective Pas [5].

The tools available for assessing management effectiveness do not provide a reliable way to monitor equity in Pas [6]. The effectiveness of biodiversity conservation and its associated contributions to human well-being have become an increasingly pressing issue [7]. The usefulness of analyzing the perceptions of local communities to improve the effectiveness of PAs management is now recognized [8,9]. There is a greater understanding that the effectiveness of PAs is closely linked to the perception of justice and contribution to people’s well-being [10]. The analysis of PAs’ governance has evolved from an approach focused on ecological effectiveness to a more comprehensive vision, where equity and community participation are determining factors for the success of conservation [11]. It is also important for PA managers to understand how local communities view these areas so that they can build sustainable working relationships [9].

In this context, understanding community perceptions requires qualitative methodologies capable of capturing the complexity and depth of the meanings attributed by local actors. The incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into qualitative analysis has opened new methodological possibilities for processing large volumes of textual data without sacrificing analytical depth. Several studies have shown that large language models can effectively assist in the thematic coding of interviews, achieving high levels of accuracy and significantly reducing the time required for manual analysis [12,13]. These tools have been successfully applied across different fields of knowledge, demonstrating a significant capacity to replicate—and even enrich—the findings obtained by human researchers [12,13,14]. In addition, practical frameworks have been developed to guide the ethical and reflective use of AI-assisted coding in specialized software such as ATLAS.ti, emphasizing the importance of integrating expert judgment throughout the process [15]. AI does not replace human interpretation but offers a complementary approach to enhance efficiency, explore emerging patterns, and strengthen analytical transparency in qualitative research [16].

To examine governance performance in protected areas (PAs), this study adopts a conceptual framework that integrates the dimensions of effectiveness and justice. Governance effectiveness is generally understood as the ability of institutions and processes to achieve conservation objectives through inclusive, coordinated, and adaptive mechanisms. Justice, in turn, is addressed through three interrelated dimensions: recognition, procedural, and distributive justice [17]. Recognition justice involves acknowledging the rights, identities, and values of all relevant actors. Procedural justice refers to the quality of decision-making processes, including participation, transparency, and accountability. Distributive justice concerns the equitable sharing of benefits and burdens resulting from conservation efforts. These dimensions are essential not only from a moral standpoint but also because they enhance legitimacy and long-term support for conservation, contributing to more effective and equitable governance outcomes. The interdependence of these principles and their connection to governance effectiveness are illustrated in Figure 1.

Despite growing interest in evaluating the management effectiveness of PAs, studies on governance in the Latin American context remain relatively scarce. For example, the Serranía del Perijá in Colombia has largely remained outside the scientific spotlight. Most existing research is limited to characterizing the flora and fauna of this unique ecoregion [17,18,19]. A more in-depth analysis of the factors influencing the effectiveness and equity of governance systems is needed, particularly one that considers institutional dynamics and the perceptions of the stakeholders involved. In protected areas across Latin America, governance systems frequently face challenges related to centralized decision-making, limited community engagement, and tensions with Indigenous territorial claims. These issues can undermine both the effectiveness and justice of conservation efforts. However, empirical studies that examine these dynamics from a stakeholder-centered and context-specific perspective remain limited. This research addresses this gap through a qualitative approach enriched with AI-assisted coding to examine PA governance, using the Serranía del Perijá Regional Natural Park (SPRNP) as a case study.

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the governance performance of the SPRNP in terms of effectiveness and justice, based on the perspectives of local stakeholders. More specifically, the study aims to (i) identify perceived governance strengths and weaknesses; (ii) examine the relationships among key governance dimensions; and (iii) propose scenarios to improve governance based on empirical evidence.

The article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodological approach, including data collection and analysis procedures. Section 3 outlines the main findings, combining qualitative insights and proposed governance scenarios. Section 4 discusses the implications of the results, and Section 5 presents the main conclusions and recommendations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Study Description

The Serranía del Perijá Regional Natural Park (SPRNP) was officially established in 2016 to conserve strategic ecosystems in northeastern Colombia [20]. It is in the central portion of the Serranía del Perijá and spans approximately 23,208 hectares across the municipalities of Manaure, Balcón del Cesar, La Paz Robles, and Agustín Codazzi, all within the department of Cesar. The park lies at elevations ranging from 2600 to 3600 m above sea level, with its upper boundary adjoining the international border with Venezuela [21].

The SPRNP protects the paramo and high Andean Forest ecosystems essential for water regulation in the region. Its role in providing environmental goods and services is key, as it houses seven hydrographic sub-basins that supply water to local communities. Furthermore, the park boasts remarkable biodiversity, with more than 100 bird species, some of which are endangered, such as the Perijá metalura hummingbird (Metallura iracunda) and the military macaw (Ara militaris). Thirty-seven mammal species have also been recorded, including the Andean spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) and the Colombian tapir (Tapirus terrestris colombianus), both classified as vulnerable to extinction. The frailejón (Espeletia perijaensis) is endemic to the Perijá and is critically endangered [21].

In terms of governance, the SPRNP Management Plan outlines three main objectives: conserving the park’s páramo belt; protecting and restoring the Andean bear’s biological corridors; and managing the sub-Andean and Andean forests to ensure water supply and ecosystem service provision. The plan also encourages community participation and promotes strategies for the conversion of agricultural activities within the PA [21].

Analyzing PA governance requires approaches that account for the interaction among actors, regulations, and socio-environmental dynamics in contexts of high biodiversity and sustainability challenges. This study examines the governance of a PA that exemplifies these challenges, employing an approach that enables the identification of patterns and insights applicable to other territories with similar characteristics. By assessing both management effectiveness and justice, this research enhances understanding of the factors that shape PA governance and supports the development of strategies to strengthen its effectiveness in diverse contexts.

2.2. Methods

A thematic analysis approach was developed based on empirical evidence from 2024, using a qualitative methodology grounded in semi-structured interviews and a focus group. Thematic analysis enables the identification, analysis, and interpretation of patterns within data, emphasizing the systematic organization of information to uncover underlying meanings and trends in participants’ narratives [22,23,24]. This method facilitates the exploration of PAs governance systems and offers an evaluation of their performance in terms of effectiveness and justice, incorporating the perspectives and knowledge of local communities [25].

Thematic analysis was conducted following the approach proposed by Braun and Clarke, using inductive logic that allowed categories to emerge directly from the data rather than from pre-established theoretical frameworks [26]. The process involved a thorough engagement with the transcripts to ensure familiarity with the content, the generation of initial codes based on recurring or significant elements across participants’ responses, and the development of broader themes that captured patterns of meaning. These themes were reviewed, refined, and clearly defined to ensure conceptual clarity and internal coherence. The analysis was carried out through an iterative and reflexive process, ensuring that it remained grounded in participants’ perspectives and aligned with the study’s objectives [27,28].

Governance effectiveness was assessed through the lens of institutional capacity and human resources, while justice was examined in terms of fair distribution (economic dimension), recognition, and representation (sociocultural and political dimensions). The goal was to identify conditions necessary for advancing socio-ecological justice—namely, the preservation of ecological integrity and the promotion of community well-being and dignity [29].

The key questions focused on understanding the extent of institutional recognition of stakeholders, the scope of the governance system, and the procedures in place to ensure adequate representation. The analysis also assessed the management capacity and resources available to achieve outcomes, along with the skills and constraints that stakeholders bring to PA governance. Consideration was given to the degree of stakeholder participation in rulemaking and decision-making processes, as well as to issues of transparency and accountability [1]. Primary data collection involved semi-structured interviews with residents living in or near the SPRNP, as well as a focus group discussion with key stakeholders from civil society and the public, private, and academic sectors.

This methodological combination was justified by the need to explore both the diversity of local perceptions and the convergence of expert viewpoints regarding PA governance. The interviews allowed for an in-depth understanding of community experiences, expectations, and concerns, capturing a wide range of voices across different roles and locations. The focus group, in turn, facilitated deliberation and prospective analysis, enabling validation of the interview findings and discussion of future governance alternatives. Together, these methods enriched the study by integrating empirical evidence from the territory with institutional and technical insights [30,31].

The semi-structured interview provides detailed information on the perceptions and challenges of local communities. Its flexibility facilitates the exploration of specific and emerging themes, providing an in-depth and contextualized approach to understanding the dynamics of PAs effectiveness [32]. The interview topics covered included governance effectiveness, the state of natural values, actors and power relations, livelihoods, management transparency, and accountability. The interview guide was partially constructed based on the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), considering questions relevant to the research objectives and adding new ones. METT is a widely used instrument for assessing PAs management globally. It is adaptable to diverse socio-ecological contexts and provides a standardized framework for identifying strengths and areas for improvement in PAs governance and management [33]. The participants signed an informed consent form, which explained the purpose of the research, the confidentiality of their responses, and their right to withdraw or refuse to respond at any time.

The snowball sampling approach was used, which is appropriate when identifying key informants with specific knowledge on a topic is required. This approach has been widely used in the study of community perceptions in PAs [34,35,36]. This method allows initial participants to recommend other relevant informants, which facilitates the progressive construction of the sample with individuals who possess valuable information [37]. Initial participants were selected based on their knowledge of and interaction with the SPRNP, ensuring diversity in geographic location (three municipalities) and roles (community leaders, small-scale farmers, environmental promoters, and residents living near the park). This strategy aimed to capture a broad range of perspectives on governance and management practices.

Given the use of snowball sampling, the potential for selection bias was acknowledged, particularly the risk of overrepresenting well-connected individuals or networks [38,39]. To mitigate this, initial participants were chosen to reflect a range of geographic and social profiles, and recruitment chains were monitored to ensure inclusion of diverse voices, including less visible or marginalized perspectives. A total of 51 interviews were conducted between July and November 2024. This sample size proved sufficient to achieve thematic saturation, as no substantially new codes emerged in the final rounds of coding [40,41]. Evidence of saturation is provided in the Supplementary Materials through saturation curves based on the most representative questions.

Focus groups are another effective qualitative methodology for exploring the perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of various stakeholders regarding PAs. They facilitate interaction among participants, allowing for the identification of consensus and disagreements on key issues such as the management, conservation, and sustainable use of these spaces [42]. The focus group conducted in December 2024 lasted approximately two hours and was held in a hybrid format, with some participants attending in person and others via videoconference. The participants were purposefully selected to ensure intersectoral diversity, representing public institutions, academia, local communities, and Indigenous organizations.

The session brought together five participants: a scholar from the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute, a scholar from the Andean Area University Foundation, a scholar from Dalhousie University (Canada), a representative from the Cesar Regional Autonomous Corporation (Corpocesar), and a representative of the Yukpa Indigenous community. The discussion was introduced by the lead researcher, who provided contextual background and outlined the session’s objectives. One of the co-investigators acted as moderator, facilitating dialog and ensuring balanced participation. A semi-structured discussion guide was employed to explore topics such as resource management, power relations, management transparency, and accountability, as well as governance effectiveness, equity, and scenario-building for future management of the SPRNP.

The data from the semi-structured interviews and focus group were analyzed using ATLAS.ti 25 software for the coding and analysis process, aiming to identify patterns, themes, and relationships in participants’ perspectives, as well as to generate visualizations of the results. The use of purposive coding assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) in ATLAS.ti 25 is highlighted. Specifically, the Intentional AI Coding feature was employed, which relies on natural language processing (NLP) techniques, including text embedding and contextual similarity analysis, to generate initial code suggestions [43]. These suggestions were based on the semantic content of the interview transcripts and informed by pre-trained language models embedded in the software. The AI feature proposed code names and associated quotations, which the researchers subsequently reviewed, edited, regrouped, and expanded upon to ensure theoretical alignment with the research objectives. This interactive process ensured that AI-generated suggestions remained subordinate to the researchers’ analytical framework and domain expertise.

The AI-assisted coding was applied during the initial rounds to explore thematic patterns more efficiently across a large volume of data. While the algorithm generated suggestions based on semantic similarity among textual segments, these outputs were not used uncritically. The researchers systematically evaluated the relevance and coherence of each suggestion, adjusting where necessary through merging, renaming, or discarding codes. To address potential biases and overgeneralizations inherent in large language models, the process included iterative comparisons with manual coding and collaborative reflection on areas of divergence. In this way, the AI function was treated as an exploratory tool that supported, but did not replace, the researchers’ interpretive judgment and qualitative rigor.

The initial round of coding was carried out by one of the researchers. The suggestions generated by the tool were then systematically reviewed, adjusted, or discarded based on their contextual relevance and theoretical alignment. Subsequently, the coded transcripts were reviewed by the two other researchers to ensure inter-coder consistency. Divergences in code application or theme interpretation were addressed through discussion until consensus was reached. This iterative and collaborative approach helped validate the thematic structure and ensured transparency in the analytic process.

The categories resulting from this analysis are Management Effectiveness, Governance Equity, State of Natural Values, Perceived injustice, Stakeholder Influence, Interest in the Protected Area, Livelihoods, Community Participation, Community Perception, Perception of Well-being, Improvement Proposals, Power Relations, Accountability, and Management Transparency. ATLAS.ti 25 subsequently suggested subcategories of codes, which were also reviewed, edited, regrouped, and eliminated when necessary. Finally, relationships between these codes were established to develop the corresponding semantic network for visualizing the results. ATLAS.ti has been widely used in research related to PAs [44,45], but the use of intentional coding assisted by AI remains a relatively underexplored topic in the scientific literature.

Finally, a prospective phase was incorporated to construct future governance scenarios based on an integrated analysis of community and other stakeholder perceptions, as well as institutional factors, addressing different levels of participation, inter-institutional coordination, and collaboration with the private sector. This formulation responds to the need to generate contextualized proposals that guide decision-making toward more effective and equitable governance schemes. This stage was developed by synthesizing diagnostic results and using SWOT matrices for each scenario. The construction of these scenarios was enhanced through consultations with experts in PAs governance, who provided technical criteria for identifying strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats in each case.

3. Results

The use of AI-assisted coding in ATLAS.ti 25 facilitated the construction of the semantic network by accelerating the initial identification of relevant concepts and potential relationships among codes. Compared to traditional manual coding processes, the AI-based suggestions enabled greater efficiency in managing large volumes of qualitative data, particularly by highlighting semantically similar segments that may otherwise have been overlooked in early coding rounds. While the AI feature did not eliminate the need for researchers’ interpretation and validation, it served as a useful analytical support tool by reducing initial bias in code generation and encouraging a more exploratory and inclusive approach to data interpretation.

3.1. Effectiveness and Justice According to Community Perception

Intentional coding using AI, aligned with the research objectives and applied to data from semi-structured interviews with local communities, resulted in 13 code categories, as illustrated in the semantic network in Figure 2. For each category, the name, groundedness, and density are presented, along with their relationships to other categories. Groundedness indicates the number of quotations or data segments associated with a specific code. Higher groundedness suggests that the code has a significant presence in the analyzed data, reflecting its relevance within the context of the study. Density refers to the number of links a code has with other codes; a high density indicates that the code is highly interconnected, which may reflect its importance within the conceptual structure of the analysis.

Perceived Injustice is a critical code that limits Management Effectiveness in the Serranía del Perijá Regional Natural Park (SPRNP). It refers to the unequal distribution of costs and benefits, as well as the exclusion of certain stakeholders from decision-making processes. Perceived inequity breeds distrust and conflict, reducing the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance [11]. The high groundedness of this code reflects its recurring presence in community narratives, suggesting that governance decisions and actions are not perceived as fair, potentially undermining legitimacy and, consequently, effectiveness (I13Q16: “The peasant is completely forgotten; the truth must be told… But the most important thing is that those who care for, who preserve, the land are the ones who receive the least benefit. Those who sit at the desk are the ones who get all the glory.”). Its high density indicates that Perceived Injustice is interconnected with multiple governance dimensions, acting as a cross-cutting concern that significantly influences Management Effectiveness.

The most critical subcategories of the Perceived Injustice code in community narratives are Lack of Information, Absence of Authorities, and Lack of Control. The first reflects limited or no access to essential information about decisions, projects, or resources related to the SPRNP, generating mistrust and a perception of deliberate exclusion (I42Q14: “When you’re going to implement a project, the first thing you must do to be successful is to socialize with the communities. Communities must be involved in these projects. Who knows the park and the buffer zones better than the communities? But here, things have been done differently. There was no socialization, the communities weren’t being considered, actions were being taken against them… but there hasn’t been that consensus so that the communities understand and can be held accountable so that they can verify and oversee these projects.”). The second highlights an institutional disconnect, where the physical and operational absence of park representatives in the territory reinforces feelings of abandonment and lack of protection (I42Q16: “Corpocesar declared the area protected, but they come sporadically and have no control over it because their offices aren’t going to oversee it here; it’s the farmers who are there. Governance should be established from here, with oversight between the municipality and the farmers who live in that area.”). The third, closely related to the previous one, refers to the inability of the managing authority to enforce regulations and prevent illicit activities within the PA, enabling practices that worsen environmental degradation and perpetuate inequities in access to resources (I11Q3: “The state of these natural resources is poor because many species have become extinct, and much flora has died due to burning, logging, and the mistreatment it has suffered, even at the hands of ourselves. That’s why we no longer have certain species, or perhaps our water supply has decreased.”). These interconnected subcategories not only reinforce the perception of injustice but also undermine the legitimacy of the governance system, ultimately hindering the effective implementation of conservation and sustainable development strategies.

The association between the codes Perceived Injustice and Power Relations is critical to understanding the dynamics of inequality. The concept of Power Relations refers to the dynamics of influence and control among the various actors involved in the management and conservation of the PA. These relations are reflected in decision-making, resource distribution, and policy implementation, often revealing imbalances between government entities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local communities [46]. This code shows high groundedness, indicating that power asymmetries are a deeply embedded and recurring theme in the data, highlighting their role as a structural driver of inequality in the SPRNP (I2Q13: “Corpocesar rarely meets with us, so they make their decisions alone, and suddenly when there’s a reforestation project, they say this path came up, but there’s no call where it says we’re going to call everyone and we’re going to do a project. No, it’s practically handpicked and they execute it.”).

Stakeholder Influence acts as a bridge between Power Relations and Perceived injustice. Its moderate groundedness and the contextual data suggest that the influence of government actors is a recurring theme in community narratives, often involving the exclusion of key stakeholders such as local communities (I8Q13: “Communities lack participation in park management activities because they are not invited to these spaces.”). Its medium density indicates that it is connected to several other codes, but its most critical function lies in its strong association with the two aforementioned categories. This analysis reveals that the concentration of influence in privileged actors reinforces power asymmetries and amplifies perceptions of injustice, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of PA governance.

Power Relations in the SPRNP is structured around three key subcategories: the Managing Entity, Government Entities, and Community Action Boards. Managing Entity emerges as the dominant actor, exercising significantly greater influence in decision-making and reflecting a centralized power structure that marginalizes other local stakeholders (I37Q16: “The final and substantive decisions are primarily made by Corpocesar, which is responsible for the protected area and is the one that decides, defines actions, projects, and programs to be implemented in the region. We need a little more consensus, perhaps a closer unity, to be able to make better decisions with the communities.”). Government Entities, though present, tend to operate in the background, prioritizing macro-level agendas over community needs (I11Q15: “These entities do not provide the means of subsistence to benefit those local communities and indigenous populations.”). Meanwhile, Community Action Boards, despite their notable presence in community narratives, face significant limitations in influencing strategic decisions, often functioning more as symbolic intermediaries than as agents of substantive change (I39Q16: “The entity with the greatest influence on decisions related to the protected area is Corpocesar, since there is no space for consultation or coordination… there is no immediate meeting where these parties can integrate and truly manage the area transparently and effectively.”). This hierarchical distribution of power not only sustains the Perceived Injustice but also reinforces the perception that PA governance is aligned with external interests, disconnected from local priorities.

In addition to the core themes analyzed, other codes, such as Community Participation, Management Transparency, and Accountability, reveal critical dynamics in the governance of the SPRNP. Community Participation, when present, is largely limited to an advisory role, with little to no influence on decision-making. This limited involvement reinforces power asymmetries and deepens the Perceived injustice. Management Transparency is widely perceived by the community as absent, due to the lack of clear Accountability mechanisms. An imbalance in Power relations tends to decrease perceptions of Accountability, suggesting that excessive concentration of decision-making authority may weaken oversight and hinder transparency mechanisms. This perception fuels mistrust and legitimizes unclear governance practices (I16Q14: “Sometimes we don’t even know the projects, what’s outlined there, what needs to be done, or whether what’s in the project has been done. So, since the issue isn’t properly communicated with the communities and they don’t give them input, it all ends up the same… So we believe it would be good if all these projects were carried out jointly with the community action boards, with them being the overseers and participating in these projects so that someone in the area would be supervising and overseeing everything.”).

With respect to Livelihoods, several structural challenges are evident. The absence of a permanent administrative team (including an administrator, technical staff, and rangers) in the SPRNP hinders effective management and limits the creation of stable employment opportunities (I36Q5: “I think we need people to exercise more direct control… so that the controls within this protected area can be strengthened.”). While some ecological restoration projects are implemented using local labor, they are short-term initiatives that cover only a small portion of the PA, resulting in intermittent income and reinforcing perceptions of inequity (I17Q15: “The people who work, who benefit from the project, do for three or four months.”). In addition, tourism remains a nascent activity that generates minimal income, reflecting a missed opportunity to integrate local communities into sustainable economic development models (I37Q15: “There is no investment that would allow the population to achieve lasting and effective benefits. However, some guides are receiving some special benefits from private companies and some events for visitors from other regions. The provision of tourism alliance services is the only thing left, but it is neither well planned nor organized.”).

Considering that restrictive policies on traditional agricultural practices, when not accompanied by adequate compensation, exacerbate inequity, the factors described above, together with the tensions reflected in the prioritization of the State of Natural Values, generate a scenario of collective discontent. These tensions are reinforced by imbalanced Power Relations, where decision-making processes tend to exclude or marginalize local actors, deepening perceptions of injustice and limiting the legitimacy of conservation strategies. This is captured through Community Perception, which emerges as a critical indicator of institutional legitimacy. While Improvement Proposals and Interest in the Protected Area are beginning to surface, their viability depends on transforming current governance structures: democratizing Community Participation, ensuring Management Transparency through robust Accountability systems, and balancing conservation goals with socioeconomic well-being by promoting permanent employment, long-term projects, and inclusive tourism strategies. These findings highlight the urgency of a comprehensive approach that dismantles power hierarchies, advances procedural justice, and redistributes benefits to support the sustainability of SPRNP.

3.2. Effectiveness and Justice as Perceived by Other Stakeholders

Intentional AI coding of the focus group data conducted with other stakeholders identified 10 code categories. Nine of these were previously defined in the community perception analysis, while one—Governance Equity—is directly related to the Perceived Injustice category from that earlier analysis. These results are illustrated in the semantic network in Figure 3.

While Perceived Injustice emerged as the most prominent code in the analysis of community perceptions, Governance Equity appeared as its counterpart in the focus group analysis. The strong groundedness of this code confirms that, for the experts consulted, equity is considered a fundamental component of effective governance, reinforcing the findings from the community perspective (FG-S3: “If governance is comprised of a structure in which all social actors are represented, this guarantees their participation—the community, other social actors, unions, ethnic groups, institutions, government, mayors, and non-governmental organizations—from the outset in decision-making.”). Criticisms regarding the absence of institutional presence and oversight mechanisms were recurrent across both data sets (FG-R2: “The Corporation is conspicuously absent from these spaces, and it is conspicuously absent from the territory, because it is not possible to reach agreements or technical roundtables where we can discuss many of the issues that afflict us in the Serranía del Perijá.”). However, the focus group emphasized that effective governance is not merely about institutional visibility or regulatory control, but rather about achieving a fair distribution of benefits and responsibilities among all stakeholders (FG-R1: “The governance structure must encompass all stakeholders, whether established in the protected area and/or benefiting from it or having direct or indirect influence. If all stakeholders don’t participate, if they aren’t committed to the governance structure, it won’t work.”). Figure 4 summarizes the main similarities and differences in governance perceptions between community members and other stakeholders.

The participants acknowledged progress since the SPRNP’s designation, such as the implementation of restoration projects and the presence of monitoring and training initiatives (FG-S2: “The restoration is in its third phase and there have been about 10 additional intervention strategies. The thing is, for example, the largest intervention involved about 300 hectares of reforestation, a 23,000-hectare park, and a buffer zone… it’s insignificant; but planting 300 hectares is a titanic undertaking in such a remote, rugged, and inaccessible area.”). Nevertheless, they noted that management remains constrained by the lack of permanent staff and unstable funding (FG-R1: “There’s still a long way to go before it functions as a truly protected area. Institutionally, it hasn’t been possible to appoint park rangers or forest rangers.”).

Experts underscored the urgent need to establish a governance framework that includes effective participation from communities, the private sector, and public authorities, to prevent management from becoming concentrated solely within the administrative entity (FG-R1: “That’s why this governance structure is necessary, this alliance between the Corporation and the institutions, because it’s not just the Corporation; it also includes the mayor’s office, the governor’s office, and those private companies that, while not located in the park, benefit from the protected area through its ecosystem services.”). According to these stakeholders, only through coordinated action and the adoption of participatory and transparent processes can the prevailing cycle of inefficiency and inequity in the SPRNP’s administration be overcome (FG-S2: “Communication mechanisms still need to be improved to increase transparency. Transparency is achieved if everyone is represented there, participating and giving their opinion.”).

The analysis of the Power Relations code also contributes valuable insights that complement the community perspective. The participants acknowledged that decision-making remains centralized in the managing entity, relegating other actors to a predominantly advisory role. This reinforces, once again, the absence of a comprehensive governance framework capable of effectively integrating all stakeholders. According to the experts, this concentration of power not only undermines transparency and management effectiveness but also perpetuates the exclusion of communities and prevents a fair distribution of benefits and responsibilities (FG-R1: “Governance is now solely in the hands of Corpocesar… and a few allies, such as the Community Action Boards. The governance framework is not complete. This has to be an issue that all of us are working on, and that all of us will participate in the management of the Protected Area. If that doesn’t happen, we’ll all be stuck in a rut.”).

A distinctive feature of the SPRNP governance context is the tension between formal institutional procedures and the recognition of ancestral territorial rights. Although the Ministry of the Interior certified the absence of Indigenous communities during the declaration process of the PA [20], the Yukpa people have historically inhabited and transited the Serranía del Perijá as part of their nomadic practices. In 2017, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ordered the National Land Agency to delimit the Yukpa ancestral territory within one year [47]. More than eight years later, this ruling remains unfulfilled, reinforcing the community’s perception of institutional neglect and territorial exclusion. This discrepancy highlights a disconnect between legal frameworks and Indigenous territorial claims. In the focus group, the Yukpa representative emphasized that the creation of the PA was not previously discussed with their community, revealing critical gaps in participation and consultation mechanisms (FG-R2: “I don’t know what agreement they had with the Yukpa people. But not before telling them that we are an ethnic community with autonomy that must be respected. Beyond that, entry into Yukpa indigenous territories is an ancestral issue. So, that must be considered at these technical meetings.”). This situation illustrates how centralized and exclusionary governance arrangements in Latin American PAs can reproduce historical injustices and institutional invisibility for Indigenous peoples, even in settings where their presence has been constitutionally acknowledged.

Institutional disarticulation is seen as a root cause of weak governance. Fragmented coordination hinders formal procedures and project execution, and it also undermines transparency throughout the process. (FG-S3: “Transparency starts from the same articulation and then after there is articulation there are processes and after there are processes there are projects and those projects entail the execution of resources.”). This reflects a lack of Management Transparency and limited shared planning, which in turn weakens Accountability. These shortcomings are indirectly linked to Power Relations, as unbalanced institutional dynamics obstruct collaborative oversight and responsibility sharing. Power Relations are identified as a critical structural factor that, by deepening existing asymmetries, reinforces perceptions of injustice and compromises the effectiveness of SPRNP governance. This dimension of governance is seen as requiring urgent reconfiguration toward a more equitable and participatory model.

Similar conclusions emerge from the analysis of the Stakeholder Influence code, which is closely related to the previous category. Experts highlight the need to establish strategic alliances and participatory processes to reconfigure the current distribution of influence. They emphasize the urgency of redesigning the governance framework to ensure the active and balanced inclusion of all stakeholders, as a prerequisite for achieving Management Transparency and strengthening Accountability. These changes are seen as essential for breaking the cycle of exclusion that currently undermines Management Effectiveness.

Within their Improvement Proposals, the participants further stress that, in addition to the creation of a governance framework, it is imperative to establish permanent participatory processes, rather than isolated intervention projects within the PA, as a means of fostering sustainable change (FG-R1: “These types of aspects that need to be developed in protected areas cannot be managed with short-term projects. In fact, they should not be managed with projects, but with processes. Processes that develop programs, projections, with processes for biodiversity and conservation.”).

3.3. Towards a Sustainable Governance Model in the SPRNP

The results of this research reveal structural limitations in the governance of the SPRNP, particularly related to the centralization of decision-making, the exclusion of local actors, and the absence of effective mechanisms for Community Participation, Management Transparency, and Accountability. These issues undermine the legitimacy and Management Effectiveness of the governance system, posing a risk to the ecological and social sustainability of the PA.

Considering this context, it becomes essential to envision possible pathways to strengthen governance from a socioecological justice perspective. This section presents three future scenarios, each characterized by varying degrees of stakeholder participation, intersectoral coordination, and redistribution of power. These scenarios aim to offer viable alternatives for more equitable, inclusive, and effective governance of the SPRNP.

Any of the governance models proposed for the SPRNP should align with the IUCN Green List’s Good Governance principles. These require legitimate and inclusive structures, representation of stakeholders and rights holders, and adherence to national and international laws. Transparent decision-making and accessible conflict resolution mechanisms are also essential. In addition, adaptive capacity must be supported through learning-based approaches that respond to social and ecological changes. The framework emphasizes balancing power, promoting gender equity, and respecting the rights of local and Indigenous communities as core elements of effective and equitable governance [48].

3.3.1. Institutional Governance Integrating Community Participation for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

The first proposed scenario envisions institutional governance in which the PA managing entity retains control over management while actively incorporating local communities into strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The study’s findings highlight limited community participation in decision-making and a predominantly hierarchical governance structure. This model aims to foster more inclusive management practices without altering the existing institutional framework.

Under clear regulatory guidelines and institutional leadership, effective oversight of resource use could be ensured. The scenario advocates for the recognition of traditional knowledge as a valuable asset in conservation planning and implementation, to be integrated through consultation processes, capacity-building initiatives, and participatory monitoring mechanisms.

This scenario aligns with the principles of adaptive co-management (ACM), which emphasizes flexibility, shared decision-making, and continuous learning. ACM is a dynamic process that adjusts institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge through practical learning, tailored to specific socio-ecological contexts. It fosters the construction of collective knowledge about the relationship between communities and biodiversity. Moreover, it facilitates the implementation of key governance principles—such as participation, transparency, accountability, and the rule of law—by promoting ongoing learning, knowledge sharing, and action adjustment based on outcomes [49,50].

Among the main strengths of this scenario is the potential to combine local knowledge with scientific tools, thereby enhancing management legitimacy and improving relationships between the administration and local communities. The opportunities associated with this model include access to economic incentives, such as payments for environmental services, the integration of sustainable practices into value chains, and the promotion of activities such as ecotourism based on biodiversity and local culture. Additionally, this scenario could attract support from NGOs and international cooperation agencies interested in strengthening community-based conservation initiatives.

However, this scenario is not without challenges. Among the identified weaknesses are the need to strengthen local capacities to prevent the overexploitation of resources and the logistical difficulties involved in implementing effective participatory monitoring schemes. In addition, structural threats persist, such as the lack of stable funding for community projects and pressure from external actors with economic interests in the PA. To enhance the viability of this model, recommended actions include the establishment of community advisory committees for management, the implementation of training programs in sustainable practices, the development of collaborative biodiversity monitoring schemes, and the creation of economic compensation mechanisms for conservation efforts. Overall, this scenario represents a progressive transition toward more effective and equitable governance in the SPRNP, aligned with the capacities and conditions identified in the institutional and territorial assessment.

3.3.2. Public–Private Articulation for Conservation and Sustainable Development

The second scenario envisions a governance model centered on coordination with the private sector, fostering collaboration among businesses, local communities, and the PA managing entity. This approach directly addresses limitations identified in the study, particularly the lack of sufficient management resources and the need to strengthen engagement with external stakeholders. The proposal involves establishing strategic alliances with sustainability-oriented companies, which would contribute financial and logistical support in exchange for benefits such as public recognition, improved positioning in green markets, and access to environmental certifications. Additionally, this model aims to reinforce local partnerships by enabling small-scale producers to integrate into sustainable value chains, supported by the business sector.

This model aligns with principles of transformative governance, which emphasize cross-sector coordination, inclusive participation, and long-term sustainability. In this perspective, conservation and adaptation strategies become more effective when they are supported by flexible governance frameworks capable of responding to changing ecological and climatic conditions. Involving communities and other stakeholders in decision-making enhances equity, social acceptance, and the legitimacy of implemented measures. Moreover, establishing long-term financial mechanisms—such as public–private partnerships—is essential to ensure the continuity of conservation and development efforts. These elements reflect the need for adaptive, inclusive, and integrated approaches that characterize transformative governance [51].

Among the main strengths of this scenario are its potential to mobilize additional resources to enhance PA management and its capacity to foster more sustainable production practices. Private sector involvement may lead to the creation of new employment opportunities for local communities and the development of conservation agreements that clearly establish the roles, responsibilities, and benefits for each party. Moreover, this approach can facilitate access to sustainable investment funds, strengthen public–private partnerships, and increase the visibility of the PA within responsible consumption markets. Nevertheless, a key challenge lies in avoiding excessive dependence on private investment and ensuring effective management of potential conflicts between economic interests and conservation goals.

This model also faces significant threats, including the risk that some companies may engage in greenwashing without a genuine commitment to sustainability, the absence of clear regulations governing environmental compensation mechanisms, and market volatility that could compromise the continuity of investments. To support its implementation, the proposal includes the establishment of a corporate conservation fund, environmental certification programs that acknowledge companies’ tangible contributions to sustainability, formal agreements for sustainable production with explicit rules, and joint monitoring schemes to ensure the transparency and alignment of corporate actions with conservation objectives. This scenario represents a viable strategy to diversify the actors involved in SPRNP governance, enhance its financial sustainability, and generate shared value between conservation goals and local development.

3.3.3. Governance Based on Inter-Institutional Coordination Through the Quadruple Helix

The third scenario proposes a governance model based on inter-institutional coordination through the quadruple helix framework, which integrates public administration, the community, the productive sector, and academia. This proposal addresses the challenges identified in the study’s findings, particularly institutional fragmentation and the need to enhance the legitimacy of the governance process. The central idea is to advance toward more horizontal and participatory decision-making by establishing an inter-institutional governance council and stakeholder consultation panels within the territory. This approach acknowledges that the sustainability of a PA depends not only on formal administrative structures but also on effective coordination across knowledge systems, sectors, and levels of action.

This governance model aligns with the principles of polycentric governance, where authority is distributed among multiple independent but interrelated actors. Interaction and overlapping roles among government, academia, civil society, and the private sector strengthen the system’s adaptability to changing conditions. Decentralization allows diverse actors to lead initiatives based on their expertise and local knowledge, fostering inclusion and equity. While this approach promotes collaboration and context-specific solutions, it also faces challenges in coordinating actions across different stakeholders and governance levels [52,53].

One of the main strengths of this model is the diversity of actors involved in governance, which enables the integration of multiple perspectives and enhances planning and management processes. Active engagement with the academic sector, through applied research programs, would support the generation of relevant and timely scientific information, thereby strengthening technical capacities and informing evidence-based public policy. Additionally, joint monitoring efforts that combine technological and community-based tools could improve assessments of conservation status and foster greater shared responsibility among stakeholders. This model also creates opportunities to access diverse funding sources through strategic alliances and to build more robust and legitimate governance over the long term.

However, this scenario is not without weaknesses and threats. Coordinating multiple actors can lead to slow, bureaucratic processes without clear leadership and accountability. Additionally, conflicting visions between sectors, for example, economic and environmental stakeholders, can generate tensions that hinder consensus. Another risk is the lack of continuity in stakeholder engagement, especially in the absence of clear incentives or if the surrounding political or economic context shifts. Despite these challenges, this model offers a significant opportunity to consolidate inclusive, informed governance with greater adaptability to the social and ecological challenges faced by the SPRNP.

4. Discussion

The findings indicate that perceptions of justice and equity are central to the effectiveness of SPRNP governance. In line with previous studies on PA governance in Latin America and beyond, community exclusion, lack of information, and weak institutional presence undermine the system’s legitimacy by failing to acknowledge local knowledge and needs [4]. In the SPRNP, Power concentrated in the managing entity and limited stakeholder participation create an imbalance that reduces legitimacy and responsiveness to threats. This centralized structure has also enabled ineffective oversight, leading to the proliferation of unregulated activities such as cattle ranching, grazing, agriculture, and logging, recognized as major pressures on biodiversity in PAs [29,54].

Economic opportunities within PAs can enhance governance by promoting community integration and reinforcing conservation commitments. However, the absence of economic incentives and underdeveloped ecotourism limit community engagement in sustainable management and weaken their governance role [45].

Furthermore, conflicts over natural resource use are often exacerbated under centralized governance models, reinforcing perceptions of inequity and diminishing management effectiveness. In the SPRNP, unequal power relations and the absence of accountability mechanisms have contributed to institutional mistrust. Implementing more participatory and adaptive governance strategies could help improve park management and promote a better balance between conservation and socio-environmental justice [2,10].

To address these challenges, it is essential to strengthen SPRNP governance through more inclusive models that ensure the active participation of local actors in resource management, an element consistently associated with improved PA effectiveness [11]. In this context, perceptions of injustice among community members highlight how centralized decision-making hampers conservation outcomes and fuels conflict [55], while the limited use of assessment tools represents an additional barrier to governance improvement [56].

Genuine community participation enhances conservation by fostering cooperation and shared responsibility [3]. However, current mechanisms in the SPRNP fail to ensure an equitable distribution of power, resulting in structural limitations when local rights and values are not adequately integrated [6]. These limitations are further exacerbated by centralized models that concentrate decision-making in external institutions, reinforcing exclusionary dynamics that marginalize local communities [57]. In turn, persistent power asymmetries and weak participatory structures undermine the long-term sustainability of conservation initiatives [58].

Governance reform in Colombia faces persistent political and institutional barriers. Although recent efforts have emphasized consensus-building and multi-actor participation, weak policy coordination and institutional instability continue to limit results, particularly in multilevel governance contexts such as protected areas [59]. Environmental governance is further challenged by unresolved land tenure conflicts, limited intersectoral integration, and the gap between international commitments and local implementation, often exacerbated by short-term policies and the prioritization of extractive interests over conservation [60].

Each proposed governance scenario offers distinct advantages but also presents trade-offs in terms of feasibility and impact. The institutional model centered on community participation fosters legitimacy and justice but requires strong institutional capacity. The public–private articulation model ensures financial sustainability but may risk exclusion if equity safeguards are weak. The inter-institutional coordination model promotes collaboration and knowledge exchange yet faces challenges in aligning diverse actors and agendas. Given Colombia’s institutional constraints, such as limited inter-agency coordination and decentralized capacity, a hybrid approach that integrates strengths from each scenario may offer a more practical and sustainable path toward transformative governance.

Beyond local perceptions and institutional arrangements, power asymmetries in the governance of the SPRNP can be better understood through global governance theories such as political ecology and environmental justice. Political ecology reveals how conservation can reinforce territorial control and state authority, especially when governance frameworks are used to assert institutional power over rural areas [61]. These dynamics often lead to centralized decision-making and the restructuring of local livelihoods under market-based conservation models [62]. Environmental justice theory, meanwhile, stresses the need to integrate diverse forms of justice—recognition, distribution, and procedure—while challenging universalist frameworks that marginalize Indigenous and local knowledge systems [63]. Applying these perspectives to the SPRNP highlights the need for governance models that more equitably redistribute power, respect cultural relationships with nature, and promote epistemic justice.

In summary, the findings underscore the need to reconfigure the SPRNP governance system to ensure that equity becomes not only a normative aspiration but a foundational principle guiding decision-making and the distribution of responsibilities and benefits within the PA.

5. Conclusions

The evaluation of SPRNP’s governance system through effectiveness and justice criteria revealed notable progress alongside persistent challenges. Instruments for planning, monitoring, and participation have been introduced, but their limited reach signals the need to improve stakeholder coordination, institutional capacity, and community engagement. From a justice standpoint, there have been steps toward recognizing local rights and knowledge, yet this has not ensured equitable benefit distribution or genuine decision-making power. Ignoring Indigenous territorial claims, despite constitutional protections, weakens legitimacy and reinforces exclusion. Overcoming these issues demands transparent, inclusive governance processes that go beyond legal recognition. In response, three prospective governance scenarios were developed, offering alternative strategies based on varying degrees of inter-institutional coordination, community involvement, and private sector engagement. A blended model that integrates their strengths and adapts to the territorial context may offer the most practical path forward.

A methodological contribution of this research was the integration of AI coding through ATLAS.ti 25 software to support the qualitative analysis of PA governance. The use of this tool accelerated the identification of thematically relevant content and semantically linked quotations across a large body of interview data, which enhanced the efficiency of early coding rounds. AI-generated code suggestions served as a catalyst for formulating analytical questions aligned with the study’s objectives. These initial suggestions were reviewed, refined, and expanded by the researchers to ensure theoretical consistency. The combination of automated assistance and expert interpretation contributed to a more systematic, transparent, and reflexive coding process, reinforcing the analytical depth of the study.

This study provided a contextualized understanding of the governance performance of the SPRNP in terms of effectiveness and justice. While the results are not generalizable due to the qualitative case study design, they offer analytical insights that may inform similar contexts, provided that critical contextual comparisons are made. The study is limited by its reliance on stakeholder perceptions, which may carry positional biases, and by the inherent interpretive nature of qualitative coding, even when supported by AI tools. Future research should examine the feasibility and applicability of the proposed governance scenarios in other protected areas.

To advance more equitable and effective governance in the SPRNP, PA managers and policymakers should prioritize inclusive decision-making, strengthen inter-institutional coordination, and build local institutional capacities. Supporting sustainable economic alternatives, such as ecotourism and community-based initiatives, can enhance local engagement. These efforts must be accompanied by transparent monitoring and participatory evaluation to ensure accountability and continuous improvement.