This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 30 November 2014, At: 18:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Planning andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Revisiting the knowledge exchangetrain: scaling up dialogue andpartnering for participatory regionalplanningElsa R.H. Mendoza a , Stephen G. Perz b , Sonaira Souza da Silva a

, I. Foster Brown c & Paula Soares Pinheiro da Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM) , RuaDourado No. 142, Bairro Conjunto Tangará, Rio Branco, Acre,Brazil, CEP: 69915-002b Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law , University ofFlorida , 3219 Turlington Hall, PO Box 117330, Gainesville , FL ,32611-7330 , USAc Woods Hole Research Center , 149 Woods Hole Road.Universidade Federal do Acre, Distrito Industrial, Rio Branco,Acre, Brazil, CEP: 69915, Falmouth , MA , 02540-1644 , USAd School of Natural Resources and Environment, University ofFlorida , 103 Black Hall, PO Box 116455, Gainesville , FL , 32611 ,USAPublished online: 11 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Elsa R.H. Mendoza , Stephen G. Perz , Sonaira Souza da Silva , I. Foster Brown& Paula Soares Pinheiro (2014) Revisiting the knowledge exchange train: scaling up dialogue andpartnering for participatory regional planning, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,57:3, 384-402, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2012.746936

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.746936

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,

and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Revisiting the knowledge exchange train: scaling up dialogue and

partnering for participatory regional planning

Elsa R.H. Mendozaa, Stephen G. Perzb*, Sonaira Souza da Silvaa, I. Foster Brownc

and Paula Soares Pinheirod

aInstituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia (IPAM), Rua Dourado No. 142, BairroConjunto Tangara, Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil, CEP: 69915-002; bDepartment of Sociology andCriminology & Law, 3219 Turlington Hall, University of Florida, PO Box 117330, Gainesville,FL 32611-7330, USA; cWoods Hole Research Center, 149 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth MA02540-1644, USA and Universidade Federal do Acre, Distrito Industrial, Rio Branco, Acre,

Brazil, CEP: 69915; dSchool of Natural Resources and Environment, 103 Black Hall, Universityof Florida, PO Box 116455, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

(Received 4 May 2012; final version received 1 November 2012)

In an integrated world, knowledge exchange is becoming more important forempowerment to participate in planning processes. This is particularly the case inareas undergoing rapid change and with unequal stakeholder constituencies. The‘knowledge exchange train’ (KET) model was designed to address knowledge in-equalities and large-scale change by disseminating the results of new research rapidlyand on a large scale. The KET involves two-way dissemination of knowledge as ameans to support the formation of partnerships and participation in regionalenvironmental planning. We compare three KET experiences in the southwesternAmazon: comparisons ofKET I and II highlight adjustments in themodel to amplifytwo-way exchange and to focus on key planning issues, and comparisons of KET IIto III show how KET fosters partnerships for downstream environmental planningand management activities. KETs thus address knowledge inequalities and catalysefollow-on environmental management activities, both of which facilitate publicparticipation in regional environmental planning.

Keywords: planning; environment; climate; infrastructure; Amazon

1. Introduction

In an increasingly integrated world, empowerment has become more important forbroadening participation in planning processes in the context of regionaldevelopment (e.g. Forester 1999, Murray and Greer 2002, Nelson et al. 2009,Murray et al. 2010). Empowerment via knowledge is crucial in developing areasundergoing rapid change and with stakeholders with unequal knowledge funds.Whereas rapid change demands rapid diffusion of knowledge to build responsecapacity via planning, unequal knowledge hampers broad participation in planningprocesses. Under these circumstances, widespread knowledge exchange is vital, as itpermits knowledge diffusion and reduction of knowledge inequality in order for

*Corresponding author. Email: sperz@ufl.edu

� 2013 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 201

Vol. 5 , No. , – , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.747

4

3 384 402 6936

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

broader participation in regional planning. Knowledge exchange thus responds tothe UN Convention on Human Rights and the UN Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development, both of which endorse the Right to Know as a necessaryprecondition to exercise the Right to Participate.

In this paper, we discuss the ‘knowledge exchange train’ (KET) model (Mendozaet al. 2007a). The KET was designed to scale up dissemination of new scientific dataconcerning large-scale change processes as a means of fostering participatoryenvironmental planning and management. Whereas traditional knowledge exchangeusually emphasises exchanges between two groups within an organisation or in onelocation, the KET scales up knowledge exchange via exchanges between a team ofcontributors from multiple organisations who travel to multiple locations (the ‘trainstops’) for two-way dissemination of knowledge with stakeholder groups at eachlocation.

We begin by reviewing prior literature on knowledge exchange, noting strengthsand limitations and emphasising the relatively few previous applications toenvironmental issues or developing regions. We then outline the KET model,emphasising the contrasts with other knowledge exchange models and underscoringthe KET’s assets and liabilities. The heart of this paper draws on experiences ofapplying the KET model in the southwestern Amazon. This is a tri-national frontierwith substantial knowledge inequalities and is undergoing rapid and large-scalechange due to infrastructure projects and climate-induced disasters such as fires andfloods. In this context, there is a need for scaled-up knowledge exchange to respond tochange by broadening shared knowledge as a means of fostering greater publicparticipation in environmental planning and management. We feature a comparativeanalysis of three KET experiences. First, we compare KET I and II, where wehighlight adjustments in the KETmodel to improve stakeholder engagement. Second,we compare KET II and III to show how KET experiences catalyse new partnershipsfor downstream activities that contribute to participatory environmental planningand management.

2. Knowledge exchange in theory and practice

Whereas knowledge transfer highlights the transmission of information from oneperson or group to another, knowledge exchange underscores dialogue that featurestwo-way dissemination of knowledge (Mitton et al. 2007, Kagan et al. 2010). A keypremise of knowledge exchange is that different individuals, organisations and groupshave complementary funds of knowledge (Hughes and Greenbough 2006, Hughes andPollard 2006). Indeed, knowledge exchange may involve groups with significantinequalities in knowledge, which in turn may underlie inequalities in power. Indeveloping regions, where transportation and communication connectivity may belimited, access to knowledge can be especially unequal, such as between towns and thecountryside or capital cities and local towns. Under these circumstances, the goal ofknowledge exchange is to maximise overall shared knowledge. This implies that groupswith greater access to knowledge must exercise responsibility to improve access toknowledge by less powerful groups to maximise overall knowledge funds. This is a keypoint, for at least three reasons: (1) expectations of equal exchange among unequalgroups merely perpetuate inequalities; (2) improved access to knowledge addresses theRight to Know; and (3) avoidance of (1) and ensuring (2) are necessary for the Right toParticipate, as in regional planning.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 385

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Knowledge exchange originated in participatory action research (PAR),which highlights organisation-driven inquiry supported by researchers (Mercieret al. 2004). Fundamental to PAR is the pairing of research with practice via thesharing of research results with practitioners in order to support achievement oftheir objectives. Whereas PAR focuses on knowledge within a group ororganisation, knowledge exchange centres on two-way dissemination of knowl-edge among multiple groups, whether that generated by those involved orothers. Further, whereas PAR combines research and practice, knowledgeexchange may occur in between research and applications, serving as an extrastep to ensure dissemination of knowledge for downstream action such asplanning and management.

Fundamental to knowledge exchange is the engagement of various stakeholders;and vital for engagement is clarification of the link between knowledge exchangeitself and the empowerment of stakeholders to achieve their goals. Previous work onknowledge exchange highlights multiple dimensions of empowerment, includingestablishing relationships among participants, building participant competencies,identifying new collaborative opportunities, and encouragement of collaborativedecision making (St. Cyr-Tribble et al. 2008).

Knowledge exchange has been previously pursued for several purposes. Oneconcerns the diffusion of innovations (Mitton et al. 2007). Prominent examples hereinclude collaborative research exchanges (Kagan et al. 2010), especially interdisci-plinary exchanges among scientists from different academic disciplines (Perz et al.2010a), government-industry partnerships between public sector agencies andprivate firms (Hanberger and Schild 2004), and collaboration of management andproduct developers for technology incubation within firms (De Souza 2003).Another application involves linking of knowledge and practice, as in health care viaexchanges between care providers and patients (Mercier et al. 2004, St.Cyr-Tribbleet al. 2008, Kagan et al. 2010) and in the design of educational curricula viainteractions between teachers and parents (Gutierrez 2004, Feiler et al. 2006, 2008,Hughes and Greenbough 2006, Hughes and Pollard 2006, Rassool et al. 2006, Allanet al. 2010). Similarly, knowledge exchange supports interactions between researchand policy, as in health policy formulation that involves scientists, elected repre-sentatives and policy advisors (Mitton et al. 2007, Bienecke et al. 2009), and estab-lishment of international conventions between international bodies, governmentagencies and indigenous peoples (e.g. Noble 2007).

Such applications have yielded insights concerning the requirements forefficacious knowledge exchange. Some authors have emphasised the effectivenessof communication in knowledge exchange, such as personal relations, culturallyappropriate format and argot, and inclusion of stakeholders in process design(Mitton et al. 2007). Others have highlighted key elements of the process itself, suchas sustained engagement, formats for conveying knowledge, and effective articula-tion of knowledge producers with brokers (Kagan et al. 2010).

This has driven the development of frameworks for evaluating knowledgeexchange. There are management-oriented approaches to evaluation, such asprogramme theory evaluation and outcome analysis, as well as alternatives, includingpolicy discourse analysis and qualitative network analysis (Hanberger and Schild2004). There is also a component-oriented framework that focuses on characteristicsof organisations, researchers, practitioners, communication and technology (Mercieret al. 2004).

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.386

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In the knowledge exchange literature, there is frequent attention to issues ofdiversity and inequality. This stems from the importance of knowledge exchange forshared learning among different groups and organisations. For example, Rassoolet al.’s (2006) study of teacher training in South Africa highlighted ways in whichknowledge exchange engaged inequality. South Africa is a country with profoundracial/cultural divisions which underlie the politics of multilingualism in schoolcurricula. Opting for English can easily be interpreted as privileging the knowledgeof foreign colonisers; choosing Afrikaans can be taken as reflecting neo-colonialwhite hegemony; and going with Bantu carries cultural stigmas. Knowledgeexchange seeks to overcome these caricatures using the argument that childrenwith multilingual educations have larger knowledge bases. The teacher traininginitiative was a means of institutionalising professionals who could engage inknowledge exchange alongside language training in order to offer multilingualcurricula. Teachers became knowledge brokers who were crucial to addressinginequalities via multilingualism and knowledge exchange.

Knowledge exchange can also be applied to management of inequalities in othertypes of multi-stakeholder processes (Edmunds and Wollenberg 2001). It is crucial tobring the relevant stakeholders to the table, and inequalities have to be recognised,usually by knowledge brokers (Manring 2007). In that context, knowledge exchangecan reduce inequalities and highlight complementarities in knowledge funds (Hughesand Greenhough 2006).

Aside from inequalities, a key challenge for knowledge exchange involves rapidchange and the resulting uncertainties. Rapid change implies that existing knowledgefunds may become outdated quickly. Furthermore, rapid change can reinforceinequalities in knowledge funds insofar as more powerful groups can better keep upwith changing circumstances. Knowledge exchange can reduce uncertaintiesby accelerating dissemination of knowledge about change, which can informenvironmental planning and management in uncertain situations (Wollenberg et al.2007).

In developing regions, knowledge exchange involving disadvantaged groups canbe particularly efficacious in helping them adapt to rapidly evolving circumstances.There is growing recognition of knowledge exchange applications to reconcilingbiological conservation with the needs of resource-dependent local peoples (Boreuxet al. 2009, Born et al. 2009). In tropical regions with exceptional biodiversity andwidespread poverty, knowledge exchange between scientists and local peoples notonly improves dissemination of new research findings about the biologicalimportance of local ecosystems, but also fosters participation of local peoples inconservation efforts featuring the natural resources on which they depend (Kaineret al. 2009, Shackleton et al. 2009, Sunderland et al. 2009).

In this context, Shanley and collaborators (Shanley and Rodriguez Gaia 2002,Shanley 2006) promoted knowledge exchange in frontier areas of the Amazon,known for rapid change due to the arrival of powerful outsider groups that threatentraditional resource management and ecosystems. These authors documentedknowledge exchange activities among local peoples as a means of improving naturalresource management in order to sustain rural communities. They also showed that,in turn, knowledge exchange served as a means for communities to repel exploitativeoffers by outsiders (loggers, land speculators) to sell their land and other resources.However, Shanley and Lopez (2009) also emphasised that such efforts remain all toorare, and that there is still a need for scientists working on conservation and

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 387

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

development issues to expand their investments in knowledge exchange withstakeholders.

3. The knowledge exchange train

We suggest that knowledge exchange can be developed further via the ‘knowledgeexchange train’ (KET) model (Mendoza et al. 2007a). Specifically, we argue thatKET permits knowledge exchange on an increased scale, which can simultaneouslyaddress social inequality and rapid change as challenges to participatory environ-mental planning and management in developing areas.

The KET model involves scaled-up knowledge exchange activities (Mendozaet al. 2007a), in at least three respects. First, rather than one person or a team fromone organisation, the KET requires the support of contributors from multipleorganisations. This enables knowledge exchange involving knowledge funds frommany organisations. Second, the KET scales up the geographic reach of knowledgeexchange by calling for multiple ‘train stops’ at different locations. This is a definingcharacteristic of the KET model and permits knowledge exchange over large areas,regardless of telecommunications infrastructure. Third, KET highlights theimportance of reaching multiple stakeholder constituencies. This may occur viageographic scaling, which permits knowledge exchange events with constituencies indifferent locations, as well as multi-scale knowledge exchange by incorporatingdifferent stakeholder groups in one or more knowledge exchange events at eachlocation. This reflects a commitment to social inclusion as a basis for participatoryplanning.

Figure 1 illustrates the scale differences between traditional knowledge exchangeand the KET. Panel a (left) indicates knowledge exchange between two or moregroups in a given location or organisation. As noted above, knowledge exchange

Figure 1. Comparison of typical knowledge exchange (panel a, left) between two (or more)groups in a given location or organisation, and the knowledge exchange train (panel b, right)with a group of travelling contributors exchanging with two or more groups in each of two ormore locations. Dotted arrows indicate information exchange; solid arrows indicate travelamong locations.

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.388

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

applications have occurred between, for example, management and workers,teachers and parents, and caregivers and patients. By contrast, in the KET (panelb, right), there is knowledge exchange between a team consisting of contributorsfrom multiple organisations, all meeting with multiple stakeholder groups in each ofseveral locations. The KET encompasses multi-scale knowledge exchange insofar asthere are ‘train stops’ at different locations, and each train stop can involve multiplestakeholder groups, whether through multiple knowledge exchange events at thatlocation or joint inclusion of different stakeholders in a single event.

We assert that the KET’s emphasis on scale helps to address issues of knowledgeinequality. The array of organisations that contribute makes it harder for any oneperspective to prevail; the many geographic locations reduces the spatial concentra-tion of knowledge, and the broad array of stakeholders hampers the ability ofhegemonic groups to dominate proceedings. While the KET does not guarantee thatall stakeholders will participate or that powerful groups will not be able to providehegemonic narratives, the KET opens many spaces for dialogue and sharing ofknowledge funds.

In addition, we argue that the KET model permits faster responses to rapidchange. Large-scale dissemination of new information about change is key to theKET, particularly if change is still unfolding and has not yet reached all cornersof the region in question. Of course, even the KET is limited by the fact thatpost-knowledge exchange activities require downstream knowledge acquisitionby stakeholders as change continues. The ideal of the KET, as with knowledgeexchange in general, is to empower participants not only with the know-ledge they need to pursue their goals, but also the means to continue knowledgeacquisition.

At the same time, it is also important to recognise the significance of knowledgeexchange, especially in the KET, as a means of forming strategic partnerships fordownstream activities. Because knowledge exchange involves two-way disseminationof knowledge, it includes the discussion of stakeholder problems and needs, whichhelps to identify shared priorities for partnerships to support downstream action.Empowerment via knowledge exchange, combined with partnering to supportcollaborative action, permits broader public participation in planning. Because theKET model calls for knowledge exchange activities among many localities,knowledge exchange can be scaled for regional planning.

The KET model itself is new and the large scale of knowledge exchange activitiesin the KET present certain liabilities. Scaling up in the KET model complicates thelogistics and the costs of knowledge exchange. This in turn places a premium onefficient collaboration among contributing organisations and careful co-ordinationwith local partners. Large-scale knowledge exchange thus imposes demands tooptimise in terms of both quantity and quality of impact. Whereas theKET permits scaling up in terms of the quantity of information sources andparticipating stakeholders, it is challenging to ensure quality sharing of knowledgeand dialogue to identify opportunities for collaborative activities and participationin planning.

4. Case study: the southwestern Amazon

We discuss experiences with the KET model in the context of knowledge inequalitiesand rapid change by taking up the case of the southwestern Amazon (Figure 2,

7

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 389

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

central map). Specifically, we focus on the tri-national ‘MAP’ frontier, named afterMadre de Dios (Peru), Acre (Brazil) and Pando (Bolivia). The MAP frontier isamong the most biodiverse regions in the world (Myers et al. 2000). MAP alsoexhibits considerable social diversity via an array of highly unequal interest groups,including indigenous peoples, forest extractivists, small-scale agriculturalists,large-scale ranchers, gold miners, oil companies and growing urban populations(Brown et al. 2002, Mendoza et al. 2007b).

The MAP frontier is also experiencing rapid and large-scale changes, notably dueto infrastructure projects and disasters linked to climate change. New infrastructurestems from the Initiative for Integration of Regional Infrastructure in SouthAmerica (IIRSA), which prioritises ‘axes of integration’ across national borders tofoster increased international trade (CEPEI 2002, IIRSA 2008). Meetings amongnational governments and multilateral banks led to the formulation of some 350infrastructure projects at a total cost of approximately $38 billion (Killeen 2007,IIRSA 2008). One of the first projects was the paving of the Inter-Oceanic Highway(called BR-317 in Brazil) through the ‘Peru-Brazil’ axis in the MAP frontier. TheInter-Oceanic Highway connects the interior of South America to both Atlanticports in southern Brazil as well as to Pacific ports in Peru.

Large-scale infrastructure projects yield manifold impacts, including in thesouthwestern Amazon (Dourojeanni et al. 2010, Perz et al. 2010b). While economistshave emphasised that new infrastructure accelerates economic growth and reducespoverty (Bourguignon and Pleskovic 2008, Straub 2008), ecologists have catalogueda litany of negative environmental outcomes stemming from habitat fragmentationand watershed degradation (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Forman et al. 2003), andsocial scientists have highlighted the unequal benefits of infrastructure amongstakeholders (Mahapa and Mahiri 2001, Shriar 2009).

Figure 2. The MAP Frontier in the Southwestern Amazon, with routes and stops ofknowledge exchange trains I, II and III.

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.390

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Further, infrastructure planning often occurs without adequate consultationswith stakeholders (Robinson 2001). Local participation in infrastructure planning isoften limited to knowledge transfer. Groups with more limited access to outsidesources of knowledge face disadvantages compared to outsiders and politicallypowerful groups. The lack of participation in infrastructure planning thus oftenreinforces pre-existing inequalities.

Beyond infrastructure, climate change is impacting the Amazon (Malhi et al.2008). Climate change implies the onset of climatic variability. In knowledgeexchange workshops in 2010 (not part of a KET), forest extractivists andindigenous leaders in the MAP frontier reported the following changes whencompared to a decade ago: rain events more intense, droughts more intense, windevents more intense, and greater seasonal variability (Mendoza et al. 2012). Theseexperiences are confirmed by scientific studies. The Amazon experienced significantdrought events in 2005, 2010 and 2011 (Marengo et al. 2008, Lewis et al. 2011),something that regional climate models indicate will become more common andmore extreme in the twenty-first century (Marengo et al. 2008). The drought of2005 resulted in a net loss of carbon from forests in southwestern Amazonia(Phillips et al. 2009), and the 2010 drought was more severe and widespread (Lewiset al. 2011). During the same period, the southwestern Amazon experienced majorfloods in 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The floods in 2006 and 2012immediately followed droughts.

Such events constitute climate-induced disasters and provide high-profileevidence of climate change in the form of significant economic and ecologicaldamage. The 2005 and 2010 droughts created conditions for widespread fires in theMAP frontier. In 2005, over 400,000 ha of mature forests were affected (CotsTorrelles et al. 2007, Pantoja and Brown 2009). The 2005 fires caused an estimated$100 million in property damage (Santos 2006). Associated droughts also reducedagricultural productivity and rural incomes. Flood events also have significanteconomic ramifications for regional populations. In the city of Rio Branco (thecapital of Acre), each of the four flood events between 2006 and 2011 cost around$10 million (Major G. Santos, personal communication, 2010); the 2012 flood waseven more severe.

There is growing concern that planning mechanisms should prepare for climatechange (Davoudi et al. 2009, Quay 2010). Disaster preparedness becomestantamount to societal adaptation to climate change (Kapucu 2008), includingbottom-up approaches for more vulnerable groups such as rural peoples and thepoor, via community-based disaster preparedness (Allen 2006). In the context ofclimate change, it is crucial to reduce knowledge inequalities and scale up capacitybuilding to improve disaster preparedness.

Topics such as infrastructure and climate change are shared concerns amongstakeholders in the MAP frontier. Such concerns prompted cross-border discussionsamong local governments and stakeholders. Consultations grew into the MAPInitiative, a tri-national grassroots forum for dialogues regarding environmentalconservation, economic development, social equity and public policies (van Oosten2004, Rioja 2005, Iniciativa MAP 2008). The MAP Initiative organised public eventsto network and thereby support participatory regional planning in the MAP frontier.Central to the spirit of MAP forums were commitments to the Right to Know as thebasis for the Right to Participate. Attendance at tri-national MAP forums grew fromapproximately 200 in 2002 to approximately 800 during 2006–2009, a reflection of

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 391

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

popular demand for access to knowledge and opportunities for exchange aboutshared concerns. Whereas the initial impetus centred on the prospective impacts ofthe Inter-Oceanic Highway, more recent climate-induced disasters and the overallgrowth of the MAP Initiative have stimulated a diversification of the topics beingaddressed. This diversification became manifest in the formation of ‘mini-MAP’working groups focusing on specific issues, including infrastructure, climate change,regional planning, civil defence and others. Mini-MAP working groups meet toengage in concrete activities tied to their topic of focus.

The MAP Initiative gave voice to growing demands by governments and civilsociety for accelerated knowledge exchange as a key input into participatory regionalplanning (Mendoza et al. 2007a, 2007b). However, demand for knowledge exchangeat MAP forums encountered significant logistical challenges. In particular, manycommunities could only afford to send a single leader to attend MAP forums, oftenat considerable expense. This greatly hampered participation and for a time led totensions between MAP Initiative organisers and rural communities and localassociations. It also resulted in the persistence of inequalities in funds of knowledge.This was especially problematic given that regional governments and universitieswere conducting research and generating information relevant to regional planningin the MAP frontier.

In that context, MAP Initiative organisers created other platforms for knowledgeexchange. The ‘Mini-MAP Roads’ working group began to organise workshops withstakeholder groups with regard to the impacts of paving the Inter-Oceanic Highwayas a step toward municipal planning to mitigate negative road impacts (Mendozaet al. 2007b). This served as a stepping-stone towards the KET model. Whereasmunicipal workshops focused on the problems of individual localities, the KETemerged as a means to address the regional problem of unequal knowledge in thecontext of rapid and large-scale change. Rather than expect unequal stakeholders toequally have the means to participate in tri-national forums, the KET permittedresearchers from various organisations to take new information to stakeholders fortwo-way dissemination of knowledge.

5. The knowledge exchange train in practice: three experiences compared

We report KET experiences in the southwestern Amazon. We have three objectivesin this section. First, we describe the practices involved in implementation of theKET model. To that end, we outline three KET experiences. Second, we reviewadjustments in the KET model, especially from KET I to KET II. This involves acomparative analysis of logistical elements of the two KETs to show how we madeimprovements in quality of knowledge exchange without sacrificing quantity. Third,we relate the KET model to participatory regional planning via a discussion of howKET II led to KET III and especially how KET III catalysed follow-up activities.Here we underscore the instrumental role of KETs in forming new partnerships asthe basis for downstream activities involving environmental planning andmanagement.

KET I grew out of Mini-MAP Roads and their municipal planning workshops(Mendoza et al. 2007b). As shown in Figure 2 (inset map, lower right), KET Ioccurred in May 2006 and involved travel via bus and boat by a group of researchersacross the three sides of the MAP frontier (Mendoza et al. 2007a). We visited localtowns and rural communities, and held dialogues with various participant

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.392

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

constituencies ranging from elementary school children to teachers, parents,university students, business people, landowners, community leaders and others.KET I stops involved workshops in which contributors gave multi-media lectureswith computer projectors followed by dialogues with participants, supplemented byposters left with local partner organisations. More details on KET I appear inMendoza et al. (2007a).

KET I yielded several positive outcomes (Mendoza et al. 2007a). KET Iaccelerated cross-border exchanges in the MAP frontier concerning road paving.Participants also used KET I materials to pursue their own goals. In one town,participating teachers organised a ‘mini-train’ by sharing posters with other localschools. Another partner used KET I materials to inform political debate in the nextround of local elections. KET I also provided a forum for discussion of ways toimprove co-ordination of civil defence responses to climate-induced disasters in thewake of the 2005 drought and the 2006 flood.

KET I also revealed notable shortcomings in the model (Mendoza et al. 2007a).A general challenge of the KET model is that it requires full-time commitments forapproximately two weeks, which is especially difficult for organisational representa-tives. A more specific difficulty in KET I was that we offered too many presentations,which were too long, on too many different topics. This left too little time fordiscussion and thus hampered knowledge exchange between contributors andparticipants.

KET I taught several useful lessons to contributors (Mendoza et al. 2007a).First, local institutional support is crucial. KET I relied heavily on the MAPInitiative’s network of local partners for logistical support and identification oftrain stops. The MAP network was also crucial given the large scale of the KET I,which covered locations in three countries and involved travel over more than 1000km, including on rivers. Second, it is essential to send itineraries andannouncements well ahead of time. This was not only important as a basiccourtesy, but was also necessary in order to leave time for local partners toadequately disseminate announcements. Third, it is important to standardise theformat of presentations and posters. Each KET I presentation began with a focalproblem or opportunity, provided recent scientific findings to address that issue,and offered scientific conclusions as a basis for making concrete recommendations.Fourth, time must be used efficiently in KET workshops. In KET I, workshops ranall day, which is exhausting for contributors and often too demanding forparticipants. KET I also left little time between workshops for contributors to restor revise their presentations.

For KET II, held in June 2010, we therefore made a number of adjustments inthe model. KET II was better funded and made possible by USAID support to aconsortium of organisations working in Acre, Brazil. KET II ran along the BR-364highway which crosses Acre (Figure 2, inset map, upper right). We retained the basicKET model of multiple train stops for workshops with presentations and dialoguesupplemented by posters left with local partners. As a result of lessons learned fromKET I, logistical adjustments to KET II led to several improvements.

Table 1 outlines the elements of the KET model that we adjusted by comparingseveral characteristics of KET I and KET II. First, we modified the criteria forselecting sites for train stops. In KET I, we focused on a pre-defined geographic area,the MAP frontier, and selected sites on the basis of community size to maximiseparticipation. In KET II, the geographic area was not as well defined and we lacked

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 393

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

a pre-established network of partners. We therefore considered KET II sites viainitial contacts with local organisations, and selected sites where potential partnersnot only responded positively to our inquiries but also made requests to which wewere well positioned to respond. KET II site selection thus provided a mechanismfor identification of prospective partners for environmental planning and manage-ment activities.

A second adjustment was to reduce the number of presentations whilemaintaining organisational diversity. We reduced the number of presenters froman average of 14 at a given workshop in KET I (some contributors were unable totravel the entire two weeks) to an average of eight in KET II. The number oforganisations similarly declined (from 11 to six), but the diversity of organisationaltypes rose because we added technical personnel from governmental organisations.Whereas KET I was dominated by university personnel, KET II had a better balanceof personnel from universities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) andgovernmental agencies. This provided new opportunities for dialogues amongcontributors as well as with participants, and a stronger link from knowledgeexchange to regional planning. While the inclusion of governmental personnel mighthamper knowledge exchange with less powerful groups, it should be noted that it

Table 1. Comparison of knowledge exchange trains I, II and III.

Design element KET I (2006) KET II (2010) KET III (2011)

Site Selection criteria Geographicdispersal,coverage

Strength of local ties,requests from localleaders

Co-operativeagreement withlocal organisation

Number of presenters Average 14 Average 8 Average 10Number of

organisationsrepresented

11 6 7

Types oforganisationsrepresented

Universities,NGOs

Universities, NGOs,governmentalorganisations

Universities, NGOs,governmentalorganisations,local stakeholderorganisations,communityassociations

Topical range ofpresentations

Very broad; lowcoherence

Narrower; greatercoherence

Narrower; greatercoherence

Duration ofpresentations

*20 minutes *15 minutes 10–15 minutes

Time for dialogue 20–30% ofworkshop time

40–50% of workshoptime

50 þ % of workshoptime

Total time ofworkshops

6–8 hours 4–6 hours 4–6 hours

KET days 14 13 11Workshop days/rest

days10/4 7/6 4/7

Participants 500þ 450þ 400þDiscussion of

concrete ‘nextsteps’

Rare and ad hoc Common; follow-upactivities plannedduring workshops

By design; follow-upactivities plannedduring workshops

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.394

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

was stakeholder participants who requested more direct engagement with govern-ment via the KET. Further, we focused on including government technical staff withexperience in community outreach and focusing on topics valued by communities,such as territorial planning, as criteria for inclusion in KETs. Our experience hasbeen that the participation of such governmental technical staff provides a valuedoutlet for participants to learn about government programmes and also to expresstheir concerns and needs and thereby improve their engagement with publicinstitutions.

Third, we improved the coherence of topics among the presentations. In KET I,topics ranged widely from the presentation of research results to preliminaryproposals for research, and some topics were not clearly related to concerns ofparticipants. In KET II, we drew on the logical framework of the USAIDconsortium to organise our topics. This in turn responded more directly to civilsociety demands for knowledge on specific topics, notably climate change as relatedto climate-induced disasters. We therefore presented on problems we knew to havesynergies, including large-scale infrastructure and climate change as joint threats toforests and watersheds. This tied different presentations together, especially thoseoutlining problems and those suggesting avenues for responses, to which we gavemore attention in KET II. We underscored the consortium’s participatory approachto environmental planning and management; this provided the basis to highlightinstances where the consortium was supporting governmental initiatives to addressenvironmental problems via participatory planning.

Fourth, we improved on time management in the KET model by reducing theduration of each presentation. In KET I, presentations ran for approximately 20minutes; we decreased this to 15 minutes in KET II. This adjustment, along withthe reduced number of presentations, shortened the total time of workshops whileopening up more time for dialogue. In KET I, workshops ran for 6–8 hoursincluding a lunch break, which was too long for some participants, who often didnot return after lunch. KET II workshops only ran 4–6 hours and included an on-site meal, which made full attendance more worthwhile, especially for ruralcommunities. At the same time, the time for dialogue rose from 20–30%(approximately 1.75 hours) in KET I to 40–50% (approximately 2.25 hours) inKET II. In this sense, the quality of exchanges for participants improved fromKET I to KET II.

In addition (fifth), we improved KET quality for contributors. Our experience inKET I indicated that contributors do better after a rest/travel day. Therefore, it isimportant to have an approximately equal number of workshop and rest/travel daysin order for contributors to reflect and improve their presentations. Whereas bothKETs ran for approximately two weeks, KET I had a much higher ratio ofworkshop to rest/travel days than KET II.

Finally (sixth), we adjusted the KET model by allocating time at the end of KETII workshops to discuss concrete next steps. A concern among contributors andparticipants in the KET model is the linkage of knowledge exchange to planning andmanagement activities. In KET I, discussion of next steps was rare and largelyad hoc. Follow-up initiatives were generally led by participants, which showsparticipant engagement, but fails to constitute a systematic approach or match theregional scale of KET. In KET II, each workshop concluded with discussions toidentify as well as schedule concrete downstream activities as part of the USAIDconsortium’s programme.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Among the downstream activities was KET III, held in 2011, one year after KETII. We focus our comparison of KET II and KET III in terms of environmentalplanning and management activities resulting from the KET experience. In KET II,we made the strategic decision to focus on western Acre rather than returning to thevarious corners of the MAP region. This was because the BR-364 highway was notyet entirely paved across Acre. Our logic was to bring the experiences of paving theInter-Oceanic Highway and other large-scale changes from the MAP frontier to anadjacent area. This provided a strategic opportunity to use KET II as the basis forestablishing new partnerships for environmental planning and management in anarea before road paving was completed. We thus sought to build on networkingexperiences in the MAP frontier by using the KET II as the basis to initiate dialogueswith new partners and thereby constitute new partnerships for participatoryplanning.

Stakeholders in one of the municipalities where we stopped during KET IIengaged us on multiple topics that yielded several proposed follow-on activities. Thelocal rural workers union signed a co-operative agreement with the lead organisationthat co-ordinated KET II to formalise downstream collaboration. This led to KETIII, which occurred on the Envira River in Acre (Figure 2, inset map, left), awatershed with numerous communities (including indigenous peoples), nearly all ofwhom lack definitive land titles, and who were facing the prospects of paving BR-364and possible land invasions along with extreme climatic events affecting the riveritself.

KET III thus involved an 11-day boat trip on the Envira River. Table 1 presentsinformation on the characteristics of KET III to permit comparisons with KETs Iand II. Knowledge exchange workshops occurred in each of four sites along theriver. At each workshop site, members of multiple communities along the riverparticipated. Given the co-operative agreement, the composition of the KET teamwas modified to include local people as well as researchers from universities, NGOsand governmental organisations. This further diversified the team, and local unionleaders and community representatives moderated the workshops. The team slightlyincreased the number of presentations, but they still focused on themes such asinfrastructure and climate, and we improved the communicability of presentationsby shortening them to less than 15 minutes and making use of local materials forillustrations (instead of computer images projected on walls). We also designedparallel activities, notably several aimed at children, to encourage families toparticipate and to engage multiple age groups.

During the presentations we encouraged more dialogue by beginning withquestions to participants about the presentation topic. This provided participantswith the opportunity to express their interests, concerns and needs. While all KETspermitted an exchange between scientific and local knowledge, posing questions atthe outset in KET III greatly expanded this dialogue. Rather than allowing scienceto dominate, questions from contributors prompted participants to begin thediscussion by sharing their experiences, thus allowing local knowledge to lead. Thepresentations then outlined relevant scientific knowledge as a complement to this.For the cases of both infrastructure and climate change, we found that science andlocal experience coincided. This was very validating for local peoples, and motivateddiscussions of how communities could better organise and respond. Contributorstherefore concluded their presentations by noting challenges in responding to newinfrastructure and climate-induced disasters, and posing questions about community

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.396

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

preparedness for those challenges. This design provided a systematic basis fordialogues about downstream planning and management activities with communities.

Such dialogues involved discussions about how the KET III team could supportcommunity responses with knowledge shared via the KET experience to pursueenvironmental planning and management activities. One prominent exampleconcerned a presentation on the use of legumes to recuperate degraded pastures asa means of avoiding deforestation while improving land productivity and raisingfarmers’ income. Participating farmers in KET III were dubious, so we and ourpartners from the local union and community associations organised follow-upvisits of local producers to farmers using the legume system (Souza and AraujoNeto 2011). Our local partners consulted with their members and by democraticprocess selected representative farmers to visit counterpart farmers using thelegume system in another part of Acre. That is, knowledge exchanges in onelocation permitted by a KET in turn made possible knowledge exchanges amongparticipants in another location, as shown in Figure 3. In this sense, KETs not onlypermit scaling up of participation via multiple stops along a route, they also permitfollow-up exchanges in other locations with other stakeholder groups. In the caseof the legume system, the resulting knowledge exchange between farmers broughtnew knowledge about soil management back to the communities along the EnviraRiver. This management activity was viewed as a success by participants, who havesince begun to implement the legume system (Souza and Araujo Neto 2011). KETIII also led to further collaboration with local organisations for municipal planningactivities, partly as a result of our inclusion of government technical staffspecialising in territorial planning. Community associations, the local union andthe municipal government have begun a planning process using knowledge sharedvia KET III to mitigate the impacts of road paving and climate change. The processhas just begun, with a focus on urban growth management and water supplymanagement. While the concrete outcomes of the planning process remain to beseen, this shows how KETs can foster collaboration for environmental manage-ment and planning.

Figure 3. Knowledge exchange at different stops along a route can generate additionalexchanges and other follow-up activities. Here, two knowledge exchanges each yield groupsinterested in having a third exchange, as in the case of producers with and without legumesystems for soil recuperation.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

6. Conclusions and discussion

The KET model permits scaling up of knowledge exchange, which is especiallyimportant in contexts with knowledge inequality and rapid, large-scale changes. Inthe southwestern Amazon, the KET has permitted large-scale knowledge exchangeas two-way dissemination of knowledge between scientists and local peoples in orderto maximise shared knowledge and thereby reduce knowledge inequalities. In turn,this provides a basis for partnering to support participatory environmental planningand management.

In our experience, knowledge exchange among scientists and local peoplesreveals complementarities in knowledge funds and motivates collaborative action.Scientists are in a good position to convey knowledge regarding (1) linkagesbetween processes of global and local change; (2) experiences of similar changeprocesses in other places; (3) models to prepare for oncoming changes, includingknowledge that makes participation in planning easier and more effective; (4) theimportance of current decisions for the future, on multiple timescales, particularlyacross generations; and (5) approaches to complex problems by seeking to capturethe benefits of change while avoiding the costs. This is because contributors havegreater access to global information networks, especially technical information inscientific publications.

Participants in KET workshops have their own knowledge funds that offercomplementary information. In our KETs, participants have proven especially well-poised to share knowledge about (1) firsthand experience of local changes; (2) long-standing as well as emergent local problems and priorities; (3) local institutions foraddressing problems, including information on institutional limitations and howinstitutions can be supported; and (4) local-level comparisons of changes, problemsand institutions, which facilitates knowledge exchange among different stakeholderconstituencies. Another key contribution of local participants becomes possible inthat KET contributors also happen to be governmental technical personnel: (5)participants convey their experiences directly to governmental organisations, whichbroadens knowledge exchange and permits direct engagement with government.

Our adjustments in KET workshops have fostered true exchanges, such asbetween science and local knowledge, which in turn provide a basis for participationin planning. The KET stands to transform relationships among contributors,partners and participants. This requires flexibility in presentations by contributors,engagement by participants and representatives, and openness concerning the meansto pursue the goals of partners. To the extent that all involved recognise thatknowledge empowers, knowledge exchange provides a basis for co-ordinated action.Further, insofar as a KET includes multiple stakeholder constituencies andgovernmental organisations, it provides a basis for participatory planning andmanagement.

A tension in KET concerns the need to focus on knowledge exchange itself whilealso recognising that knowledge permits downstream collective action such asplanning. Whereas the KET resulted from demand for information, the source ofdemand in the first place was information for participatory planning. Whereas therequirements and processes of knowledge exchange are well understood, moreattention needs to be given to the mechanisms by which knowledge exchangebroadens participation in planning and management activities. Here it is importantto recognise that knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for participation. Planningand management require multiple inputs, not only the combination of scientific and

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.398

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

local knowledge, but also social mobilisation to demand collaboration withgovernmental organisations for participation in policy formulation. Knowledgeexchange facilitates both. We have come to emphasise dialogue as the basis forpartnering, both between contributors and participants as well as participants andgovernmental organisations. Whereas KET I placed greater emphasis on knowledgeexchange itself, the partnerships strengthened there led to greater emphasis onlinkages from knowledge exchange to partnering in KET II and from partnering toplanning and management activities in KET III.

However, this begs questions about the role of KET contributors inenvironmental planning and management. Based on the MAP Initiative, theUSAID-funded consortium working in Acre has articulated a process model toequip stakeholder constituencies to participate in environmental planning andmanagement. The consortium itself focuses on research and capacity-buildingactivities, of which the KET model is a key component. In turn, such activities serveas inputs in local and regional planning processes, for outcomes includingenvironmental management plans (such as for watersheds), municipal developmentplans (such as to mitigate the negative impacts of road paving), and emergencyresponse plans (in the event of climate-induced disasters). In each case, knowledgeexchange involves dissemination of information about change processes as well aslocal partnering, and the USAID-funded consortium links the two, so thatcommunities and governmental organisations can define appropriate plans tomanage environmental change. KET contributors thus play dual roles, as knowledgedisseminators who reduce knowledge inequalities, and network brokers who forgepartnerships for planning and management activities (Manring 2007). Thedisseminator and broker roles of KET contributors become fused during planningand management activities, as KET contributors provide technical support tocollaborating communities, governmental organisations and other stakeholders.

Even given the KET’s assets for dissemination and partnering, the model can befurther improved. One issue that requires further attention is evaluation. Previousknowledge exchange literature pays particular attention to measuring the impacts(Hanberger and Schild 2004, Mercier et al. 2004, Mitton et al. 2007). However, theviability of evaluation methods varies by context. In a developing region, highlystructured before/after evaluations, especially if written, can be frightening to semi-literate participants. In the context of KET, structured evaluations are onerous forcontributors and miss the bigger picture of whether KET is adequately addressinglarge-scale change. One qualitative measure of the KET’s success in light ofregional planning is the formation of strategic partnerships; another involvescommunity-based initiatives born of KET events; a third involves the deploymentof knowledge disseminated via the KET for improved environmental management,initiation of participatory planning processes, and implementation of new publicpolicies. Such benchmarks carry the advantages of highlighting the link ofknowledge exchange to environmental planning and management, and acknowl-edging the importance of addressing large-scale processes via strategic partnerships,planning and management initiatives, and public policies. However, this comes atthe cost that such measures are relatively rare events that obscure differencesamong participants, organisations and communities. The KET model remainsrelatively new, but its evaluation is a key area for further inquiry in light of large-scale processes and the need for knowledge exchange to support participatoryregional planning.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 399

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this work came from the US Agency for International Development,Cooperative Agreement 512-A-00-08-00003-00. The authors wish to thank the othermembers of KET I (Cesar Aguilar, Gabriel Alarcon, Jacob Carballo, Andrea Chavez, JaimeChavez, Georgina Cullman, Monica de los Rios, Amy Duchelle, Hugo Duenas, ChristianeEhringhaus, Jeff Luzar, Matt Marsik, Julio Mayna, Armando Munante, Vera Reis and Coravan Oosten), KET II (Roberto Tavares, Inglit da Silva Freitas and Andre Tomasi), and KETIII (Adaildes Oliveira Barroso, Andre Tomasi, Antonio Jose de Sousa Tome, AntonioFeitosa de Paiva, Atila de Araujo Magalhaes, Elissandra da Silva Monte, Jose Neri SouzaVaz, Jose Andreilson dos Santos de Moura, Joventina Claro da S. Nakamura, Ihuelitomardos Santos de Moura, Iracema Elisabeth de Souza Moll, Maria dos Santos de Moura, RosaMaria de Sousa da Silva, and Antonio Sergioni Freitas de Paiva). Any errors are theresponsibility of the authors.

References

Allan, J., et al., 2010. Knowledge exchange with Sistema Scotland. Journal of education policy,25 (3), 335–347.

Allen, K., 2006. Community-based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: localcapacity-building in the Philippines. Disasters, 30 (1), 81–101.

Bienecke, R.H., et al., 2009. The International Initiative for Mental Health Leadership(IIMHL): a model for global knowledge exchange. International journal of mental health,38 (1), 3–13.

Boreux, V., Born, J., and Lawes, M.J., 2009. Sharing ecological knowledge: opportunities andbarriers to uptake. Biotropica, 41(5), 532–534.

Born, J., Boreux, J., and Lawes, M.J., 2009. Synthesis: sharing ecological knowledge – the wayforward. Biotropica, 41(5), 586–588.

Bourguignon, F. and Pleskovic, B., 2008. Rethinking infrastructure for development.Washington DC: World Bank.

Brown, I.F., et al., 2002. Estrada de Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil aos portos do Pacıfico: comomaximizar os benefıcios e minimizar os prejuızos para o desenvolvimento sustentable daAmazonia sul-ocidental. In: CEPEI, La Integracion Regional Entre Bolivia, Brasil y Peru.Lima: CEPEI, 281–296.

CEPEI (Centro Peruano de Estudios Internacionales), 2002. La Integracion Regional EntreBolivia, Brasil y Peru. Lima: CEPEI.

Cots Torrelles, R., Pons, E.C., and Brown, I.F., 2007. Analisis de la superficie afectada porfuego en el departamento de Pando el ano 2005 a partir de la clasificacion de imagenes desatelite CBERS. Anais XIII do Simposio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, 835–842.

Davoudi, S., Crawford, J., and Mehmood, A., eds., 2009. Planning for climate change:strategies for mitigation and adaptation for spatial planners. London: Earthscan.

De Souza, K.C., 2003. Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. Communications of the ACM, 46(6), 85–88.

Dourojeanni, M.J., Barandiaran, A., and Dourojeanni, D., 2010. Amazonıa Peruana en 2021.Lima: SPDA.

Edmunds, D. and Wollenberg, E., 2001. A strategic approach to multi-stakeholdernegotiations. Development and change, 32, 231–253.

Feiler, A., et al., 2006. Getting engaged: possibilities and problems for home-school knowledgeexchange. Educational review, 58 (4), 451–469.

Feiler, A., et al., 2008. The home school knowledge exchange project: linking home and schoolto improve children’s literacy. Support for learning, 23 (1), 12–18.

Forester, J., 1999. The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Forman, R.T.T., et al., 2003. Road ecology: science and solutions. Washington DC: IslandPress.

Gutierrez, N., 2004. Feminism in the city: diverse cultural exchanges of feminist knowledge ina New York city high school. Journal of intercultural studies, 25 (1), 47–57.

Hanberger, A. and Schild, I., 2004. Strategies to evaluate a university-industry knowledgeexchange program. Evaluation, 10 (4), 475–492.

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.400

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Hughes, M. and Greenhough, P., 2006. Boxes, bags and videotape: enhancing home-schoolcommunication through knowledge exchange activities. Educational review, 58 (4), 471–487.

Hughes, M. and Pollard, A., 2006. Home-school knowledge exchange in context. Educationalreview, 58 (4), 385–395.

IIRSA (Iniciativa para la Integracion del a Infraestructura Regional de America del Sur),2008. [online] Available from: www.iirsa.org [Accessed 20 January 2008].

Iniciativa MAP, 2008. [online] Available from: www.map-amazonia.net [Accessed 20January 2008].

Kagan, A., et al., 2010. Closing the evidence, research and practice loop: examples of know-ledge transfer and exchange from the field of aphasia. Aphasiology, 24 (4), 535–548.

Kainer, K.A., DiGiano, M.L., Duchelle, A.E., Wadt, L.O., Bruna, E., and Dain, J.L., 2009.Partnering for greater success: local stakeholders and research in tropical biology andconservation. Biotropica, 41(5), 555–562.

Kapucu, N., 2008. Collaborative emergency management: better community organising,better public preparedness and response. Disasters, 32 (2), 239–262.

Killeen, T.J., 2007. A perfect storm in the Amazon wilderness: development and conservation inthe context of the initiative for the integration of regional infrastructure of SouthAmerica.Arlington, VA: Conservation International.

Lewis, S.L., et al., 2011. The 2010 Amazon drought. Science, 331, 554–554.Mahapa, S.M. and Mashiri, S., 2001. Social exclusion and rural transport: gender aspects of a

road improvement project in Tshitwe, Northern Province. Development Southern Africa,18, 365–376.

Malhi, Y., Betts, R., and Roberts, T., eds., 2008. Climate change and the fate of the Amazon.Themed Issue. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B 363, 1725–1932.

Manring, S.L., 2007. Creating and managing inter-organizational learning networks toachieve sustainable ecosystem management. Organization and environment, 20, 325–346.

Marengo, J.A., et al., 2008. The drought of Amazonia in 2005. Journal of climate, 21 (3), 495–516.

Mendoza, E., et al., 2007a. The knowledge exchange train: a model for capacity building forparticipatory governance. Development in practice, 17 (6), 791–799.

Mendoza, E., et al., 2007b. Participatory stakeholder workshops to mitigate impacts of roadpaving in the southwestern Amazon. Conservation and society, 5 (3), 382–407.

Mendoza, E.R.H., et al., 2012. Hypothesis generation of climate perturbation impacts for theMAP Region in southwestern Amazonia: the role of courses for forest dwellers.Unpublished manuscript.

Mercier, C., et al., 2004. Conditions facilitating knowledge exchange between rehabilitationand research teams – a study. Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 28 (1), 55–62.

Mitton, C., et al., 2007. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of theliterature. Milbank quarterly, 85 (4), 729–768.

Murray, J., Tshabangu, B., and Erlank, N., 2010. Enhancing participatory governance andfostering active citizenship: an overview of local and international best practices. Politikon,37 (1), 45–66.

Murray, M., and Greer, J., 2002. Participatory planning as dialogue: the Northern IrelandRegional Strategic Framework and its public examination process. Policy studies, 23 (3/4),191–209.

Myers, N., et al., 2000. Biodiversity hotpots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.Nelson, D.R., Folhes, M.T., and Finan, T.J., 2009. Mapping the road to development: a

methodology for scaling up participation in policy processes. Development in practice, 19(3), 386–395.

Noble, B., 2007. Justice, transaction, translation: Blackfoot Tipi transfers and WIPO’s searchfor the facts of traditional knowledge. American anthropologist, 109 (2), 338–349.

Pantoja, N.V, and Brown, I.F., 2009. Estimativas de areas afetadas pelo fogo no leste do Acreassociadas a seca de 2005. Anais XIV Simposio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, 6029–6036.

Perz, S.G., et al., 2010a. Crossing boundaries for environmental science and management:combining interdisciplinary, inter-organizational and international collaboration. Envir-onmental conservation, 47 (4), 419–431.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 401

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Perz, S.G., et al., 2010b. Global economic integration and local community resilience: newinfrastructure projects and demographic change in the southwestern Amazon. Ruralsociology, 75, 300–325.

Phillips, O.L., et al., 2009. Drought sensitivity of the Amazon rainforest. Science, 323, 1344–1347.

Quay, R., 2010. Anticipatory governance: a tool for climate change adaptation. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, 76 (4), 496–511.

Rassool, N., Edwards, V., and Bloch, C., 2006. Language and development in multilingualsettings: a case study of knowledge exchange and teacher education in South Africa.Review of education, 52, 533–552.

Rioja, G., 2005. Antropologıa de frontera: investigacion accion en la region trinacional MAP.Revista de antropologıa Iberoamericana, 43, 1–15.

Robinson, R., 2001. Decentralization of road administration: case studies in Africa and Asia.Public administration and development, 21, 53–64.

Santos, G.P., 2006. Incendios florestais e enchentes lentas e graduais: os impactos dosdesastres naturais no vale do Acre. Undergraduate thesis. Economics Department,Federal University of Acre, Rio Branco, Brazil.

Shackleton, C.M., Cundil, G., and Knight, A.T., 2009. Experiences from southern Africa indeveloping social learning partnerships for resource conservation initiatives. Biotropica,41(5), 563–570.

Shanley, P., 2006. Science for the poor: how one woman challenged researchers, ranchers andloggers in Amazonia. Ecology and society, 11 (2), article 28. [online] Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art28/ [Accessed 4 January 2011].

Shanley, P., and Lopez, C., 2009. Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy makersand the public and what can be done. Biotropica, 41(5), 535–544.

Shanley, P. and Rodriguez Gaia, G., 2002. Equitable ecology: collaborative learning for localbenefit in Amazonia. Agricultural systems, 73, 83–97.

Shriar, A.J., 2009. Roads to poverty: exploring the impacts of economic integration onsocioeconomic conditions and land use in northern Guatemala. Journal of planningeducation and research, 28, 456–469.

Silva, S.S., and Araujo Neto, S.E., 2011. Pesquisa-acao na conversao de pastagem em rocadona agricultura familiar amazonica. Cadernos de Ciencia & Tecnologia, 28(2), 509–529.

St. Cyr-Tribble, D., et al., 2008. Empowerment interventions, knowledge translation andexchange: perspectives of home care professionals, clients and caregivers. BMC healthservices central, 8, 177.

Straub, S., 2008. Infrastructure and growth in developing countries: recent advances and researchchallenges. Washington DC: World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 4460.

Sunderland, T., Sunderland-Groves, J., Shanley, P. and Campbell, B., 2009. Bridging the gap:how can information access and exchange between conservation biologists and fieldpractitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes? Biotropica, 41(5), 549–554.

Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrialand aquatic communities. Conservation biology, 14 (1), 18–30.

van Oosten, C., 2004. Fading frontiers? Local development and cross-border partnerships inSouthwest Amazonia. Utrecht, The Netherlands: University of Utrecht.

Wollenberg, E., et al., 2007. Facilitating cooperation during times of chaos: spontaneousorders and muddling through in Malinau District, Indonesia. Ecology and society 12,article 3. [online] Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art3/[Accessed 9 December 2009].

E.R.H. Mendoza et al.402

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 1

8:00

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14