Using participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management

The use of participatory tools and methods has increased dramatically in natural resource management (NRM) over the past decade, largely because of the recognition that sustainable NRM cannot be achieved without involving the individuals and communities who make decisions about how resources are used. Participation of resource users and other stakeholders is important not only in the management of resources, but also in research oriented toward the generation of information and innovations that shape how resources are understood and exploited. Although there is extensive literature on participatory tools and methods and a growing number of case studies of their use in NRM (Hinchcliffe et al; IDRC; Pretty), it is difficult to form a coherent overview of this body of work, much of which is unpublished. Moreover, the distinction between participatory research and participatory management is seldom made, either in case studies or in the guides to tools and methods. Yet participatory management that is not firmly linked to research—understood as a process of knowledge generation that supports technical and institutional innovation—is often hindered by a lack of new technical options, information and institutions. There has been little systematic analysis of how participatory research (PR) methods and gender/stakeholder analysis (GSA) are being used in NRM research. 1 This study begins to fill the gap by providing a comparative analysis of over 60 participatory NRM research projects compiled by the Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA). The paper looks at who is doing PR research and GSA in NRM, where, how and with what observed or expected impact. Projects are assessed in terms of the type of participation they use, how they select participants, and whom they target as beneficiaries. The costs and benefits associated with incorporating user participation are also analyzed

Reconciling biodiversity conservation and agricultural expansion in the sub-arctic environment of Iceland

Intensified agricultural practices have driven biodiversity loss throughout the world and, although many actions aimed at halting and reversing these declines have been developed, their effectiveness depends greatly on the willingness of stakeholders to take part in conservation management. Knowledge of the willingness and capacity of landowners to engage with conservation can therefore be key to designing successful management strategies in agricultural land. In Iceland, agriculture is currently at relatively low intensity but is very likely to expand in the near future. At the same time, Iceland supports internationally important breeding populations of many ground-nesting birds which could be seriously impacted by further expansion of agricultural activities. To understand the views of Icelandic farmers towards bird conservation, given the current potential for agricultural expansion, 62 farms across Iceland were visited and farmers were interviewed, using a structured questionnaire survey in which respondents indicated a series of future actions. Most farmers intend to increase the area of cultivated land in the near future and, despite considering having rich birdlife on their land to be very important, most also report they are unlikely to specifically consider bird conservation in their management, even if financial compensation were available. However, as no agri-environment schemes are currently in place in Iceland, this concept is highly unfamiliar to Icelandic farmers. Nearly all respondents were unwilling, and thought it would be impossible, to delay harvest, but many were willing to consider sparing important patches of land and/or maintaining existing pools within fields (a key habitat feature for breeding waders). Farmers’ views on the importance of having rich birdlife on their land and their willingness to participate in bird conservation provide a potential platform for the co-design of conservation management with landowners before further substantial changes in the extent of agriculture take place in this sub-arctic landscape

Septoplasty with and without additional sinonasal surgery : postoperative sequelae and the use of prophylactic antibiotics

Purpose One of the most common complications after septoplasty is a postoperative infection. We investigated the number of postoperative infections and unplanned postoperative visits (UPV) in septoplasties with and without additional nasal surgery at our institution and evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis. Methods We collected data of all consecutive 302 septoplasty or septocolumelloplasty patients operated during the year 2018 at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, HUS Helsinki University Hospital (Helsinki, Finland). Hospital charts were reviewed to record sociodemographic patient characteristics and clinical parameters regarding surgery and follow-up. Results Altogether 239 patients (79.1%) received pre- and/or postoperative prophylactic antibiotics and within this group 3.3% developed a postoperative infection. The infection rate in the non-prophylaxis group of 63 patients was 12.7% (p = 0.007). When all patients who received postoperative antibiotics were excluded, we found that the infection rate in the preoperative prophylaxis group was 3.8%, as opposed to an infection rate of 12.7% in the non-prophylaxis group (p = 0.013). When evaluating septoplasty with additional sinonasal surgery (n = 115) the rate of postoperative infection was 3.3% in the prophylaxis group and 16.7% in the non-prophylaxis group (p = 0.034). These results show a statistically significant stand-alone effect of preoperative prophylactic antibiotics in preventing postoperative infection in septoplasty, especially regarding additional sinonasal surgery. Conclusion The use of preoperative antibiotics as a prophylactic measure diminished statistically significantly the rate of infections and UPVs in septoplasty when all postoperative infections, superficial and mild ones included, were taken into account.Peer reviewe

Septoplasty with and without additional sinonasal surgery : postoperative sequelae and the use of prophylactic antibiotics

Purpose One of the most common complications after septoplasty is a postoperative infection. We investigated the number of postoperative infections and unplanned postoperative visits (UPV) in septoplasties with and without additional nasal surgery at our institution and evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis. Methods We collected data of all consecutive 302 septoplasty or septocolumelloplasty patients operated during the year 2018 at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, HUS Helsinki University Hospital (Helsinki, Finland). Hospital charts were reviewed to record sociodemographic patient characteristics and clinical parameters regarding surgery and follow-up. Results Altogether 239 patients (79.1%) received pre- and/or postoperative prophylactic antibiotics and within this group 3.3% developed a postoperative infection. The infection rate in the non-prophylaxis group of 63 patients was 12.7% (p = 0.007). When all patients who received postoperative antibiotics were excluded, we found that the infection rate in the preoperative prophylaxis group was 3.8%, as opposed to an infection rate of 12.7% in the non-prophylaxis group (p = 0.013). When evaluating septoplasty with additional sinonasal surgery (n = 115) the rate of postoperative infection was 3.3% in the prophylaxis group and 16.7% in the non-prophylaxis group (p = 0.034). These results show a statistically significant stand-alone effect of preoperative prophylactic antibiotics in preventing postoperative infection in septoplasty, especially regarding additional sinonasal surgery. Conclusion The use of preoperative antibiotics as a prophylactic measure diminished statistically significantly the rate of infections and UPVs in septoplasty when all postoperative infections, superficial and mild ones included, were taken into account.Peer reviewe