No abstract

Managing protected areas (PAs) requires dealing with complex social-ecological systems where multiple dimensions (i.e. social, institutional, economic and ecological) interact over time. Uni-dimensional and top-down approaches have been unable to capture this complexity. Instead, new integrated approaches that acknowledge the multidimensional nature of PAs and the diversity of social actors in the decision making process are required. In this paper we put forward a novel participatory assessment approach which integrates multiple methodologies to reflect value articulating institutions in the case of a Natura 2000 (N2000) network site in the Basque Country (Southern Europe). This novel approach is based on a social multi-criteria evaluation framework, that integrates (i) economic values derived from a choice experiment, (ii) ecological values by means of a spatial biogeographic assessment, and (iii) a participatory process among diverse social actors. The case study shows that through the integration of diverse perspectives it is possible to achieve compromise solutions that foster the ecological values of PAs while enhancing other socioeconomic benefits. Such co-benefits are important to enhance the acceptance and scope of N2000 and overcome undesirable social-ecological conflicts. We also show that the inclusion of all affected parties in a deliberative process is a key prerequisite to ensure ecologically effective and socially acceptable decisions that will lead to sustainable conservation policies.

No abstract

No abstract

Decisions on environmental issues are complex and multidimensional as they represent multiple interests and values. Nevertheless, the ability of participatory multi-criteria methodologies to deal with this kind of problem is widely acknowledged. Traditionally, multi-criteria methods have focused more on technical issues than on the representation of participants' preferences. In participatory processes there are questions such as who establishes the mechanisms of participation, in what terms these processes are developed and who is going to participate, which are determining factors that have not been sufficiently studied in multi-criteria analysis. This paper, in order to shed light on this gap, aims to compare the creation of social preferences under two different participatory approaches. For this purpose, two different participatory approaches are compared. On the one hand, applying the social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) method, a deliberative process is developed following the principles of deliberative democracy. On the other hand, an aggregation process of individual preferences has been developed based on information collected through surveys. Both approaches have advantages as well as constraints. Our main finding is that the information obtained through the different participatory methods is different and complementary. Therefore, we can state that both participatory methods can be enriching assessment processes.