A Social Learning Approach for Stakeholder Engagement in Large Carnivore Conservation and Management

Abstract

The present paper reports on a methodology for stakeholder engagement in large carnivore conservation and management, which was implemented in a LIFE project in Greece (LIFE AMYBEAR: Improving Human-Bear Coexistence Conditions in Municipality of Amyntaio–LIFE15 NAT/GR/001108). The methodology was employed within the frame of human dimension actions in that project and included three different stages planned in a modular sequence (stakeholder analysis, stakeholder consultation and involvement, and participatory scenario development). Each stage was operationalized by means of a template (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis template; mixed-motive template; template for participatory scenario development), which was designed to structure stakeholder input and interaction and scaffold social learning. The templates were completed by standard methods and procedures in social science, namely, interviews, focus groups, and workshops. The presentation of the methodology in this paper has a demonstration character. The main aim is to showcase its heuristic value in steering stakeholder collaboration and tracking change as a result of stakeholder joint action. The paper will demonstrate the benefits and added value of innovation and change initiated by actions in the LIFE project, as well as the costs or unintended consequences of that innovation and change, which need to be tackled by future stakeholder collaboration. The beginnings of an institutionalization of stakeholder involvement revealed features of both formal (e.g., new institutions established such as a Bear Emergency Team) and informal institutions (e.g., social norms). These features illustrated a departure from the current condition, where social learning may already be traceable. At the same time, however, stakeholder interaction has also delineated additional aspects that need to be addressed by stakeholders. The added value of the methodology is that it can be enacted by stakeholders themselves, provided that they are empowered to take ownership of the social learning process. Therefore, it can be exploited in after-LIFE plans. The approach can also be used in other multi-stakeholder arrangements, such as platforms concentrated on wildlife conservation and management. Finally, it should be noted that the methodology and templates fill an important gap, often highlighted in the social learning literature, in that they offer a toolkit for monitoring and assessment.

Trade-offs in the implementation of good practice in large carnivore conservation and management

“…All these recommendations should be understood as prompts for framing stakeholder interaction and are not meant to be set in stone. They are procedure based and not content based, to allow for flexibility in stakeholder deliberation and joint action (Hovardas 2020). Some may be easier to pursue, although others may prove more challenging, and this will depend largely on the local context and stakeholder synthesis.…”

“…Trade-offs need to be made transparent in participatory processes (Galafassi et al 2017), which will necessitate new rounds of stakeholder interaction, allowing for an optimization of good practice solutions to adapt to local contexts. All these aspects are core characteristics of social learning processes in which, sustained stakeholder interaction, joint action, and reflection foster knowledge co-production, innovation, and change (Howe 2014, Galafassi et al 2017, Hovardas 2020, Boronyak et al 2022. Moving away from idealistic win-win accounts that often mask trade-offs (Muradian et al 2013), these social learning processes demonstrate that the negotiation of trade-offs should be acknowledged and even embraced.…”

Leveraging collective action and environmental literacy to address complex sustainability challenges

“…Frameworks and methods that emphasize other collective-related ideas-like collaboration, co-production, and group learning-are also ubiquitous in natural resource and environmental management. These constructs include community-based conservation (DeCaro and Stokes 2008;Niemiec et al 2016), community natural resource management (Kellert et al 2000;Dale et al 2020), collaboration/coordination (Sadoff and Grey 2005;Prager 2015), polycentricity (Galaz et al 2012;Heikkila et al 2018), knowledge co-production (Armitage et al 2011;Singh et al 2021), and social learning (Reed et al 2010;Hovardas 2020). Many writings on collective efforts in the social sciences broadly, and applied in the area of environment specifically, provide insights into collective action's necessary preconditions, which prove invaluable to further defining and later operationalizing collective environmental literacy.…”

“…Less common in practice are theoretically based initiatives that embrace the holistic nature of the human experience, which occurs within complex systems spanning time and space in a multidimensional, weblike fashion (Bronfenbrenner 1979 ; Rogoff 2003 ; Barron 2006 ; DeCaro and Stokes 2008 ; Gould et al 2019 ; Hovardas 2020 ). These systems-thinking approaches, while varying across disciplines and epistemological perspectives, envision human experiences, including learning and behavior, as occurring within a milieu that include the social, political, cultural, and historical contexts (Rogoff 2003 ; Roth and Lee 2007 ; Swim et al 2011 ; Gordon 2019 ).…”

Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation

“…Participatory processes aimed at improving conservation decision may also generate positive outcomes that extend beyond the conservation conflicts at hand by influencing the broader socio-political context in which they take place [43]. Large-carnivore conflicts may in fact represent an opportunity for wider social learning and for improved stakeholder relationships [44,45], becoming a means through which deeper cultural divides are channeled and expressed [30], and leading to an improved mutual understanding and collaboration among stakeholders for a range of other issues and contexts.…”