Conservation in Context: Toward a Systems Framing of Decentralized Governance and Public Participation in Wildlife Management

Sullivan, Leeann

doi:10.1111/ropr.12326

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their participation in map making enabled them to acquire greater knowledge and access to the maps than the other Musrenbang participants, thereby turning the process into a 'small-group elitist activity', as mentioned by Kahila-Tani et al [52]. The village head and community leaders usually play an important role in the community, especially by controlling the local decision forums in the village [68]. They can use their influence wisely to drive the community to engage actively in achieving common interests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Participatory Village Maps in Strengthening Public Participation Practice

Akbar

Flacke

Martínez

et al. 2021

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the role of participatory village maps in strengthening the Musrenbang, an annual multi-stakeholder public consultation forum to discuss development issues and plans in Indonesia. We evaluated the Musrenbang in five villages in Deli Serdang District after conducting participatory mapping workshops to produce village maps to inform the Musrenbang process. Our results show that communication between Musrenbang participants improved because the maps provided a clear definition of the village administrative area, geospatial data as resources for participation, transparency, and a dynamic deliberative process. Collaboration was also evident as the maps enabled participants to exchange knowledge, experience social learning, and have greater influence on the decision-making process. Despite the benefits, some issues impeded the optimal use of the village maps to support the participatory process in the Musrenbang. The maps could not completely overcome the power disparities between Musrenbang participants. Certain actors still dominated the implementation of the Musrenbang, making the deliberative process inaccessible to and less inclusive of some local stakeholders. Several improvements are urgently needed to optimise the use of participatory village maps and enhance Musrenbang implementation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Participatory Village Maps in Strengthening Public Participation Practice

Akbar

Flacke

Martínez

et al. 2021

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even when experiencing these impacts, however, people enjoy seeing herbivores around their community, much more so than predators (Booth and Ryan 2019). Both negative and positive experiences unequally affect non-hunting and non-farming stakeholders (Lischka et al 2008, Campa et al 2011, but hunting interests still drive deer management decisions toward the maintenance of a huntable population (Jacobson et al 2010, Serfass et al 2018, Sullivan 2019. Accordingly, research https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss1/art13/ on human-deer interactions has either involved only hunters and farmers or examined perceptions of hunting methods among nonhunting groups to inform a hunting-based management system (Diefenbach et al 1997, Bath 1998.…”

Section: Study Context: Human-deer Interactions In the Midwestmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet the NAM's historical foundation and legal funding structure (i.e., financial reliance on fees collected from hunting permits) have advanced the concerns of white male hunters, affording little consideration to those of non-hunters, women, and other minorities (Yarbrough 2015, Peterson andNelson 2017). Scholars increasingly criticize the NAM for being "captured" by hunting interests (Jacobson et al 2010, Sullivan 2019, in which wildlife managers and agencies continue to prescribe hunting as the ideal tool for wildlife management and elevate consumptive uses of wildlife over others (Feldpausch-Parker et al 2017, Serfass et al 2018. Recent U.S. agency efforts to engage a wider public have been deemed superficial and political, failing to integrate diverse non-hunting interests into actual decisions, and thereby generating a sense of disrespect that perpetuates social conflicts over wildlife (Madden andMcQuinn 2014, Peterson andNelson 2017).…”

Section: A Need To Examine Power Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex human-deer interactions challenge conventional management approaches: the need to consider power, trust, and emotion

Stinchcomb¹,

Ma²,

Nyssa³

2022

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, the management of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) has typically focused on improving hunting opportunities and mitigating human-deer conflicts. Yet the expansion and diversification of human communities and activities implies that human-deer interactions may also be diversifying. Approaches based on complex adaptive systems theories have been posited as a way to better attend to the diversity of these interactions between humans and wildlife. Using Indiana as a case, this study draws from the Integrated Adaptive Behavior Model (IABM) to understand human-deer interactions as a complex system. We use empirical social science to understand how citizens across Indiana perceive deer populations, what outcomes they desire, and how these perceptions could be integrated into Indiana's deer management plan. In Indiana, neither wildlife managers nor researchers have assessed public perceptions of deer beyond hunting and farming stakeholders. From May to September 2019, we collected 59 semistructured interviews and two focus groups (n = 14) with deer stakeholders including woodland owners, farmers, deer hunters, and urban area residents. Through mixed inductive-deductive coding, we found that Indiana citizens hold complex emotions toward deer regardless of their stakeholder identity. Factors influencing these emotions include past experiences, current livelihood and behavioral contexts, beliefs about responsibilities and ethics in deer management, and beliefs about other social groups. Our results suggest that the IABM, despite adding in much-needed complexity and realism to the analysis of human-wildlife interactions, still lacks explanatory power over several important dynamics that emerged from our interviews. Here, we discuss how mixed emotions, situational context, and power dynamics challenge conventional management approaches that focus narrowly on mitigating human-deer conflicts, and that reduce public interests to demographic categorizations. To better inform social-ecological governance, models of complex human behavior should account for power within management institutions and across management scales. Our work contributes a refined understanding of how multidimensional emotions and experiences influence public (dis)interest in natural resource management, and what this implies for managers who aim to balance competing social interests with ecological conditions.

show abstract

“…Despite their focus on a wide range of stakeholders, participatory approaches require regulations, public policies and the involvement of the state for their effectiveness (Meadowcroft, 1998), and need to be crafted individually without blueprint solutions (Ostrom et al, 2007). Concurrently, the field for such designs is limited by the history or interactions between stakeholders, power structures, discourses and the dominant governance mechanisms (Sullivan, 2019;Voss et al, 2007). Another thing is, the state can be viewed not only as a powerful actor in wildlife governance but also as arenas of collective action, where key stakeholders vie for control of public policy (Avelino & Wittmayer, 2016;Paavola, 2007).…”

Section: Wildlife Steering and The Evolutionary Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

What Is the Role of the Government in Wildlife Policy? Evolutionary Governance Perspective

Niedziałkowski

Putkowska-Smoter

2021

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the growing populations and range of large wild mammals in Europe, wildlife governance has grown in importance and provoked social conflicts, pressuring policy-makers to provide adequate policy responses. Some countries chose decentralised approaches, while others retain traditional top-down mechanisms. However, evolutionary mechanisms behind those changes and their impact on steering have attracted relatively little attention. We investigated the evolution of the governance of three wildlife species (European bison, moose, and wolf) in Poland (1945–2020) to map their existing paths and explore external and internal factors influencing steering patterns. The results suggest that despite the persistent dominance of state-centred governance and top-down hierarchical instruments characteristic for a post-socialist country, steering involved intense and often informal communication with influential actors. A growing diversity of actors and discourses in wildlife governance increased the state’s steering options and improved conservation outcomes. Concurrently, the government’s steering shifted from concrete policy results to managing tensions and interests within the field. These transformations helped to retain the effectiveness of steering in the changing context, while retaining state-dominated governance.

show abstract

Conservation in Context: Toward a Systems Framing of Decentralized Governance and Public Participation in Wildlife Management

Cited by 17 publications

References 52 publications

The Role of Participatory Village Maps in Strengthening Public Participation Practice

The Role of Participatory Village Maps in Strengthening Public Participation Practice

Complex human-deer interactions challenge conventional management approaches: the need to consider power, trust, and emotion

What Is the Role of the Government in Wildlife Policy? Evolutionary Governance Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About