Empirical examples demonstrate how relational thinking might enrich science and practice

Species reintroductions are an increasingly popular conservation tool, typically aiming to achieve direct conservation benefits. Socio‐cultural drivers also exist but have, to date, received very little attention in research and policy. As a case study, we focus on the recent and ongoing reintroduction of the white stork Ciconia ciconia to England, key drivers of which include connecting people with nature, providing local socio‐economic benefits and inspiring environmental restoration. We surveyed 3531 people in Britain to establish and explore baseline perceptions toward white storks and their reintroduction, including their cultural salience. Findings were compared and evaluated between (i) self‐selecting and nationally representative samples and (ii) residents living close to release sites versus non‐locals. In contrast to self‐selecting participants, most of the nationally representative sample had never heard of nor seen a white stork and were unaware of the reintroduction. Attitudes were more positive in the self‐selecting sample and neutral or uncertain in the nationally representative sample. Consequently, to assess views of both engaged communities and wider publics, we recommend reintroductions adopt a similar two‐mode sampling strategy to that used here when undertaking social feasibility assessments/public consultations. Eighty‐six percent of participants supported the reintroduction overall. Reasons provided for support were diverse, relating to perceived or experienced socio‐cultural benefits and values, general biodiversity enrichment, and moral impetus to restore formerly native species. Criticisms, raised by a minority, related to uncertainty/disagreement about the white stork's formerly native status; rigour of the ecological risk assessment; and a perceived lack of transparency regarding how the project supports conservation efforts. Given that reintroductions have underexplored potential to (re)establish socio‐cultural relationships between people, wildlife and landscapes, and these are increasingly cited as justifications for reintroductions, we encourage further discussion and research in this area. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public perceptions of an avian reintroduction aiming to connect people with nature

White,

Jones,

Groves

et al. 2023

“…This points to a form of knowledge creation that is both hybridising, and dualist, in how it relates ontology to epistemology. Further research might seek to distinguish the influence of contextual knowledge versus relational knowledge that both seem to be present in this dynamic (Eyster et al., 2023) and there are parallels in the way bioregional concepts appear to serve usefully as boundary objects to the way Fischer and Riechers (2019) see a ‘leverage points’ perspective (and other heuristics) as productive for the study and pursuit of sustainability transformations due to similarly capacious capacities.…”

Section: Reflections and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chan et al., 2018; Walsh et al., 2021; West et al., 2018) and evidence has been built to demonstrate how relational perspectives can lead to practical shifts in policy (e.g. Chan et al., 2016), more work is required to understand what this paradigm looks like in empirical examples (Eyster et al., 2023); critically discuss its pragmatics, politics and challenges (Raymond et al., 2021); and test how relational values and epistemology might influence the practice of sustainability research (Eyster et al., 2023; Fish et al., 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A learning journey into contemporary bioregionalism

Wearne,

Hubbard,

Jónás

et al. 2023

Bioregioning is a new wave of bioregional discourse that appears to be attracting interest among sustainability researchers and practitioners. Through interviews with contemporary leaders and a reflexive research process, we explored bioregioning experiences across seven countries. Our paper outlines the motivations, practices and narratives that we encountered and positions these observations against prior expressions of bioregional thought and broader themes in sustainability research. We found that in bioregioning, the concept of a bioregion remains important and seems to attract people to the discourse in three ways: It inspires visions of the future that encompass more‐than‐human thriving, it creates a conceptual container that enables a strategic narrative for change that connects places to larger scales, and it justifies the importance of everyday people exercising their right to ‘do’ something. The combination of these motivators shows bioregioning's relationship with earlier expressions of bioregional thought: Like early bioregional thinkers, regional scales carry cognitive and strategic appeal, and like critical bioregionalism, power and justice are foregrounded to ensure the process of change is ethical. We suggest that in the shift to bioregioning, the bioregion serves as a boundary device, justifying (for some) a focus on regional scale action which has made bioregional discourse unique, and for others, rationalising participatory or emotional priorities. This lets bioregioning enact a dialogic approach to change and enables practitioners to consider questions of scale in open dialogue with emotive place‐based dynamics, bringing nature re‐connection and social–ecological systems research into consideration and overlap with the practice of bioregioning. We observed parallels between our research process and the central features in bioregioning; both respond to ambitions and calls within sustainability to enact relational values and surface contextualised knowledge while also valuing generalisations and abstraction. Our study, we suggest, provides one example of how research into human–nature relationships in Western sustainability might be pursued in line with these ambitions. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

“…This simultaneous view-to the macroscale and the microscale, to the biophysical landscape and the intellectual landscape, to specific concepts and the larger historical context-is key for moving forward, and a logical extension of relational thinking. In their recent overview, Eyster et al (2023) stress that scientists and their measurement tools are neither independent nor separable from the network of relations they are trying to measure. We agree, but add that if scientists and their ideas comprise a major component of the "social" in social-ecological systems, then reflexive relational thinking needs to include an understanding of the collaborative and intellectual relations that our concepts, tools, and collaborations are enmeshed in, as these relations are arguably the most important in affecting "where we direct our camera" (ibid, p. 10).…”

Section: -2020: Livestock Grazing Must Negatively Impact the Hydrolog...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing beyond the frames we inherit: A challenge to tenacious conservation narratives

Chignell,

Satterfield

2023

Self Cite

Natural and social scientists everywhere are struggling to understand how to proceed in the face of continued biodiversity loss and the injustices brought upon people living in and around conservation landscapes. This has resulted in increasing calls for critical reflection on the narratives driving conservation research and practice. Narratives can be understood as part of a larger process of “framing” within an intellectual community, which includes the way studies are defined and discussed. Identifying, reflecting on and even destabilizing entrenched frames can be helpful for understanding when and where our diagnosis or understanding of a problem fails. However, we also need to understand the scholarly processes that create and reify some frames (and not others) over time. We address these needs by developing a mixed‐method approach that integrates qualitative frame analysis and quantitative science mapping to identify the origins of the dominant frame and trace its reproduction in the scientific literature over time. We demonstrate this approach using the case of the Bale Mountains, an internationally recognised centre of species endemism in Ethiopia. Our results show the enduring influence of the perceptions and values of a few early conservation scientists working with limited data. This led to erroneous assumptions and conclusions that, in some cases, were corrected by later research, but in many cases were not. This was a function of the social and intellectual structure of the scientific network, minor but consequential decisions in data interpretation and specific citational habits. Synthesizing these results, we identify several linked mechanisms that helped the dominant frame retain its tenacity and may also be at work in other contexts. We close with a discussion on how others might apply our approach and how future scientific research and conservation practice could proceed differently. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.