The value of listening and listening for values in conservation

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Safeguarding human–wildlife cooperation

“…Interventions should always follow the highest ethical standards (International Society of Ethnobiology, 2006) and the principle of Free Prior Informed Consent that is central to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN General Assembly, 2007). Where safeguarding measures are encouraged by external entities, these should be designed in collaboration with local stakeholders through transparent co‐management (Staddon et al., 2021). Any activities to encourage human–wildlife cooperation should also consider the carrying capacity of the environment, although there is no evidence of depletion of fish stocks or bee populations as a direct result of human–wildlife cooperation.…”

Conservation in conversation: People's perspectives on a woodland with high conservation value—A qualitative study

“…Our analysis implies that conservation actors also have to engage with constellations where values related to direct utility are dominant—even where, such as in our study site, these are not reflected in commercial value but rather in small‐scale, local social and economic benefits. Such engagement could entail active ‘listening’ (Staddon et al, 2021) to these values and discourses of local development, but also a co‐constructed critical reflection on these.…”

Perceived inclusivity and trust in protected area management decisions among stakeholders in Alaska

“…Previous research has emphasized the importance of transparency and stakeholders knowing how decisions are made (Nie, 2003; Smith & McDonough, 2001; Staddon et al, 2021). In the context of Alaska, moral competency is likely deemed an important quality in this process, because it signals that key conflicts (e.g.…”

“…Indeed, public involvement in land management decisions is instrumental in the success of conservation initiatives and relies on both trust (Smith et al, 2013) and information exchange (Gould et al, 2019; Reed et al, 2010). Although a sizeable body of literature has recognized that successful conservation initiatives need to involve listening for values in community perspectives, power dynamics and levels of trust (Berkes, 2007; Oldekop et al, 2016; Smith et al, 2013; Staddon et al, 2021; Stern & Coleman, 2015), there is a limited empirical understanding of the combination of reasons why stakeholders hold different perceptions of inclusivity. Here, we examine how factors related to trust and transparency in communication influence beliefs that there is adequate inclusion of residents across the U.S. state of Alaska by land management agencies.…”