Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reviewed evidence from the peer-reviewed and grey literatures related to the role of stakeholder engagement (both externally-driven and self-organized engagement) in biodiversity conservation at the local scale using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
About: This article is published in Biological Conservation.The article was published on 2017-05-01 and is currently open access. It has received 265 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Stakeholder engagement & Natural resource management.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, a typology of stakeholder and public engagement based on agency and mode of engagement is proposed to describe different types of public and stakeholder engagement, and the theory comprises four factors that explain much of the variation in outcomes (for the natural environment and/or for participants) between different kinds of engagement.
Abstract: This article differentiates between descriptive and explanatory factors to develop a typology and a theory of stakeholder and public engagement. The typology describes different types of public and stakeholder engagement, and the theory comprises four factors that explain much of the variation in outcomes (for the natural environment and/or for participants) between different types of engagement. First, we use a narrative literature search to develop a new typology of stakeholder and public engagement based on agency (who initiates and leads engagement) and mode of engagement (from communication to coproduction). We then propose a theory to explain the variation in outcomes from different types of engagement: (1) a number of socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional contextual factors influence the outcomes of engagement; (2) there are a number of process design factors that can increase the likelihood that engagement leads to desired outcomes, across a wide range of sociocultural, political, economic, and biophysical contexts; (3) the effectiveness of engagement is significantly influenced by power dynamics, the values of participants, and their epistemologies, that is, the way they construct knowledge and which types of knowledge they consider valid; and (4) engagement processes work differently and can lead to different outcomes when they operate over different spatial and temporal scales. We use the theoretical framework to provide practical guidance for those designing engagement processes, arguing that a theoretically informed approach to stakeholder and public engagement has the potential to markedly improve the outcomes of environmental decision‐making processes.
293 citations
Cites background from "Assessing the evidence for stakehol..."
...Sterling et al. (2017) analyzed 82 case studies of participatory conservation projects and found a statistically significant correlation between attitudinal change and three design variables: (1) integration of stakeholder knowledge and values in the decision-making process; (2) engagement with…...
[...]
United States Geological Survey1, University of Arizona2, University of California, Santa Barbara3, Arizona State University4, University of Notre Dame5, Desert Research Institute6, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences7, University of California, Davis8, University of Montana9, Utah State University10, The Nature Conservancy11, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research12, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific13, University of California, Berkeley14, National Park Service15, California Department of Fish and Wildlife16, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration17, United States Department of Agriculture18, World Wide Fund for Nature19
TL;DR: Carolyn AF Enquist*, Stephen T Jackson, Gregg M Garfin, Frank W Davis, Leah R Gerber, Jeremy A Littell, Jennifer L Tank, Adam J Terando, Tamara U Wall, Benjamin Halpern, J Kevin Hiers, Toni Lyn Morelli, Elizabeth McNie, Nathan L Stephenson, Matthew A Williamson, Connie A Woodhouse, Laurie Yung, Mark W Brunson, Kimberly R Hall, Lauren M Hallett, Dawn M Lawson, Max A Moritz, Koren Nydick, Amber Pairis, Andrea J
Abstract: Carolyn AF Enquist*, Stephen T Jackson, Gregg M Garfin, Frank W Davis, Leah R Gerber, Jeremy A Littell, Jennifer L Tank, Adam J Terando, Tamara U Wall, Benjamin Halpern, J Kevin Hiers, Toni Lyn Morelli, Elizabeth McNie, Nathan L Stephenson, Matthew A Williamson, Connie A Woodhouse, Laurie Yung, Mark W Brunson, Kimberly R Hall, Lauren M Hallett, Dawn M Lawson, Max A Moritz, Koren Nydick, Amber Pairis, Andrea J Ray, Claudia Regan, Hugh D Safford, Mark W Schwartz, and M Rebecca Shaw
213 citations
Cites background from "Assessing the evidence for stakehol..."
...Social- science research focused on stakeholder engagement substantiates these ideas (Reed 2008; Hage et al. 2010; Meadow et al. 2015; Sterling et al. 2017)....
[...]
...Socialscience research focused on stakeholder engagement substantiates these ideas (Reed 2008; Hage et al. 2010; Meadow et al. 2015; Sterling et al. 2017)....
[...]
American Museum of Natural History1, Pace University2, Australian Museum3, University of Queensland4, Bioversity International5, Yale University6, University of California, Santa Barbara7, Centre national de la recherche scientifique8, Michigan State University9, United Nations10, Brown University11, United States Forest Service12, University of Hawaii13, Institut de recherche pour le développement14, College of the Marshall Islands15, Columbia University16, National Tropical Botanical Garden17, Wildlife Conservation Society18
TL;DR: It is argued that biocultural approaches, in combination with methods for synthesizing across evidence from multiple sources, are critical to developing metrics that facilitate linkages across scales and dimensions that help bridge the divide between ecosystems and human well-being.
Abstract: Monitoring and evaluation are central to ensuring that innovative, multi-scale, and interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability are effective. The development of relevant indicators for local sustainable management outcomes, and the ability to link these to broader national and international policy targets, are key challenges for resource managers, policymakers, and scientists. Sets of indicators that capture both ecological and social-cultural factors, and the feedbacks between them, can underpin cross-scale linkages that help bridge local and global scale initiatives to increase resilience of both humans and ecosystems. Here we argue that biocultural approaches, in combination with methods for synthesizing across evidence from multiple sources, are critical to developing metrics that facilitate linkages across scales and dimensions. Biocultural approaches explicitly start with and build on local cultural perspectives — encompassing values, knowledges, and needs — and recognize feedbacks between ecosystems and human well-being. Adoption of these approaches can encourage exchange between local and global actors, and facilitate identification of crucial problems and solutions that are missing from many regional and international framings of sustainability. Resource managers, scientists, and policymakers need to be thoughtful about not only what kinds of indicators are measured, but also how indicators are designed, implemented, measured, and ultimately combined to evaluate resource use and well-being. We conclude by providing suggestions for translating between local and global indicator efforts.
187 citations
TL;DR: More integrative and collaborative engagement is encouraged to make stakeholder involvement more useful, to help facilitate different stakeholders to work better together, allowing problems associated with biological invasions to be tackled more holistically and successfully.
128 citations
Cites background from "Assessing the evidence for stakehol..."
..., 2018 outline specific processes for engagement relating to conflict of interest invasive alien species), as there is substantial evidence that poor stakeholder representation can lead to biased or unintended negative outcomes (de Vente et al., 2016; Sterling et al., 2017)....
[...]
...Co-production broadly refers to an approach involving designing research, producing knowledge, implementing decisions and management in collaboration with stakeholders from the outset (Sterling et al., 2017)....
[...]
...Effective leadership is key for the co-production of the management actions and a champion is crucial to the project’s success (Sterling et al., 2017), as is trust (Wald et al....
[...]
...The role of stakeholder engagement is increasingly being recognised in environmental decision-making, including national and international policy formulation (Reed, 2008; Novoa et al., 2015; Sterling et al., 2017)....
[...]
TL;DR: This work presents a social ecological framework for supporting adaptive management decisions involving APs in response to social and environmental change, and identifies outstanding questions to guide future research on the ecological functions and ecosystem services ofAPs in a changing world.
Abstract: Arguments for the need to conserve aquatic predator (AP) populations often focus on the ecological and socioeconomic roles they play. Here, we summarize the diverse ecosystem functions and services connected to APs, including regulating food webs, cycling nutrients, engineering habitats, transmitting diseases/parasites, mediating ecological invasions, affecting climate, supporting fisheries, generating tourism, and providing bioinspiration. In some cases, human-driven declines and increases in AP populations have altered these ecosystem functions and services. We present a social ecological framework for supporting adaptive management decisions involving APs in response to social and environmental change. We also identify outstanding questions to guide future research on the ecological functions and ecosystem services of APs in a changing world.
124 citations
References
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Copyright (©) 1999–2012 R Foundation for Statistical Computing; permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and permission notice are preserved on all copies.
Abstract: Copyright (©) 1999–2012 R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the R Core Team.
272,030 citations
01 Mar 2010
18,472 citations
"Assessing the evidence for stakehol..." refers background in this paper
...Here, we define stakeholders as the people and organizations who affect or are affected by a decision; stakeholders can be directly or indirectly involved in an endeavor (Freeman, 1984, Annan, 2008)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1984TL;DR: The Stakeholder Approach: 1. Managing in turbulent times 2. The stakeholder concept and strategic management 3. Strategic Management Processes: 4. Setting strategic direction 5. Formulating strategies for stakeholders 6. Implementing and monitoring stakeholder strategies 7. Conflict at the board level 8. The functional disciplines of management 9. The role of the executive as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Part I. The Stakeholder Approach: 1. Managing in turbulent times 2. The stakeholder concept and strategic management 3. Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy Part II. Strategic Management Processes: 4. Setting strategic direction 5. Formulating strategies for stakeholders 6. Implementing and monitoring stakeholder strategies Part III. Implications for Theory and Practice: 7. Conflict at the board level 8. The functional disciplines of management 9. The role of the executive.
17,404 citations
TL;DR: Beskriver ulike grader av brukermedvirkning, og regnes som en klassiker innenfor temaet Brukermedveirkning og psykisk helsearbeid as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Beskriver ulike grader av brukermedvirkning, og regnes som en klassiker innenfor temaet brukermedvirkning og psykisk helsearbeid.
13,516 citations
"Assessing the evidence for stakehol..." refers background in this paper
...There aremanydifferent levels, qualities, and degrees of stakeholder engagement, and the success of an approach will depend greatly on the context in which it is applied (Arnstein, 1969, Wilcox, 1994, Shirk et al., 2012, Bixler et al., 2015)....
[...]
TL;DR: Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.
Abstract: There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies. We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved. We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses. We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.
4,793 citations
"Assessing the evidence for stakehol..." refers methods in this paper
...Data analysis consisted of two processes: a mixed methods approach to assess evidence from case study and meta-analysis references published from 2011 to 2015 and a qualitative thematic review (Thomas and Harden, 2008) of 16 years of background literature....
[...]