Broadening the toolset for stakeholder engagement to explore consensus over wolf management

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

卷:296

Article

Marino, Agnese¹  Ciucci, Paolo²  Redpath, Stephen M.³  Ricci, Simone⁴  Young, Juliette^5,6  Salvatori, Valeria⁴ 

[1] Zool Soc London, Inst Zool, Regents Pk, London NW1 4RY, England

[2] Univ Roma La Sapienza, Dept Biol & Biotechnol Charles Darwin, Piazzale Aldo Moro, I-00185 Rome, RM, Italy

[3] Univ Aberdeen, Inst Biol & Environm Sci, Zool Bldg,Tillydrone Ave, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, Scotland

[4] Ist Ecol Applicata Roma, Via B Eustachio 10, I-00161 Rome, Italy

[5] UK Ctr Ecol & Hydrol, Bush Estate, Penicuik EH26 0QB, Midlothian, Scotland

[6] Univ Bourgogne, Agroecol, AgroSup Dijon, INRAE, F-21000 Dijon, France

关键词: Deliberative democracy;    Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence;    Multi-criteria decisions analysis;    Participatory environmental governance;    Theory of meta-consensus;    Large carnivores;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113125

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

Facilitating coexistence between people and large carnivores is critical for large carnivore conservation in human-dominated landscapes, when their presence impacts negatively on human interests. Such situations will often require novel ways of mediating between different values, worldviews and opinions about how carnivores should be managed. We report on such a process in an agricultural area of recent wolf recovery in central Italy where unsolved social tensions over wolf presence have radicalized opinions on either side of the wolf debate, resulting in a stalemate. Where previous mitigation policies based on top-down damage compensation have failed, we tested the potential for applying a participatory approach to engage different stakeholder groups in a dialogue aimed at sharing a deep understanding of the problem and co-creating potential solutions. We based our approach on the theory of meta-consensus, using a decision support tool known as Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Over the course of three months, we carried out five workshops with stakeholder representatives from farming, hunting and environmental associations, and one biologist. Stakeholders shared several objectives and agreed over many management interventions, including the management of free-ranging dogs, the implementation of damage prevention measures, and a damage compensation system suitable for farmers. The process facilitated agreement over actions aimed at improving relations between stakeholders and enhancing the state of knowledge on the issues at stake. Most importantly, we recorded positive social and relationship outcomes from the workshops, and observed a willingness from participants to engage in further discussions over disputed management preferences. Overall, we found MCDA to be a useful tool for laying the groundwork for further participatory and deliberative processes on wolf management. However, challenges ahead included the involvement of a larger number of representatives of different social sectors, and a simplification of the methodology which some participants found too complicated and time consuming.

【 授权许可】

Free