Finding effective ways of conserving large carnivores is widely recognised as a priority in conservation. However, there is disagreement about the most effective way to do this, with some favouring top-down 'command and control' approaches and others favouring collaboration. Arguments for coercive top-down approaches have been presented elsewhere; here we present arguments for collaboration. In many parts of the developed world, flexibility of approach is built into the legislation, so that conservation objectives are balanced with other legitimate goals. In the developing world, limited resources, poverty and weak governance mean that collaborative approaches are likely to play a particularly important part in carnivore conservation. In general, coercive policies may lead to the deterioration of political legitimacy and potentially to non-compliance issues such as illegal killing, whereas collaborative approaches may lead to psychological ownership, enhanced trust, learning, and better social outcomes. Sustainable hunting/trapping plays a crucial part in the conservation and management of many large carnivores. There are many different models for how to conserve carnivores effectively across the world, research is now required to reduce uncertainty and examine the effectiveness of these approaches in different contexts.

Overseeing the continued recovery, dispersal and management of large carnivore populations while simultaneously considering human viability and welfare requires delicately balancing local concerns for rural communities' livelihood prospects and property vulnerability with international concerns for saving threatened species. In this article, we propose an integrated analytical perspective to elucidate how competing interests and power relationships influence the governance and management of contested wildlife resources. However, simply identifying these patterns is not enough. It is also imperative that the interrelationships between broader biophysical, social, political, economic, and cultural contexts and histories be explored in order to describe, analyze and better understand how and why individual and collective responses vary. In doing this, we drew from findings from a variety of social science disciplines (environmental communication, environmental psychology, human ecology, human geography, political science, public administration and social anthropology) and, here, present how social science approaches can enhance understanding of the different layers and contexts of contested natural resource management. Highlighting the individual, socio-cultural, political and institutional dimensions, the article concludes by identifying five recurrent concepts that must be understood and consciously applied to large carnivore governance and management: 1) establishment of trust between people and groups interacting on the subject; 2) fair representation of stakeholder interests; 3) acknowledgement of the different knowledge-spheres, including those based on personal experiences, culture and tradition, and science; 4) communication, based on dialogue about pluralistic perspectives, to collectively formulate and agree on set goals; and 5) leadership emphasising empowerment.

Although its numbers are steadily increasing, authorities, experts and environmentalists still consider the Scandinavian wolf population to be threatened due to poor pedigree and unlawful killings. An integrated predator policy stipulates that conflicts regarding carnivores must be minimized to assure them continued existence. The recovery of the Scandinavian wolf population has, however, been increasingly contested. While the view that Sweden should take actions to preserve and maintain a wolf population is widely supported by authorities, nature organizations and many members of the public, others disagree, emphasizing that local traditions, values and meanings are being jeopardized as a result of the recovery aims and practices of wolf management. The goal of the central state to work towards the recovery of wolves in Sweden is essentially not a conflict over wolves. Instead, the controversy illustrates how divergent perceptions of the local environment can be understood to constitute inconsistencies regarding how to understand the landscape, and most importantly, what the landscape conveys to people through providing a context for their relationships with 'nature' and with each other. It is in this setting that the recovery of endangered and protected predators unfolds. As will be demonstrated here, central state efforts to achieve an ecosystem that secures the survival of endangered wildlife creates a highly charged political context in which issues of cultural identity, local knowledge and expert science are indivisible.

Purpose This paper aims to propose the concept of social terroir to help navigate phenomenological and epistemological conditions of small-scale food entrepreneurship. Design/methodology/approach This study used a qualitative research approach and was implemented in the peripheral region of Jämtland in northern Sweden. The study interrogated the ambitions of craft brewers when starting up, their long-term goals and visions, including questions about the reason for starting up a brewery, how the different brewers cooperate and how and why the products are designed and labelled the way they are. Findings This study shows that the production of craft beer is an inherently social practice that is part of a particular sociocultural milieu. This milieu informs production in distinct and interrelated ways: through connecting to place and locality in the different aspects of production and marketing, through cooperation to develop production and overcome barriers, and through embedding their work in sustainability discourses. Originality/value The study addresses how, in the context of craft beer, terroir or taste of place, is a matter of social ties to place and community–social terroir. What is novel is the way in which social terroir becomes a critical ingredient in the production of craft beer. This illustrates how small-scale food production and gastronomic efforts can link people, places and businesses.

Ensuring sustainable carnivore populations while simultaneously sustaining active and viable pastoral communities often creates conflicts that are difficult to resolve. This article examines how different knowledge systems meet and interact in large carnivore governance in Norway and Sweden. Drawing on a broad range of sources, including observations in meetings, public documents, reports and interviews, in addition to local and national newspaper clippings and internet sites, we study two processes of regional carnivore management (Nordland, Norway and Jämtland, Sweden). We explore how different forms of knowledge have been mobilized, reproduced, transferred and legitimized in policies and regulations in these two processes. Furthermore, we examine the interplay between scientific and experience-based knowledge at different levels and scales in both countries. In Norway, "clear zoning" has been established as a basic management instrument to achieve national "population goals" for carnivores. We show how the locally situated knowledge-in our account represented through the Regional Large Carnivore Committee (RLCC), which includes political parties' and Sami Parliament representatives-experiences real barriers by being overruled by the national Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2016 in their process of revising the carnivore management plan (CMP). In Sweden where the management of large carnivores is devolved to regional authorities and stakeholder-based Wildlife Management Delegations (WMDs), attempts to regionally solve conflicts are often overthrown by the national environmental protection agency or through court cases initiated by the environmental movement. Hence, compromises that potentially could solve conflicts are undermined. The analysis shows that while carnivore governance in both countries are founded on decentralized management authority at the regional level, local actors struggle for their views, experiences and knowledge to be acknowledged and counted as valid in the management process. While the decentralized management