This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Participatory approaches have become increasingly popular within geography in recent years, but some would argue that participatory working is both in vogue and in crisis. In this special section of Area we have drawn together a series of papers to reflect on the complexities, tensions and difficulties that are caught up with the potentials and politics of participatory ways of working and thinking. In this introductory editorial we set out the impetus behind the special section, reflecting on the history of participatory geographies and the contemporary challenges arising from such ways of working. The role of the Participatory Geographies Research Group as a collective supporting and critically engaging with participatory research is also outlined.

Peer reviewed versionCyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publication Dyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA):Abstract: This paper considers the potential for beekeepers' knowledges to be incorporated into participatory policy processes addressing current challenges to pollinator health.Pollinator decline is a serious issue for future food security and wider environmental resilience, with important implications for rural land use governance. The precipitous decline in global pollinator populations over recent years has resulted in a range of government initiatives to tackle the causes identified. In the UK this includes a National Pollinator Strategy in England and Pollinator Action Plan in Wales. These plans are notable for their introduction of a more participatory approach, incorporating 'lay-knowledge' and citizen science from beekeeping practitioners alongside scientific data. This paper presents evidence from interviews and participant observation with key stakeholders within the beekeeping community in the UK, alongside archival material from the Bee Farmers' Association, to assess the knowledge controversies arising from this strategy. Specifically, the paper considers the distinction of beekeepers' knowledges from typically acknowledged expert sources, whilst also reflecting upon aspects of plurality and tension within the beekeeping community. The paper concludes by outlining some areas of contestation between beekeepers and the wider policy and scientific community, which could impact on the future success of more participatory forums. This includes, firstly, evidence of hierarchies and exclusions in 2 the forms of knowledge considered, when insights from professional scientists are privileged above those from beekeepers and when some beekeepers knowledges are given more credit than others. Secondly, we consider limitations resulting from policy makers' evidence requirements for peer-reviewed science, which can further exacerbate the exclusion of beekeepers' insights and lead to scenarios whereby policy only engages with a narrow set of criteria that may not be beneficial when advanced in isolation from the broader system changes. Finally, aspects of policy clash are outlined between pollinator conservation and wider agricultural strategies that seek to maintain a productivist agenda.

This paper is about rewilding and the tensions it involves. Rewilding is a relatively novel approach to nature conservation, which seeks to be proactive and ambitious in the face of continuing environmental decline. Whilst definitions of rewilding place a strong emphasis on non-human agency, it is an inescapably human aspiration resulting in a range of social conflicts. The paper focuses on the case study of the Cambrian Wildwood project in MidWales (UK), evaluating the ways in which debate and strategic action to advance rewilding is proceeding, assessing the extent to which compromise and learning has occurred amongst advocates. As such, we provide an important addition to the field, by detailing how conflicts play out over time and how actors' positioning and approach shifts, and why. In this case, tempers have flared around the threat that rewilding is seen to pose to resident farming communities. Tensions discussed include the differing social constructions of landscape and nature involved; the distribution of impacts on different stakeholders; and the relative power of different actors to make decisions and gain representation. Responding to these, the paper outlines how rewilding advocates have sought to advance a more peopled and culturally responsive vision, which seeks to champion sustainable livelihood strategies. The changes in 2 approach detailed demonstrate a reflexive stance from rewilders, which suggests that learning and adaptation can occur. Nonetheless, caution is expressed regarding the extent to which rewilding can truly advance inclusive opportunities for rural change, given a continued return amongst stakeholders to exclusionary narratives of belonging and authenticity, suggesting substantive difficulty in moving beyond longstanding concerns over identity and the reimagination of place. Rewilding, it would seem, is about who we think we are and how we coconstitute our sense of self. We, therefore, close by arguing that tactics and politicking can only have so much bearing, tensions over rewilding are unavoidably emotional.

The potential of cooperative working within the farming sector has received increasing interest in recent years, given a range of potential benefits. However, uncertainty persists in understanding the balance between individual and collective priority, how members interrelate and negotiate these different motivations over time, and how this connects to different forms of outcome. This paper evaluates the experiences of the Pontbren farmer cooperative in Mid-Wales (UK) to explore these issues, as an exemplar of the multiple and sometimes unexpected outcomes of cooperative activity. Herein day-today practices and emotional affects are highlighted as critical elements of cooperation alongside the skills and know-how required to sustain working relations. In addition, the farmers' changing sense of self is considered to evaluate the extent to which cooperation can bring about new forms of identification. The approach outlined aims to augment existing Bourdieu-inspired readings of social learning and capital exchange with insights from the literature on social practice and diverse economies (following the work of Elizabeth Shove, J.K. Gibson-Graham and colleagues). Overall, findings demonstrate a need to frame cooperation as an emergent process which can move the individuals involved beyond preformed judgements and measures of social positioning, altering their conceptions of how to relate to others. Moreover, it is argued that the value of this relatedness needs to be understood in more expansive terms, and not only as calculable forms of 'capital'.