An understanding of trust, identity, and power can enhance equitable and resilient conservation partnerships and processes

Abstract

Conservation practitioners regularly engage in partnerships and processes to develop and achieve important conservation goals aimed at alleviating the biodiversity crisis. These processes, and the partnerships needed for success, are subject to complex social dynamics that can result in negative outcomes if not well understood and addressed. As an illustration, a heavy reliance on authoritybased power in a conservation process could lead to alliances with some groups and alienation of others. Such ingroup/outgroup dynamics can prompt threats to one's identity and distrust of others, which may lead to disengagement or active blocking of progress toward goals (e.g., legal action). To support practitioners in addressing the biodiversity crisis, we review key concepts and theory from the literature in relation to how trust, identity, and power operate in the context of conservation partnerships and processes. We further offer a list of considerations for conservation practitioners seeking to co-develop goals that are achievable, equitable, and responsive to the needs of diverse interests, as well as sustainable over time given shifting social and ecological conditions.

Ranchers' Perspectives on Participating in Non-lethal Wolf-Livestock Coexistence Strategies

“…In complement to this, the WDFW can create avenues for dialogue on the different nonlethal measures that they are promoting or that ranchers are interested in enrolling in. Dialogue should be respectful, include mutual listening, and be inclusive of all views which could be approached through communicative framing (Dietsch et al, 2021). This should recognize and seek to address underlying ideological or identity differences that may shape trust in agency or attitudes toward a coexistence program (Schroeder et al, 2021).…”

“…The narratives we analyzed were shaped by respondents and our interpretation of the narratives is shaped by literature on trust (Dietsch et al, 2021), risk perception (Carter et al, 2020) and group dynamics including culture and social identity (Manfredo et al, 2017). Trust is relevant in conflict resolution as it can build partnerships and facilitate processes whereas distrust leads to disagreements (Dietsch et al, 2021).…”

“…The narratives we analyzed were shaped by respondents and our interpretation of the narratives is shaped by literature on trust (Dietsch et al, 2021), risk perception (Carter et al, 2020) and group dynamics including culture and social identity (Manfredo et al, 2017). Trust is relevant in conflict resolution as it can build partnerships and facilitate processes whereas distrust leads to disagreements (Dietsch et al, 2021). Where ranchers have trustful relationships with wildlife agencies, they are more likely to participate in coexistence strategies, whereas with lack of trust there is little buy in for wolf coexistence strategies.…”

“…Stakeholder groups like ranchers and hunters typically having lower agency trust than the general public, and such groups can be considered as kinds of social identities (Schroeder et al, 2021). Group dynamics and social identity in conflict resolution can cause individuals to take positions in contrast to the outgroups, consequently hindering successful debate and inhibiting conservation action (Dietsch et al, 2021). In the case of our research, with ranchers as one group and WDFW and conservation organizations as the other groups, ranchers could choose positions that are in contrast with the conservation agency and organizations because they are adhering to their ingroup dynamics.…”

Editorial: Advancing a Cross Boundary Social Science of Trust in Natural Resource Management

“…There are numerous ways in which NRM stakeholders impact-or appear to impact-each other (see Hamm 2017). For example, powerful actors in decision-making processes can deny other actors' agenda or use their influence to capture the outcome (Bixler et al, 2016;Dietsch et al, 2021). Trust among actors with a vested interest or stake in the outcome facilitates their coordination in the face of this vulnerability.…”