Delineating participation in conservation governance: Insights from the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park (Spain)

López‐Rodríguez, María D.; Ruíz-Mallén, Isabel; Oteros‐Rozas, Elisa; March, Hug; Keller, Rose; Lo, Veronica; Cebrián‐Piqueras, Miguel A.; Andrade, Riley

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.019

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reed and colleagues (2009, p. 1935) noted that the participatory approach utilized in natural resource management “advocates ongoing and evolving involvement of stakeholders beyond stakeholder analysis, at every stage of the project cycle.” Accordingly, the subsequent environmental management and policy literature has paid considerable attention to understanding the dynamic processes of stakeholder engagement through the duration of various projects and beyond (Geaves & Penning-Rowsell, 2016; Novoa et al, 2018; Shackleton et al, 2019; Vogel & Henstra, 2015). Environmental management and policy researchers have devoted distinct attention to the dynamics of organization–stakeholder–nature relations and have examined stakeholder engagement in relation to, for example, CSR and sustainability (Banerjee & Bonnefous, 2011; Dobele et al, 2014; Kumar et al, 2019), climate change and climate forecasts (Challinor, 2009; Luís et al, 2018; Tompkins et al, 2008; Vogel & Henstra, 2015), empowerment and remediation processes (Butler & Adamowski, 2015; Cundy et al, 2013), participatory processes (López-Rodríguez et al, 2020; O’Toole et al, 2013; Reed et al, 2013), and environmental resource management (Butler & Adamowski, 2015; Mease et al, 2018). While environmental management and policy research has considered organization–nature relations, the focus has been largely on human stakeholder engagement related to environmental issues, and nature has been approached as an object of stakeholder activities—a view that has been criticized as insufficient to understand the embeddedness of organizations in the natural environment (Shrivastava, 1995; Starik, 1995; Waddock, 2011).…”

Section: The Emergence Of Stakeholder Engagement Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder engagement has grown into a widely used yet often unclear construct in business and society research. The literature lacks a unified understanding of the essentials of stakeholder engagement, and the fragmented use of the stakeholder engagement construct challenges its development and legitimacy. The purpose of this article is to clarify the construct of stakeholder engagement to unfold the full potential of stakeholder engagement research. We conduct a literature review on 90 articles in leading academic journals focusing on stakeholder engagement in the business and society, management and strategy, and environmental management and environmental policy literatures. We present a descriptive analysis of stakeholder engagement research for a 15-year period, and we identify the moral, strategic, and pragmatic components of stakeholder engagement as well as its aims, activities, and impacts. Moreover, we offer an inclusive stakeholder engagement definition and provide a guide to organizing the research. Finally, we complement the current understanding with a largely overlooked dark side of stakeholder engagement. We conclude with future research avenues for stakeholder engagement research.

show abstract

Section: The Emergence Of Stakeholder Engagement Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stakeholders were purposefully sampled to include individuals with professional connections to the park, and determined to be either influential in park management, or be influenced by decisions taken for park management. An initial list of key stakeholders was expanded upon using the snowball technique, including individuals mentioned at least twice by other stakeholders (as described in López‐Rodríguez et al., 2020). In all, 38 stakeholders were interviewed in July and September 2019, with stakeholders representing different levels of government, technical staff of the National Park, representatives of sectoral associations and non‐profit organizations, and others (Table 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How stable are visions for protected area management? Stakeholder perspectives before and during a pandemic

López‐Rodríguez

Metzger

et al. 2022

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Envisioning processes enable protected area managers to chart a course for future management to reach desired goals, but unexpected changes that could affect future visions are not usually considered. The global COVID‐19 pandemic provided an opportunity to explore changes in stakeholder visions, the values that underpin the visions, and their perceptions of landscape changes and the underlying drivers (e.g. climate change, mass tourism and demographic trends). Through a mixed‐methods approach in this post‐evaluation study, we gathered comparative data on these issues from stakeholders in the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park, Spain, between July 2019 (pre‐pandemic) and October 2020 (mid‐pandemic). Our qualitative analysis demonstrates that pre‐pandemic, differences in visions for protected area management were largely spurred by different perceptions of drivers of change, rather than differences in values or perceived landscape changes, which were similar across different vision themes. One year later, in the midst of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the majority of stakeholders reported that their values, visions and perceptions of drivers did not change despite this large‐scale disturbance. Of the 20%–30% of stakeholders that did report changes, visions generally shifted towards greater prioritization of biodiversity and nature conservation as a result of heightened perceptions of the impacts of drivers of change associated with an increase in the numbers of park visitors. These drivers included mass tourism, mountain recreation, lack of environmental awareness, and change in values and traditions. Our findings reinforce the importance of adaptive and inclusive management of protected areas, including enhancing transparency and communications regarding factors driving change in the landscape, and integration of local and traditional knowledge and stakeholder perceptions of changes and drivers. Furthermore, management plans integrating stakeholder values have the potential to stay relevant even in the face of wildcard events such as a pandemic. To enhance the relevancy of visions and scenarios in conservation and land‐use planning, scenario planning methodologies should more strongly consider different potential disturbances and how drivers of change in the near and far future can be affected by wildcard events such as a pandemic.

show abstract

“…The definition and meaning of inclusive conservation initiatives have varied widely within the conservation sciences (see Table 1). Building on previous research in the context of protected areas (ENVISION, 2021; López‐Rodríguez et al, 2020), we define inclusive conservation as a process for developing and answering research questions that help to solve resource management problems that emerge from balancing the consequences of different visions for nature conservation. Ideally, a model of inclusive conservation considers the scale of the system being managed, establishes legitimacy with stakeholders through equitable resource management, uses verifiable ecological knowledge and develops a multicultural conservation ethic (Berkes, 2004; Farvar et al, 2018; Musavengane & Leonard, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived inclusivity and trust in protected area management decisions among stakeholders in Alaska

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of conservation initiatives often depends on the inclusion of diverse stakeholder interests in the decision‐making process. Yet, there is a paucity of empirical knowledge concerning the factors that explain why stakeholders do—or do not— believe that they are meaningfully represented by government agencies. Our study provides insight into the relationship between trust and stakeholder perceptions of inclusivity in public land management decisions. Here, we focus on the U.S. state of Alaska, where almost two‐thirds of the land area are managed by the federal government. We used structural equation modelling to test whether an individual's trust and the information sources used to learn about land management positively influenced perceived inclusivity. We conceptualized trust in terms of four dimensions that reflected an individual's disposition to trust, trust in the federal government, trust in shared values and trust that agencies adhere to a moral code. We found that survey respondents across the U.S. state of Alaska had a limited disposition to trust others, did not trust federal land management agencies, did not believe agencies shared their values pertaining to protected area management and did not believe that agencies adhered to a moral code. Beliefs about the morality of agencies were the primary driver of perceived inclusivity in land management decisions, indicating that agencies should focus on solving problems through deliberation and discussion about moral principles rather than by force. Information acquired from professional, community‐based or environmental advocacy exchanges also positively influenced perceived levels of involvement among stakeholders in resource management decisions. These results provide a roadmap for how land management agencies can improve public relations and work towards a model of inclusive conservation around protected areas. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Delineating participation in conservation governance: Insights from the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park (Spain)

Cited by 21 publications

References 37 publications

Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future

Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future

How stable are visions for protected area management? Stakeholder perspectives before and during a pandemic

Perceived inclusivity and trust in protected area management decisions among stakeholders in Alaska

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About