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

Autor: Marino A; Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London, NW1 4RY, UK. Electronic address: agnese.marino87@gmail.com., Ciucci P; Department of Biology and Biotechnology 'Charles Darwin', La Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro, 00185, Roma, RM, Italy. Electronic address: paolo.ciucci@uniroma1.it., Redpath SM; Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen. Zoology Building, Tillydrone Ave, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK. Electronic address: s.redpath@abdn.ac.uk., Ricci S; Istituto di Ecologia Applicata di Roma, Via B. Eustachio 10, 00161, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: s.ricci@ieaitaly.org., Young J; UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 0QB, UK; Agroécologie, AgroSup Dijon, INRAE, Univ. Bourgogne, Univ. Bourgogne, Franche-Comté, F-21000, Dijon, France. Electronic address: jyo@ceh.ac.uk., Salvatori V; Istituto di Ecologia Applicata di Roma, Via B. Eustachio 10, 00161, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: valeria.salvatori@gmail.com.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of environmental management [J Environ Manage] 2021 Oct 15; Vol. 296, pp. 113125. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jul 09.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113125
Abstrakt: 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.
(Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: