IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4482-d537868.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Valeria Salvatori

    (Istituto di Ecologia Applicata, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Estelle Balian

    (FEAL-Facilitation for Environmental Action and Learning, 26120 Peyrus, France)

  • Juan Carlos Blanco

    (Consultores en Biologia de la Conservación, 28004 Madrid, Spain)

  • Xavier Carbonell

    (ARC Mediacion Ambiental, 08015 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Paolo Ciucci

    (Department of Biology and Biotechnologies ‘Charles Darwin’, Sapienza Università di Roma, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • László Demeter

    (National Agency for Protected Areas, 530140 Miercurea-Ciuc, Romania)

  • Agnese Marino

    (Institute of Zoology, London NW1 4RY, UK)

  • Andrea Panzavolta

    (Independent Researcher, 41125 Modena, Italy)

  • Andrea Sólyom

    (Faculty of Economics, Socio-Human Sciences and Engineering, Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, 530104 Miercurea Ciuc, Romania)

  • Yorck von Korff

    (Flow-ing, 34980 Montferrier sur Lez, France)

  • Juliette Claire Young

    (French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE), 75338 Paris, France)

Abstract

Social conflicts around large carnivores are increasing in Europe, often associated to the species expansion into human-modified and agricultural landscapes. Large carnivores can be seen as an added value by some but as a source of difficulties by others, depending on different values, attitudes, livelihoods, and everyday activities. Therefore, the effective involvement of the different interest groups is important to identify and shape tailored solutions that can potentially be implemented, complementing top-down approaches that might, on their own, result in lack of implementation and buy-in. To improve dialogue in conflictual situations, as part of a European project promoted by the European Parliament, we assessed the practical implementation of participatory processes in three sample areas in Europe where wolves and bears have recently been increasingly impacting human activities. Our results demonstrate that collaboration among different and generally contrasting groups is possible. Even in situations where large-carnivore impacts were seen as unsatisfactorily managed for many years, people were still willing and eager to be involved in alternative discussion processes hoping this would lead to concrete solutions. An important and common highlight among the three study areas was that all the management interventions agreed upon shared the general scope of improving the conditions of the groups most impacted by large carnivores. The process showed the importance of building trust and supporting dialogue for knowledge co-production and mitigation of conflicts between stakeholders and that controversial environmental issues have the potential to trigger a meaningful dialogue about broader societal issues. The direct involvement and support of competent authorities, as well as the upscaling of this process at larger administrative and social scales, remain important challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Valeria Salvatori & Estelle Balian & Juan Carlos Blanco & Xavier Carbonell & Paolo Ciucci & László Demeter & Agnese Marino & Andrea Panzavolta & Andrea Sólyom & Yorck von Korff & Juliette Claire Young, 2021. "Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4482-:d:537868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4482/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4482/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John S. Dryzek & Simon Niemeyer, 2006. "Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 634-649, July.
    2. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tasos Hovardas, 2021. "Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Juliette Claire Young & Justine Shanti Alexander & Ajay Bijoor & Deepshikha Sharma & Abhijit Dutta & Bayarjargal Agvaantseren & Tserennadmid Nadia Mijiddorj & Kubanych Jumabay & Venera Amankul & Benaz, 2021. "Community-Based Conservation for the Sustainable Management of Conservation Conflicts: Learning from Practitioners," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    2. Walmsley, Heather L., 2011. "Stock options, tax credits or employment contracts please! The value of deliberative public disagreement about human tissue donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-216, July.
    3. Emanuela Ceva, 2012. "Just interactions in value conflicts: The Adversary Argumentation Principle," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(2), pages 149-170, May.
    4. Tasos Hovardas, 2021. "Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Fabiana Gatto & Sara Daniotti & Ilaria Re, 2021. "Driving Green Investments by Measuring Innovation Impacts. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Regional Bioeconomy Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-27, October.
    6. Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    7. Yizhong Huan & Lingqing Wang & Mark Burgman & Haitao Li & Yurong Yu & Jianpeng Zhang & Tao Liang, 2022. "A multi‐perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 833-847, October.
    8. Anna Scolobig & Michael Thompson & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016. "Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 45-68, April.
    9. Jessica Weber & Johann Köppel, 2022. "Can MCDA Serve Ex-Post to Indicate ‘Winners and Losers’ in Sustainability Dilemmas? A Case Study of Marine Spatial Planning in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-30, October.
    10. Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 688-714, October.
    11. Walter Leal Filho & Jelena Barbir & Pınar Gökçin Özuyar & Enrique Nunez & Jose Manuel Diaz-Sarachaga & Bertrand Guillaume & Rosley Anholon & Izabela Simon Rampasso & Julia Swart & Luis Velazquez & The, 2022. "Assessing Provisions and Requirements for the Sustainable Production of Plastics: Towards Achieving SDG 12 from the Consumers’ Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    13. Hongnian Chen & Xianfeng Tan & Yan Zhang & Bo Hu & Shuming Xu & Zhenfen Dai & Zhengxuan Zhang & Zhiye Wang & Yawei Zhang, 2023. "Study on Groundwater Function Zoning and Sustainable Development and Utilization in Jining City Planning Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-22, August.
    14. Ferretti, Valentina & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Does the spatial representation affect criteria weights in environmental decision-making? Insights from a behavioral experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Rob Barlow, 2022. "Deliberation Without Democracy in Multi-stakeholder Initiatives: A Pragmatic Way Forward," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 543-561, December.
    16. Maria del Mar Casanovas-Rubio & Carolina Christen & Luz María Valarezo & Jaume Bofill & Nela Filimon & Jaume Armengou, 2020. "Decision-Making Tool for Enhancing the Sustainable Management of Cultural Institutions: Season Content Programming at Palau De La Música Catalana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-24, July.
    17. Urszula Kwast-Kotlarek & Maria Hełdak, 2019. "Evaluation of the Construction and Investment Process of a High-Pressure Gas Pipeline with Use of the Trenchless Method and Open Excavation Method. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    18. Sarah Clement, 2022. "Knowledge governance for the Anthropocene: Pluralism, populism, and decision‐making," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(S3), pages 11-23, December.
    19. Konow, James, 2008. "The Moral High Ground: An Experimental Study of Spectator Impartiality," MPRA Paper 18558, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Tasneem Siddiqui & Lucy Szaboova & W. Neil Adger & Ricardo Safra de Campos & Mohammad Rashed Alam Bhuiyan & Tamim Billah, 2021. "Policy Opportunities and Constraints for Addressing Urban Precarity of Migrant Populations," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S2), pages 91-105, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4482-:d:537868. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.