Social outcomes associated with a public and stakeholder engagement process for wolf reintroduction

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Rebecca M. Niemiec, Michael Quartuch, Mireille Gonzalez, Veronica Champine, Andrew Mertens
{"title":"Social outcomes associated with a public and stakeholder engagement process for wolf reintroduction","authors":"Rebecca M. Niemiec,&nbsp;Michael Quartuch,&nbsp;Mireille Gonzalez,&nbsp;Veronica Champine,&nbsp;Andrew Mertens","doi":"10.1111/csp2.70058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A growing body of literature suggests that public and stakeholder engagement processes can be implemented to achieve social outcomes that can influence conservation goals. However, few studies have conducted assessments of the impacts of engagement processes on social outcomes over time. We examined whether there were changes in five social outcome indicators—knowledge, beliefs, acceptability of management options, trust in decision-makers, and social conflict—before and after the stakeholder and public engagement process for planning wolf reintroduction in Colorado. We focus on three samples—those engaged directly in the stakeholder process, additional stakeholders interested in the issue not directly involved in the process, and members of the public. We found that after the process, knowledge related to the conservation initiative increased a small amount among the public and stakeholders. Acceptance of certain management options (compensation for livestock losses and wolf hunting) increased slightly among the public, whereas stakeholders reported slightly more negative beliefs about the outcomes of wolf reintroduction after the process. The process did not appear to influence most measures of social conflict or trust in decision-makers. The public and stakeholders were also the least likely to believe the process would or did achieve reductions in social conflict. Our findings suggest that small increases in learning and acceptance of certain management options among the broader public and stakeholders may be associated with engagement processes, and that stakeholder perceptions about the impact of the process broadly align with pre- and post-changes in indicators of social outcomes. However, if conservation organizations are interested in decreasing social conflict or increasing trust in decision-makers, they should explicitly attend to this need in the design, evaluation, and adaptive management of stakeholder and public engagement processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"7 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.70058","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70058","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A growing body of literature suggests that public and stakeholder engagement processes can be implemented to achieve social outcomes that can influence conservation goals. However, few studies have conducted assessments of the impacts of engagement processes on social outcomes over time. We examined whether there were changes in five social outcome indicators—knowledge, beliefs, acceptability of management options, trust in decision-makers, and social conflict—before and after the stakeholder and public engagement process for planning wolf reintroduction in Colorado. We focus on three samples—those engaged directly in the stakeholder process, additional stakeholders interested in the issue not directly involved in the process, and members of the public. We found that after the process, knowledge related to the conservation initiative increased a small amount among the public and stakeholders. Acceptance of certain management options (compensation for livestock losses and wolf hunting) increased slightly among the public, whereas stakeholders reported slightly more negative beliefs about the outcomes of wolf reintroduction after the process. The process did not appear to influence most measures of social conflict or trust in decision-makers. The public and stakeholders were also the least likely to believe the process would or did achieve reductions in social conflict. Our findings suggest that small increases in learning and acceptance of certain management options among the broader public and stakeholders may be associated with engagement processes, and that stakeholder perceptions about the impact of the process broadly align with pre- and post-changes in indicators of social outcomes. However, if conservation organizations are interested in decreasing social conflict or increasing trust in decision-makers, they should explicitly attend to this need in the design, evaluation, and adaptive management of stakeholder and public engagement processes.

与狼群重新引入的公众和利益相关者参与过程相关的社会结果
越来越多的文献表明,可以实施公众和利益相关者参与的过程,以实现影响保护目标的社会结果。然而,很少有研究对参与过程对社会结果的影响进行评估。我们研究了在科罗拉多州狼群重新引入计划的利益相关者和公众参与过程前后,五个社会结果指标——知识、信念、管理方案的可接受性、对决策者的信任和社会冲突——是否发生了变化。我们重点关注三个样本:直接参与利益相关者过程的人,对问题感兴趣但不直接参与过程的其他利益相关者,以及公众成员。我们发现,在这个过程之后,公众和利益相关者对保护倡议的相关知识增加了少量。公众对某些管理方案(对牲畜损失和猎狼进行补偿)的接受度略有上升,而利益相关者报告说,在这一过程结束后,对狼重新引入的结果持更消极的看法。这个过程似乎并没有影响大多数衡量社会冲突或对决策者信任的指标。公众和利益相关者也最不可能相信这一进程会或确实减少了社会冲突。我们的研究结果表明,在更广泛的公众和利益相关者中,对某些管理方案的学习和接受程度的小幅增加可能与参与过程有关,利益相关者对该过程影响的看法与社会结果指标变化前后大致一致。然而,如果保护组织有意减少社会冲突或增加对决策者的信任,他们应该在利益相关者和公众参与过程的设计、评估和适应性管理中明确地关注这一需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信