Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70028448

Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping contending perspectives

D.J. Mattson·K.L. Byrd·M.B. Rutherford·S.R. Brown·T. W. Clark
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Reducing current conflict over large carnivore conservation and designing effective strategies that enjoy broad public support depend on a better understanding of the values, beliefs, and demands of those who are involved or affected. We conducted a workshop attended by diverse participants involved in conservation of large carnivores in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, and used Q methodology to elucidate participant perspectives regarding "problems" and "solutions". Q methodology employs qualitative and quantitative techniques to reveal the subjectivity in any situation. We identified four general perspectives for both problems and solutions, three of which (Carnivore Advocates, Devolution Advocates, and Process Reformers) were shared by participants across domains. Agency Empathizers (problems) and Economic Pragmatists (solutions) were not clearly linked. Carnivore and Devolution Advocates expressed diametrically opposed perspectives that legitimized different sources of policy-relevant information ("science" for Carnivore Advocates and "local knowledge" for Devolution Advocates). Despite differences, we identified potential common ground focused on respectful, persuasive, and creative processes that would build understanding and tolerance. ?? 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Explore related subjects

Environmental Science and PolicyArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D.J. Mattson, K.L. Byrd, M.B. Rutherford, S.R. Brown, T. W. Clark. 2006. Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: mapping contending perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.005

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2024

Prototyping structured decision making for water resource management in the San Francisco Bay-Delta

A structured decision making (SDM) approach can help evaluate tradeoffs between conservation and human-benefit objectives by fostering communication and knowledge transfer among stakeholders, decision makers, and the public. However, the process is iterative and completing the full process may take years. It can be difficult to initiate an SDM effort when problems seem insurmountable. Occasionally, SDM may not even be the best or correct approach for addressing the conservation problem at hand. We describe the implementation of an SDM process to help inform difficult decisions related to competing objectives. We convened a diverse stakeholder group from the largest estuary in the western United States; the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta). The stakeholder group consisted of representatives from local, state, and federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and recreational fishers. The stakeholder group agreed on a problem statement and identified four priority objectives related to Chinook salmon, delta smelt, water availability and reliability, and agricultural water use. Furthermore, they proposed 14 candidate management actions to achieve their objectives. The group then used existing quantitative models and data to evaluate trade-offs in proposed management actions to identify areas of agreement of proposed candidate actions. The clear communication of the problem statement and objectives among the stakeholder group, along with evaluation of tradeoffs and uncertainty via decision-support models suggest that a full SDM approach may work in the Bay-Delta. We further communicate lessons learned during our implementation of SDM to help guide future SDM efforts in the region and elsewhere.

California↗
USGS2023

Lessons learned in knowledge co-production for climate-smart decision-making

Knowledge co-production, a process that involves both creators and users of information in knowledge generation, is growing in popularity in the conservation and ecology fields. While examples of successful co-production are becoming more common, many barriers and challenges remain in this work. Here, we reflect on our experiences in knowledge co-production from three recent case studies, using a prominent framework to understand and improve our efforts at each phase of the co-production process. Our reflections yield insights that may help other scientists seeking to support decision-making. We found that paying particular attention to the composition of the team and connecting with agency representatives early and often are key to success. Long-term commitment to the project and the people involved are also key. We conclude with suggestions for refining the framework to incorporate our primary lessons learned and include the valuation of a plurality of knowledge systems and empowerment as an ultimate impact of knowledge co-production.

Environmental Science and Policy↗
USGS2022

Institutional barriers to actionable science: Perspectives from decision support tool creators

Scholars have identified a ‘usability gap’ between science and its ability to inform real-world decisions as well as a range of factors that facilitate or impede attempts to span the usability gap with information products. However, most attention has focused on barriers related to information users; much less research focuses on the unique institutional and organizational barriers experienced by creators of decision support tools. To address this gap, we used semi-structured interviews to investigate the perspectives and experiences of practitioners holding scientific or technology roles, including their goals for their tools, their perceptions of success in meeting those goals, and the barriers and opportunities they encountered. We find that there is often a mismatch between what tool creators know is necessary to achieve success for their tools and what is actually possible given various constraints. Our results suggest that knowledge may be a less important barrier to conducting actionable science through creating decision support tools than the institutional context in which tool creators work.

Environmental Science and Policy↗