Humanizing conservation planning and management…

(…through engaging with the social sciences)

Nathan J. Bennett, PhD - @NathanJBennett #ConSocSci http://nathanbennett.ca

Postdoctoral Fellow, University of British Columbia & University of Nice Affiliated Researcher, Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University

Talk Overview 1.  The peopled seas and landscapes of conservation

2.  The role of the social sciences in evidence-based conservation

3.  Humanizing conservation: A few examples…

4.  Integrating social science insights into conservation decisions

5.  Thank you. Questions?

The peopled landscapes and seascapes of

conservation

“We need to consider the human dimensions in conservation.”

= Collaboration = Social Science = Planning and Decision-making

1. Work with

2. Understand

3.  Integrate

The role of the conservation social sciences

Conservation decisions should be based on… “The best available evidence.”

Levin et al, 2016

Calls for a more social conservation science and practice

“One of the anomalies of modern ecology is the creation of two groups, each of which seems barely aware of the existence of the

other. One studies the human community, almost as if it were a separate entity, and calls its findings sociology, economics and history. The other studies the plant and animal community and

comfortably relegates the hodge-podge of politics to the liberal arts. The inevitable fusion of these two lines of thought will constitute the

outstanding advance of the present century.” - Aldo Leopold, 1935.

“Conservation problems are social and economic, not scientific, yet

biologists have traditionally been expected to solve them” – Schaller,1992

“..close involvement of social researchers with their expertise,

theories and methods, into conservation biology is a prerequisite for progress in the field” – de Snoo et al, 2012

Increasing interest in “human dimensions” but there are…

(BenneK et al, 2017a)

hKp://nathanbenneK.ca

Conservation Social Science Working

Group Support from Canadian Wildlife Federation

and the Society of Conservation Biology.

Workshop at NACCB 2014

Report: The Conservation Social Sciences: What? How? and Why?

Two Open Access publications in 2017:

•  “Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation” Conservation Biology

•  “Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation” Biological Conservation.

!

!

The!Conserva,on!Social!Sciences:!What?,!How?!and!Why?!

!

Edited!by!Nathan!J.!Benne@!and!Robin!Roth!

John!Rombough!

The conservation social sciences

Are… Are not…

“The conservation social sciences are a rigorous set of disciplines, theories and methods for systematically

understanding and characterizing the human

dimensions to facilitate evidence-based

conservation.” (Bennett & Roth, 2018)

•  Working with or collaborating with people

•  Deliberating and making decisions

(BenneK et al, 2017b)

A broad set of human dimensions topics

(BenneK et al, 2017b)

(BenneK et al, 2017b)

The value of the social sciences for conservation

•  Descriptive •  Diagnostic •  Disruptive •  Reflexive •  Generative •  Innovative •  Instrumental

o  To processes o  To design o  To conservation action o  To ecological outcomes o  To social outcomes

(BenneK et al, 2017b)

Diversity

Social Research and Biodiversity ConservationCHRIS SANDBROOK,∗† § WILLIAM M. ADAMS,† BRAM BUSCHER,‡ AND BHASKAR VIRA†∗United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL,United Kingdom†Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Downing Place, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, United Kingdom‡International Institute of Social Studies P.O. Box 29776, 2502 LT The Hague, The Netherlands

Introduction

There is now widespread agreement that social researchis relevant to conservation (Mascia et al. 2003). Exten-sive efforts have been made to improve communicationbetween natural and social scientists interested in con-servation (e.g., Buscher & Wolmer 2007; Adams 2008).However, this communication has been described as a“dialog of the deaf” (Agrawal & Ostrom 2006) and is chal-lenging personally and professionally (Campbell 2005;Brosius 2006; Fox et al. 2006). The search for more ef-fective communication continues (Redford 2011) and isaided by—among other things—textbooks of social sci-ence methods for conservation (e.g., Newing 2011) andthe Society for Conservation Biology’s Social SciencesWorking Group, established in 2003.

Despite these efforts, we believe that the role andplace of social research in conservation remains a ma-jor source of misunderstanding, miscommunication, andcontention among conservation researchers. There areproblems of method (e.g., use of both qualitative andquantitative methods in social research), of epistemol-ogy (e.g., positivist versus postpositivist, and problemsolving versus critical approaches), of understanding (ittakes time to become expert in any discipline), and oflanguage (terminology and writing styles can make pub-lications effectively incomprehensible, or at least deeplyunattractive and difficult, for people trained in a differentdiscipline). None of these problems is unique to inter-disciplinary engagement between conservation biologyand social research (e.g., Lele & Norgaard 2005; Barry &Born 2013), but they are nonetheless important in thiscontext.

In this article, we seek to contribute to interdisci-plinary communication and understanding by describing

§email chris.sandbrook@unep-wcmc.orgPaper submitted December 7, 2012; revised manuscript accepted June 4, 2013.

what we see as different ways in which conservation so-cial science is framed. For heuristic purposes (to enablea clear argument), we have drawn a simple distinctionbetween 2 modes of enquiry, which we term researchfor conservation and research on conservation (Table 1).We first describe the characteristics of each form of re-search. We then draw attention to the ways in whichsocial research on conservation, although often chal-lenging, can make a positive contribution to biodiversityconservation.

This short article cannot do justice to the rich litera-ture on interdisciplinarity, but we hope it will stimulatefurther thinking and reading, particularly among conser-vation biologists. We are not seeking to label or describethe ideas or work of particular individuals. Our purpose isto help researchers, practitioners, and activists in debatesabout conservation understand what others do and whythey do it. We hope such an understanding will make iteasier for them to argue about the right things.

Social Research for and on Conservation

Conservation biology, as is well known, is an expresslymission-driven discipline (Meine et al. 2006), dedicated tothe moral and practical challenge of stopping biodiversityloss. Social research for conservation may be thoughtof as sharing with conservation science the normativemission to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity(Table 1). It seeks to increase understanding of humansociety in order to understand why, how, and when im-pacts on nature and biodiversity loss occur and whatmotivates people to engage in activities that harm or pro-mote the conservation of biodiversity. In many cases,social research for conservation is a response to the

1Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–4C⃝ 2013 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/cobi.12141

(Sandbrook et al)

Social Science Methods1. Qualitative

2. Quantitative

3. Participatory

4. Planning and forward looking

5. Evaluative

6.  Spatial

7. Historical

8. Meta-analytical

(BenneK et al, 2017b)

The products of conservation social science

(BenneK et al, 2017b)

Humanizing conservation: A few examples…

Topics related to the human dimensions of conservation

•  Values •  Governance •  Equity •  Management •  Economics •  Uses and

Activities •  Migration •  Behaviour •  Culture •  Law & Policy •  Attitudes •  Beliefs

•  Social impacts •  Human impacts •  Rights •  Indigenous

Knowledge •  Human well-

being •  Conflict •  Communication •  Benefits •  Empowerment •  Knowledge •  Power

•  Social Organization

•  Health •  Education •  Access •  Decision-making

processes •  Livelihoods •  Ethics •  Perceptions •  Social resilience •  History •  Etc….

Example 1: Perceptions

(BenneK, Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation, 2016)

Local perceptions of MPA impacts on communities in Thailand

Why local people do not support conservation: Communityperceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governanceand management in Thailand$

Nathan James Bennett a,b,n, Philip Dearden c

a Department of Geography, University of Victoria, PO Box 3060 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3R4b Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Canadac Marine Protected Areas Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 31 May 2013Received in revised form1 August 2013Accepted 4 August 2013Available online 30 August 2013

Keywords:Marine protected areasConservation impactsLivelihoodsGovernanceManagement

a b s t r a c t

Conservation success is often predicated on local support for conservation which is strongly influenced byperceptions of the impacts that are experienced by local communities and opinions of management andgovernance. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are effective conservation and fisheries management tools thatcan also have a broad array of positive and negative social, economic, cultural, and political impacts on localcommunities. Drawing on results from a mixed-methods study of communities on the Andaman Coast ofThailand, this paper explores perceptions of MPA impacts on community livelihood resources (assets) andoutcomes as well as MPA governance and management. The area includes 17 National Marine Parks (NMPs)that are situated near rural communities that are highly dependent on coastal resources. Interviewparticipants perceived NMPs to have limited to negative impacts on fisheries and agricultural livelihoodsand negligible benefits for tourism livelihoods. Perceived impacts on livelihoods were felt to result fromNMPs undermining access to or lacking support for development of cultural, social, political, financial,natural, human, physical, and political capital assets. Conflicting views emerged onwhether NMPs resulted innegative or positive marine or terrestrial conservation outcomes. Perceptions of NMP governance andmanagement processes were generally negative. These results point to some necessary policy improvementsand actions to ameliorate: the relationship between the NMP and communities, NMP management andgovernance processes, and socio-economic and conservation outcomes.

& 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an important instrument forconservation and fisheries management. MPAs can protect habitats,ecosystem structure, functioning and integrity, and species diver-sity, richness, size and density [1–3]. These conservation and fish-eries benefits are particularly evident in “no-take” MPAs [4]. Theirimport as a management tool has lead to increasing numbers ofMPAs around the world – more than 6800 MPAs covering !2.86%of Exclusive Economic Zones in 2010 [5] – and global commitmentsto scale up the coverage of MPAs to 10% aerial coverage by 2020 [6].

The management and conservation benefits of MPAs can alsolead to positive outcomes for local communities through spillover offish into local fisheries [7–12], mitigation of climatic and environ-mental threats [13], and tourism livelihood benefits [14–17]. YetMPAs have also been criticized for leading to negative social,economic, cultural and political impacts for local people andcommunities (see literature review below). This is problematicsince support for and the success of MPAs is predicated on positivelocal perceptions of socio-economic and ecological outcomes inmany locations [18–21]. Support is also dependent on perceptionsof the effectiveness and quality of management and governancepolicies, institutions, and processes [22–25].

Situated between Malaysia and Myanmar and facing the Bay ofBengal, the Andaman coast of Thailand is an area of highbiodiversity and ecological importance [26]. Within the116,000 km2 of marine area, there are important areas of seagrass,coral reefs, and mangroves [27,28]. However, the ecological healthof the area is threatened by overexploitation and destructivefishing, degradation and loss of habitats, and pollution and fish-eries are in decline [28–30]. There are a number of MPAs in thearea, including several smaller community-based MPAs [31], one

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Marine Policy

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017

$This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works License, which per-mits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, providedthe original author and source are credited.

n Corresponding author at: Department of Geography, University of Victoria, POBox 3060 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3R4. Tel.: +1 250 721 7327;fax: +1 250 721 6216.

E-mail addresses: njbennet@uvic.ca,mr.nathan.bennett@gmail.com (N.J. Bennett),pdearden@office.geog.uvic.ca (P. Dearden).

Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116

Example 2: CultureCultural dimensions of coastal conservation M.R. Poe et al.

• Define a person or community and cons tute a 'way of life'• A ributed to objects, places, rela onships, prac ces, and processes• Enlivened through language, rela onships, and prac ces• Develop through ecosystem interac ons• Form and informed by 'cultural models'• Dynamic, heterogenous, changing over me and space

Meanings, Values, and IdenƟƟes

• Cumula ve knowledge of the environment and its social and spa al condi ons• Embedded within sociocultural processes• Con nually regenerated through prac cal engagements with ecosystems

Local Ecological Knowledge and PracƟce

• Formal and informal economic ac vi es• Noncommercial harvests for household use or exchange• Linked to culture, knowledge, social rela ons, and tradi ons• Job sa sfac on, quality of life, and occupa onal and place iden es

Livelihood Dynamics

• Mechanisms of control, rules of access, decision-making processes• Tied to philosophies, norms, rela onships, and knowledge systems• Varied dynamics across spa al and organiza onal scales• Entangled with poli cal issues of power and inequali es

Governance and Access

• Varied food web effects on sociocultural phenomena• Cultural keystones species play fundamental roles in social systems and cultural iden ty• Culturally-based restora on and management creates 'bio-cultural landscapes'• Changing enviroments impact cultural connec ons to ecosystems and cultural wellbeing

Bio-cultural InteracƟons

Figure 1 Cultural dimensions of socioecological systems model: key aspects and attributes.

ties to coastal ecosystems is often missing in fisheriesmanagement, as revealed in Hall-Arber’s (1996) studyon Portuguese and Italian women’s experiences in NewEngland.

Sociocultural actors (e.g., fishermen, women whowork in processing plants, traditional shellfish harvesters,fisheries biologists, etc.) interact with and experience en-vironments in ways that shape their perceptions, beliefs,and held values toward these environments, constitut-ing what Paolisso & Dery (2010) and Blount & Kitner(2007) call “cultural models.” Cultural models are oftenabstract and include philosophical, spiritual, and moralviews about environments, and these in turn shape thevision of how resources should be managed (Hall-Arberet al. 2009). Finally, meanings, values, and identities arealso dynamic, changing over time and space, as individu-als and communities communicate, negotiate, and refine

their orientations based on their practices, social relation-ships, and novel understandings.

(2) Cultural dimensions of ecosystems are embedded inlocal ecological knowledge (LEK) and practice.

Local resource users maintain substantial knowledgeon the environmental, social, and spatial conditions ofecosystems. This cumulative body of knowledge is calledLEK, and when LEK is developed and transferred overmultiple generations, it is called traditional ecologicalknowledge (TEK; Berkes et al. 2000). LEK is not sim-ply a collection of data about the environment, but isembedded within sociocultural processes (Houde 2007).Local knowledges are based in the “sensitivities, orien-tations, and skills that have developed over one’s life-time through actual engagement in and performance ofpractical activities” (Lauer & Aswani 2009: 318). As such,

168 Conservation Letters, May/June 2014, 7(3), 166–175 Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

(Poe et al, Cultural dimensions of coastal conservation, 2014)

Indigenous perspectives on conservation in Northern Canada

Aboriginal and Local Perspectives on the Community Benefits of Conservation: A Case Study

of a Proposed Canadian National Park and the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation

Geography Research Forum • Vol. 30 • 2010: 105-134.

Nathan Bennett* Raynald Harvey Lemelin** Stephen Ellis***

* Nathan Bennett, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, VA, BC, Canada, V8W 3R4. Email: njbennet@uvic.ca,

**Raynald Harvey Lemelin, School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks and Tourism, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, P7B 5E1. Email: rhlemeli@lakeheadu.ca

**Stephen Ellis, Thaidene Nene Parks Working Group, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, Box 15 Lutsel K’e, NT, Canada,Y0E 1A0. Email: scellis@eastern.com

University ofVictoria

Lutsel K’e, Northwest Territories, is a rural Aboriginal (Dene) community with a population of 400 that could soon become the gateway to the third largest na-tional park in Canada. The Thaidene Nene Working Group of the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation is interested in the potential of the park in contributing to local socio-economic development. A collaborative research project with research-ers from Lakehead University in Canada, examined various perspectives on how to maximize local development potentials in the community, with the purpose of providing information to the community and Parks Canada for direct use in park and community planning and development. This descriptive paper focuses on lo-cal and Aboriginal community member perspectives on the perceived and desired benefits of the creation of a national park in the traditional territory of the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation.

Keywords: Conservation, Community Benefits, Social and Economic Develop-ment, Northern Canada, National Parks, Aboriginal Peoples

Lakehead University

Thaidene Nene ParksWorking Group

A substantial portion of the traditional territory of the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (LKDFN) could soon become part of the third largest national park in Canada with local support. This represents a significant shift from 1969 when a national park was initially proposed and, subsequently, opposed by the LKDFN. At that time, the national park proposal was not understood by locals; protection of the environment was not seen as necessary; and, park regulations were seen as being contrary to the traditional way of life (Griffith, 1987; Ellis and Enzoe, 2008; Bennett and Lemelin, 2009). Since 2001, when former Chief Felix Lockhart reopened discussions with

(Painting by John Rombough) (BenneK, Lemelin & Ellis, 2010)

Biocultural Approaches to Conservation

(Winter et al, 2018) (Berkes, 2011)

Relationship between culture and biodiversity is a “keystone” of sustainable landscapes in Hawaii

(Winter et al, 2018)

Example 3: Human well-being

(Kaplan-Hallam & BenneK, 2018)

Puget Sound Partnership

(WWU) (PSP, 2017)

Puget Sound Vital Signs

(PSP, 2017)

Developing HWB Indicators for the Puget Sound

(Biedenweg et al, 2014; 2016)

Example 4: Environmental Governance

GovernanceComponentsandObjec3ves

•  Direc3on•  Coordina3on•  Capacity•  Informed•  Accountable•  Efficient

•  Legi3mate•  Connected•  Nested•  Polycentric

•  Learning•  An3cipatory•  Adap3ve•  Innova3ve•  Flexible

•  Recogni3on•  Par3cipa3on•  Fair•  Just

Ins$tu$ons

• Laws• Policies• Rules• Norms

Structures

• Decision-makingbodies• FormalOrganiz-a3ons

• Informalnetworks

Processes

• Decision-making• Policycrea3on

• Nego3a3onofvalues• Conflictresolu3on

ElementsofGovernance

Objec$v

esand

A:rib

utesofG

overna

nce

Effec$v

eEq

uitable

Respon

sive

Robu

st

BenneK & SaKerfield ( 2018). Environmental Governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation & assessment. Conservation LeKers

Good governance for protected areas

CHAPTER 7GOVERNANCE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE Principal authors: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and Rosemary Hill

CONTENTS• Introduction

• History, power, culture and nature• Governing protected and conserved areas

• The governance frontiers

• Conclusion

• References

Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principlesand performance outcomes

Michael Lockwood*

School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, PB 78, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 January 2009Received in revised form3 August 2009Accepted 13 October 2009Available online 5 November 2009

Keywords:Protected areasGovernancePrinciplesPerformance evaluation

a b s t r a c t

Governing norms by which to steer traditional government functions are well established andunderstood; however, this is not the case for the new multi-level and collaborative approaches thatcharacterize protected area governance. This is largely new territory that makes novel demands ongovernance institutions and policy. In this context, establishing and maintaining good governance acrossthe diversity of ownership and responsibility arrangements is critical for the future effectiveness andacceptability of protected areas. Fulfilling the promise and avoiding the pitfalls inherent in contemporaryprotected area governance will require an understanding of what is meant by ’good governance’ anddevelopment of associated mechanisms to assess performance and provide a basis for improvement. Thispaper’s contribution lies in the guidance it provides for the hitherto under-developed area of governancequality assessment. I first present a framework that positions governance quality in relation togovernance and management effectiveness. I then characterize good protected area governanceaccording to a set of seven principles – legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness,connectivity and resilience. Together, the framework, governance principles and related performanceoutcomes provide a platform for assessment of governance quality for an individual terrestrial protectedarea, a network of several protected areas, or a national protected area system.

! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Protected area governance concerns the structures, processesand traditions that determine how power and responsibilities areexercised, how decisions are taken, and how stakeholders havetheir say (Graham et al., 2003). Over the last few decades, thepreviously dominant state-based ‘top-down’ model has been byaugmented, and in some cases replaced, by diverse forms ofcollaborative management, partnership arrangements, delegatedauthority and community management. Powers and responsibili-ties related to protected areas, while still substantially vested ingovernments and their agencies, have also been taken up byindigenous and local communities, NGOs and individual land-holders, often working in partnership with each other. While non-state protected areas are not new – indigenous communities inparticular have for millennia instituted protective governance overspecial places (Gokhale et al., 1997; Ramakrishnan et al., 1998) –civil, private and collaborative forms have recently become muchmore prominent and influential (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2006).

Internationally, a series of conferences and initiatives havehelped shape a new direction for conservation governance, withindigenous peoples in particular playing a key role. Governancefirst became a major focus for the international protected areaagenda at the IUCN World Parks Congress, held in 2003 in Durban,South Africa and has subsequently been an important theme atinternational meetings such as the IUCN World ConservationCongresses in Bangkok (2004) and Barcelona (2008). One of thefour themes in the Convention on Biological Diversity Programme ofWork on Protected Areas, adopted in 2004 at the 7th Conference ofthe Parties in Kuala Lumpur, was ‘Governance, participation, equityand benefit sharing’. Explicit recognition of four broad governancetypes– governance by government, shared governance, privategovernance and governance by indigenous peoples and localcommunities– has recently been incorporated into revised guide-lines for applying protected area management categories (Dudley,2008).

This upsurge of interest and attention reflects the comingtogether of diverse political, social and environmental influences.First, demands for observance of local and indigenous rights havegained political momentum through the widespread recognitionthat, in many parts of the world, protected area establishment andmanagement has caused displacement and disadvantage (Brechin

* Tel.: þ61 3 62262834.E-mail address: michael.lockwood@utas.edu.au

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jenvman

0301-4797/$ – see front matter ! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005

Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2010) 754–766

Good governance in protected areas: An evaluation of stakeholder perceptions in BC

and Ontario Provincial Parks•  Public participation •  Consensus orientation •  Strategic vision •  Responsiveness •  Effectiveness •  Efficiency •  Accountability •  Transparency •  Equity •  Rule of Law

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2013Vol. 21, No. 1, 60–79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.671331

Good governance in protected areas: an evaluation of stakeholders’perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario Provincial Parks

Paul F.J. Eaglesa∗, Francesc Romagosab, Windekind C. Buteau-Duitschaeverc, MarkHavitza, Troy D. Glovera and Bonnie McCutcheona

aDepartment of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;bDepartament de Geografia, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain; cDepartment of Geographyand Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

(Received 2 August 2011; final version received 19 February 2012)

As government funding is reduced and tourism-based fees are increasingly used tofund protected area operations, two options are often used for management: transferof tourism services to the private sector or operation of tourism services by a gov-ernment agency that functions like a corporation. This paper reports stakeholders’views concerning governance for two prominent, but different, management models forprotected areas’ tourism services in Canada. British Columbia Provincial Parks usesprofit-making companies to deliver park services; Ontario Provincial Parks uses theparastatal approach, where park staff members provide most services directly. Surveysof five key stakeholder groups (park staff, visitors, contractors working in park, nearbyresidents and NGOs with an interest in parks) provided higher rankings of perceptionsof governance criteria closer to good governance for the Ontario approach, with impor-tant differences found between some groups and amongst some criteria in both parksystems. This research suggests that the parastatal model is perceived as superior byimportant stakeholder groups, using the lens of standard governance criteria, comparedto the outsourcing model that uses profit-making companies to provide park tourismservices. This finding has implications globally where governments seek to shift parkfunding from government towards tourism fees and charges.

Keywords: protected areas; tourism management; visitor management; ecotourism;globalization; national parks

Introduction: governance, tourism and protected areas

In a general sense, governance is “the system of formal and informal rules that establishthe interaction and cooperation guidelines among the different stakeholders that intervenein the decision making process” (Roca, 2006, p. 12). Hence, governance involves thestate, but transcends the state, because it also involves corporations, non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) and individuals. Governance has three spheres: political, economicand administrative. Political governance is the process of decision-making that determinespolicy. Economic governance concerns the processes whereby economic decisions aremade. Administrative governance is the system that implements law and policy. All threeare intertwined and dependent upon each other (UNDP, 1997).

Graham, Amos and Plumptre (2003, pp. 2–3) in their work on parks define gov-ernance as “the interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determinehow power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizensor other stakeholders have their say. Fundamentally, it is about power, relationships and

∗Corresponding author. Email: eagles@uwaterloo.ca

C⃝ 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

of V

icto

ria] a

t 13:

53 2

6 N

ovem

ber 2

013

Integrating social science insights into conservation

decisions

Conservation (social) science needs to

inform adaptive conservation management

(Kaplan-Hallam & BenneK, 2018)

Re-imaging Conservation Teams, Science and Decision-Making Processes

(BenneK et al, 2017)

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Steps for organizations wishing to engage with CSS

1.  Recognize and overcome organizational barriers to incorporating conservation social sciences and build support for and understanding of the conservation social sciences;

2.  Identify the conservation problem(s) that the organization aims to address and highlight their social dimensions; 

3.  Partner with social scientist(s) to frame key topics, questions and approach;

4.  Brainstorm key topics for investigation or research questions and prioritize them to establish a conservation social science agenda;

5.  Partner with, contract or hire conservation social scientist(s) to carry out the work.

Essay

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservationNathan J. Bennett,∗†‡¶ Robin Roth,§ Sarah C. Klain,∗ Kai M. A. Chan,∗ Douglas A. Clark,∗∗

Georgina Cullman,†† Graham Epstein,‡‡ Michael Paul Nelson,§§ Richard Stedman,∗∗∗

Tara L. Teel,††† Rebecca E. W. Thomas,‡‡‡ Carina Wyborn,§§§ Deborah Curran,∗∗∗∗

Alison Greenberg,‡ John Sandlos,†††† and Diogo Verıssimo‡‡‡‡§§§§∗Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,Canada†School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Box 355685, Seattle, WA 98195-5685, U.S.A.‡Global Economics and Social Science Programme, International Union for Conservation of Nature, 1630 Connecticut Avenue NW,Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20009, U.S.A.§Department of Geography, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada∗∗School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Room 323, Kirk Hall, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N5C8, Canada††Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY10024, U.S.A.‡‡Environmental Change and Governance Group, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, 200University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada§§Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A.∗∗∗Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, 111 Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3001,U.S.A.†††Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, 1480 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO80523-1480, U.S.A.‡‡‡Department of Parks and Recreation, Slippery Rock University, 1 Morrow Way, Slippery Rock, PA 16057, U.S.A.§§§Luc Hoffmann Institute, WWF International, Avenue du Mont-Blanc 1196, Gland, Switzerland∗∗∗∗Environmental Law Centre and Faculty of Law, University of Victoria, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria,B C V8W 2Y2, Canada††††Department of History, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Arts & Administration Building, General Office: Room A4019, St.John’s, NL A1C 5S7, Canada‡‡‡‡Rare, 310 North Courthouse Road, Suite 110, Arlington, VA 22201, U.S.A.§§§§Department of Economics, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3992, Atlanta, GA30302-3992, U.S.A.

Abstract: Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for betterengagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstoodand underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contribu-tions to society’s understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conser-vation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—tomeaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcomingthese barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we rec-ommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, includingsocial scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science researchand insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacityat all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciencesin and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, needto be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations

¶email nathan.bennett@ubc.caPaper submitted December 16, 2015; revised manuscript accepted May 3, 2016.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distributionand reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

1Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–11C⃝ 2016 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12788

(BenneK et al, 2017a)

Summary•  Conservation occurs in peopled landscapes and seascapes

•  Thus, understanding the human dimensions is a fundamental part of evidence-based conservation decision-making.

•  The conservation social sciences are a rigorous set of disciplines, methods and theories to help understand and integrate human dimensions into conservation planning and management.

•  Employing the conservation social sciences requires adequate capacity and funding.

•  The results of all conservation science – including social, natural and interdisciplinary research - need to be communicated, deliberated on, and integrated into decision-making processes.

•  Conservation teams, science and decision-making processes can benefit form a diverse set of social and natural scientists, working alongside stakeholders, policy-makers and practitioners.

References•  Bennett, N.J. (2016). Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 30,

582–592. •  Bennett, N.J. & Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area

livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy, 44, 107–116. •  Bennett, N., Lemelin, R.H. & Ellis, S. (2010). Aboriginal and local perspectives on the community benefits of conservation: A case study of a

proposed Canadian national park and the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation. Geography Research Forum, 30, 105–134. •  Bennett, N.J. & Roth, R. (2015). The Conservation Social Sciences: What?, How? and Why? Canadian Wildlife Federation and Institute for

Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. •  Bennett, N.J. & Roth, R. (2018). Realizing the transformative potential of conservation through the social sciences, arts and humanities.

Biological Conservation. •  Bennett, N.J., Roth, R., Klain, S.C., Chan, K.M.A., Christie, P., Clark, D.A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T.J., Epstein, G., Greenberg, A.,

Nelson, M.P., Sandlos, J., Stedman, R.C., Teel, T.L., Thomas, R.E.W., Veríssimo, D. & Wyborn, C. (2017a). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93–108.

•  Bennett, N.J., Roth, R., Klain, S.C., Chan, K.M.A., Clark, D.A., Cullman, G., Epstein, G., Nelson, M.P., Stedman, R., Teel, T.L., Thomas, R.E.W., Wyborn, C., Curran, D., Greenberg, A., Sandlos, J. & Veríssimo, D. (2017b). Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conservation Biology, 31, 56–66.

•  Bennett, N.J. & Satterfield, T. (2018). Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conservation Letters, 0, e12600.

•  Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. Routledge, New York, NY. •  Biedenweg, K., Hanein, A., Nelson, K., Stiles, K., Wellman, K., Horowitz, J. & Vynne, S. (2014). Developing Human Wellbeing Indicators in the

Puget Sound: Focusing on the Watershed Scale. Coastal Management, 42, 374–390. •  Biedenweg, K., Stiles, K. & Wellman, K. (2016). A holistic framework for identifying human wellbeing indicators for marine policy. Marine Policy,

64, 31–37. •  Borrini-Feyerabend, G. & Hill, R. (2015). Governance for the conservation of nature. In: Protected Area Governance and Management (eds.

Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S. & Pulsford, I.). ANU Press, Canberra, Australia, pp. 169–206. •  Eagles, P.F.J., Romagosa, F., Buteau-Duitschaever, W.C., Havitz, M., Glover, T.D. & McCutcheon, B. (2013). Good governance in protected

areas: an evaluation of stakeholders’ perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario Provincial Parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21, 60–79. •  Kaplan-Hallam, M. & Bennett, N.J. (2017). Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management.

Conservation Biology, online. •  Levin, P.S., Breslow, S.J., Harvey, C.J., Norman, K.C., Poe, M.R., Williams, G.D. & Plummer, M.L. (2016). Conceptualization of Social-Ecological

Systems of the California Current: An Examination of Interdisciplinary Science Supporting Ecosystem-Based Management. Coastal Management, 44, 397–408.

•  Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 754–766.

•  Poe, M.R., Norman, K.C. & Levin, P.S. (2014). Cultural Dimensions of Socioecological Systems: Key Connections and Guiding Principles for Conservation in Coastal Environments: Cultural dimensions of coastal conservation. Conservation Letters, 7, 166–175.

•  Puget Sounds Partnership - http://www.psp.wa.gov/sos.php •  Sandbrook, C., Adams, W.M., Büscher, B. & Vira, B. (2013). Social Research and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology, 27, 1487–

1490. •  Winter, K., Lincoln, N. & Berkes, F. (2018). The Social-Ecological Keystone Concept: A Quantifiable Metaphor for Understanding the Structure,

Function, and Resilience of a Biocultural System. Sustainability, 10, 3294.

h"p://nathanbenne".caand

nathan.benne"@ubc.ca

Thank you.