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

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.

Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people.

Social science is becoming increasingly important in conservation, with more studies involving methodologies that collect data from and about people. Conservation science is a normative and applied discipline designed to support and inform management and practice. Poor research practice risks harming participants and, researchers, and can leave negative legacies. Often, those at the forefront of field-based research are early-career researchers, many of whom enter their first research experience ill-prepared for the ethical conundrums they may face. We draw on our own experiences as early-career researchers to illuminate how ethical challenges arise during conservation research that involves human participants. Specifically, we considered ethical review procedures, conflicts of values, and power relations, and devised broad recommendations on how to navigate ethical challenges when they arise during research. In particular, we recommend researchers apply reflexivity (i.e., thinking that allows researchers to recognize the effect researchers have on the research) to help navigate ethical challenges and encourage greater engagement with ethical review processes and the development of ethical guidelines for conservation research that involves human participants. Such guidelines must be accompanied by the integration of rigorous ethical training into conservation education. We believe our experiences are not uncommon and can be avoided and hope to spark discussion to contribute to a more socially just conservation.

Consideraciones Éticas cuando la Investigación para la Conservación Involucra a la Gente Resumen Las ciencias sociales cada vez son más importantes para la conservación pues más estudios involucran metodologías que recolectan datos de y sobre la gente. La ciencia de la conservación es una disciplina normativa y aplicada diseñada para apoyar e informar al manejo y a la práctica. La investigación deficiente corre el riesgo de dañar a los participantes y a los investigadores, además de que puede dejar un legado negativo. Es común que investigadores que recién inician sus carreras estén al frente de investigación basada en el campo, muchos de los cuales comenzaron su experiencia mal preparados para los dilemas éticos que podrían enfrentar. Partimos de nuestras propias experiencias como investigadores de carrera temprana para ilustrar cómo emergen los retos éticos durante la investigación para la conservación que incluye a participantes humanos. Específicamente, consideramos los procedimientos de revisión ética, los conflictos de valores y las relaciones de poder y con ellas diseñamos recomendaciones de comité sobre cómo navegar los retos éticos cuando surjan durante la investigación. Particularmente, recomendamos a los investigadores que apliquen la reflexividad (es decir, el pensamiento que permite a los investigadores reconocer el efecto que ellos tienen sobre la investigación) para ayudar a navegar los retos éticos y para alentar un mayor compromiso con los procesos de revisión ética y con el desarrollo de las directrices éticas para la investigación de la conservación que involucra a participantes humanos. Dichas directrices deben estar acompañadas por la integración de un entrenamiento ético riguroso dentro de la educación para la conservación. Creemos que nuestras experiencias no son poco comunes y pueden evitarse y esperamos iniciar una discusión para contribuir a una conservación más justa socialmente.