Why people matter in ocean governance: Incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas.

Posted on September 11, 2017 by Nathan J. Bennett

Large-scale marine protected areas in 2016-2017 (Source: Big Ocean)

More than two years ago, I took up a Fulbright Visiting Scholar position in the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs at the University of Washington with Dr. Patrick Christie. Along with a team of collaborators from academic institutions and conservation organizations, we began the lengthy process of applying for funding and then co-organizing a global “Think Thank on the Human Dimensions of Large Scale Marine Protected Areas”. The meeting, which took place in February 2016 in Honolulu, Hawaii, was attended by more than 125 scholars, practitioners, traditional leaders, managers, funders and government representatives from around the world. Through facilitating a dialogue with all participants, we aimed to co-produce knowledge at a global scale about how human dimensions considerations might be incorporated into the planning and ongoing management of large scale marine protected areas. The think tank led to a “A Practical Framework for Addressing the Human Dimensions of Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas” and a subsequent academic article (link – see abstract below). This engagement and process demonstrates the benefits of global collaborations and how knowledge co-production processes can lead to the development of both practical and academic insights on global environmental challenges.

Participants of the Think Tank on the Human Dimensions of Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas

Christie, P. Bennett, N. J., Gray, N., Wilhelm, A., Lewis, N., Parks, J., Ban, N., Gruby, R., Gordon, L., Day, J., Taei, S. & Friedlander, A. (2017). Why people matter in ocean governance: Incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 84, 273-284. (link)

Abstract: Large-scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs) are rapidly increasing. Due to their sheer size, complex socio-political realities, and distinct local cultural perspectives and economic needs, implementing and managing LSMPAs successfully creates a number of human dimensions challenges. It is timely and important to explore the human dimensions of LSMPAs. This paper draws on the results of a global “Think Tank on the Human Dimensions of Large Scale Marine Protected Areas” involving 125 people from 17 countries, including representatives from government agencies, non-governmental organizations, academia, professionals, industry, cultural/indigenous leaders and LSMPA site managers. The overarching goal of this effort was to be proactive in understanding the issues and developing best management practices and a research agenda that address the human dimensions of LSMPAs. Identified best management practices for the human dimensions of LSMPAs included: integration of culture and traditions, effective public and stakeholder engagement, maintenance of livelihoods and wellbeing, promotion of economic sustainability, conflict management and resolution, transparency and matching institutions, legitimate and appropriate governance, and social justice and empowerment. A shared human dimensions research agenda was developed that included priority topics under the themes of scoping human dimensions, governance, politics, social and economic outcomes, and culture and tradition. The authors discuss future directions in researching and incorporating human dimensions into LSMPAs design and management, reflect on this global effort to co-produce knowledge and re-orient practice on the human dimensions of LSMPAs, and invite others to join a nascent community of practice on the human dimensions of large-scale marine conservation.

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Posted on July 19, 2016 by Nathan J. Bennett

I just published a co-authored Open Access article in the journal Conservation Biology titled “Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation“. In this article, we define conservation social science, examine the barriers to uptake of the social sciences in conservation, and suggest practical steps that might be taken to overcome these barriers.

Bennett, N., Roth, R., Klain, S., Chan, K., Clark, D., Cullman, G., Epstein, G., Nelson, P., Stedman, R., Teel, T., Thomas, R., Wyborn, C., Currans, D., Greenberg, A., Sandlos, J & Verissimo, D. (2016). Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conservation Biology. Online, Open Access. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12788

Abstract

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society’s understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers – ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity – to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy-influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science – one that includes the natural and social sciences – will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.

Download from here

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

Posted on December 19, 2014 by Nathan J. Bennett

This post is to alert you to the publication of a new report titled “The Conservation Social Sciences: What?, How? and Why?” that I edited with Robin Roth. The report can be downloaded from here.

Citation: Bennett, N. J. & Roth, R. (eds.) (2015). The Conservation Social Sciences: What?, How? and Why? Vancouver, BC: Canadian Wildlife Federation and Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2664.3529

Overview of Report

Each of the fields of conservation social science has made and can make a unique contribution to understanding the relationship between humans and nature and to improving conservation outcomes. Conservation scientists, practitioners and organizations recognize the importance of the conservation social sciences and are increasingly engaging in and funding conservation social science research. Yet conservation organizations and funders often lack a clear understanding of the breadth of the conservation social sciences, the types of questions that each field of conservation social science poses, the methods used by disciplinary specialists, or the potential contribution of each field of conservation social science to improving conservation practice and outcomes. Limited social science capacity and knowledge within conservation organizations may also mean that conservation practitioners and organizations looking to fund conservation social science research do not know where or how to begin defining a social science research agenda.

This report presents a series of papers that were given as part of a workshop titled “The conservation social sciences: Clarifying ‘what?’, “how?’ and ‘why?’ to inform conservation practice” that occurred at the North American Congress for Conservation Biology in Missoula, Montana in July 2014. The workshop brought together specialists from the breadth of the conservation social sciences to define the contributions of their disciplines and fields to conservation through exploring the ‘what?’, ‘how?’ and ‘why?’ of each area of expertise. The resultant report aims to stimulate dialogue among conservation organizations, foundations, agencies, practitioners and researchers about the role of the conservation social sciences. It is intended to build capacity, promote knowledge and foster engagement with conservation social sciences in order to improve conservation practice and outcomes.

The first chapter of the report introduces the conservation social sciences. The body of the report provides succinct synopses of the different conservation social sciences by specialists in Psychology, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science and Governance, Human Dimensions, Political Ecology, Ethics, Education and Communication, Conservation and Development, and Science and Technology Studies. The concluding chapter a) provides a broad overview of the topics explored, questions asked, methods used and contributions made by each field of conservation social science and b) presents a process by which conservation organizations or funders can define and prioritize a conservation social science research agenda. We propose five steps to guide organizations wishing to better employ the conservation social sciences: 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; and 5) Partner with, contract or hire conservation social scientist(s) to carry out the work.

Introducing the Conservation Social Sciences – Nathan J. Bennett & Robin Roth
A Primer on Environmental Anthropology for Conservation Biologists – Georgina Cullman
Conservation and Sociology – Richard C. Stedman
Ecological Economics and Its Potential Role in Conservation – Kai M. A. Chan, Michael Barkusky & Sarah C. Klain
A (Social) Psychology Approach in Conservation – Tara L. Teel, Alia M. Dietsch & Michael J. Manfredo
Political Science, Environmental Governance and Conservation – Graham Epstein
Conservation Ethics as a Conservation Social Science – Michael Paul Nelson & John A. Vucetich
Beyond ‘the Gap’: Connecting Conservation Science with Policy and Practice – Carina Wyborn
Informing Conservation Practice Through Environmental Education: The “What”, “How” and “Why” – Rebecca E. W. Thomas
Win-Win or Trade-Offs?: The Study of Conservation and Development at Local, National and Global Scales – Nathan J. Bennett
Conservation of What for Whom?: A Political Ecological Approach to Conservation – Robin Roth
Human Dimensions and the Evolution of Interdisciplinary Approaches in Conservation Social Science – Douglas A. Clark
The Conservation Social Sciences: An Overview and A Process for Setting a Research Agenda – Nathan J. Bennett, Robin Roth, Sarah 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

Nathan J. Bennett

Exploring diverse relationships between humans and the environment with a critical and solution-oriented lens.

Tag Archives: Human Dimensions

Abstract

Overview of Report

Table of Contents