Conflict management, Participation, Social learning and ... - CiteSeerX

41 downloads 896 Views 247KB Size Report
Apr 1, 2004 - This report discusses the role of some social approaches in contributing to biodiversity conservation options. Conflict management ...
Project no. GOCE-CT-2003-505298 ALTER-Net

Conflict management, Participation, Social learning and Attitudes in Biodiversity Conservation Rehema White1, Anke Fischer2, Hans Peter Hansen3, Riku Varjopuro4, Juliette Young1 and Mihai Adamescu5 1

2

3

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK; Macaulay Institute, UK; National 4

Environmental Research Institute, Denmark; Finnish Environment Institute 5

(SYKE), Finland; University of Bucharest, Romania

WPR4-2005-03

Instrument: Network of Excellence Thematic Priority: Global Change and Ecosystems (Sub-priority 1.1.6.3, Topic 6.3.III.1.1) Due date of deliverable: 2005 Submission date: Start date of project: 1st April 2004 Duration: 5 years Deliverable lead contractor: Revision: 1.0

www.alter-net.info

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

This report discusses the role of some social approaches in contributing to biodiversity conservation options. Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes, particularly the gap between attitudes and behaviour, are defined and described. Linkages between these issues are discussed and a mental map is provided to illustrate the complexity of potential interactions between these issues and external factors. The need to include social science theory and practice as well as approaches from the natural sciences for biodiversity conservation is highlighted.

The report is an outcome of ALTERNet work package R4, “Biodiversity conservation options”and results from the first year of activities. The editorial team is responsible for the text. The report was enhanced by input from participants at workshops in Helsinki, Grenoble, Wageningen and Nitra. Participants included: Erika van den Berg, Geert de Blust, Dave Carss, Anke Fischer, Peter Gajdos, Mari Ivask, Kinga Krauze, Ad Olsthoorn, Julius Oszlanyi, Maria Papp, Terry Parr, Eeva Primmer, Caspian Richards, Jukka Similä, Tarja Söderman, Clive Spash, Herwig Unnerstall, Sylvie Vanpeene, Frank Wätzold and Allan Watt.

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Table of contents Page Executive summary 1. Introduction

1

2. Conflict management

2

2.1 Characteristics of biodiversity conflicts

2

2.2 Biodiversity conflict management

5

3. Participation

7

3.1 Development of the concept of participation

7

3.2 Difficulties of participation

9

3.3 Different interpretations of participation

10

3.4 Institutional and social barriers

14

3.5 Taking participation forward

18

4. Social learning

18

4.1 Definitions of social learning

18

4.2 Development of the concept of social learning

20

4.3 Social learning and social capital

21

4.4 Applications of social learning

21

4.5 Social learning and biodiversity conservation

23

5. Attitudes

24

5.1 Attitudes as antecedents of behaviour

24

5.2 Definitions of attitudes

26

5.3 Approaches to assess attitudes

27

5.4 Environmental awareness

28

5.5 Attitude related factors that affect processes of social learning

28

5.6 Attitude change

29

5.6.1 A theory of cognitive dissonance

29

5.6.2 A theory of psychological reactance

31

5.7 The relationship between behaviour, attitudes and their

31

antecedents: empirical findings 6. Linkages between conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

33

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

6.1 A holistic perspective

33

6.2 A mental map of linkages

35

6.3 Case study illustration

37

7. Conclusions

39

8. Recommendations for future research

40

9. References

42

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Executive summary Successful biodiversity conservation within the complex and changing landscapes of Europe and beyond requires consideration not only of ecological factors but also of socio-economic issues. Biodiversity conflict management, the implementation of participatory processes and an understanding of the social consequences of such practices are necessary for effective conservation management. The aim of this report was to explore the roles specifically of conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes and their potential linkages in biodiversity conservation management. This report is one of three that contributes to the provision, through interdisciplinary teams, of the practical implementation of conservation policies and actions within the EU project ALTERNET Work Package R4. Biodiversity conflicts can be variously defined but were taken here to mean fundamental differences amongst parties concerning values and behaviour as they relate to the environment. Such conflicts are often multilayered, occur at different spatial and temporal scales, can be initiated by diverse drivers and involve a range of stakeholders. In most management contexts, emerged conflicts are identified and managed. A number of potential biodiversity conflict management strategies exist. This is essentially a practical field that draws on tools from many disciplines, including participation and stakeholder engagement. However, an alternative strategy would be to focus more broadly on relationship building and development of common understanding to avoid or reduce conflicts. The shift in biodiversity conservation from a protectionist form of preservation towards one of sustainable utilisation has included an emphasis on the need for participation in conservation management. The rationale is that citizens of our contemporary democratic society will feel responsible for realisation of conservation goals if they are involved in their interpretation and implementation, and that deliberative decision making can assist when peoples’livelihoods are influenced by conservation actions. Participation has been debated in different academic fields for centuries but in practice, different interpretations and institutional and social barriers can make it difficult to implement. There is a continuum, or ladder, described of participation practices. Whilst participation can be defined as a horizontal component of contemporary liberal democracy, there are still important philosophical debates such as those on liberty versus equality, self interest versus common interest and so on. In order to overcome barriers, it was suggested that managers assess a particular context in a framework allowing them to define the theme, purpose of

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

participation, stakeholders involved and extent of inclusion and homogeneity of response, political and resource process restrictions and evaluation. Social learning occurs when people engage and share perspectives in order to develop a common framework for action – as in a participatory process. The concept of social learning has both a cognitive and normative dimension and it can be seen as both a process and an outcome. Whilst social learning concentrates on processes and social change, social capital refers to building blocks of social relations. The study of social learning can help analyse social interactions, for example in participatory or decision making processes or large scale policy processes. However, whilst social learning can be a result of participatory processes and contribute to conflict reconciliation, it may not be sufficient to alter peoples’ behaviour with respect to conservation. An understanding of attitudes as antecedents of behaviour is important to realise the complexities of altering practices in relation to the environment. One relevant social psychological theory is the Theory of Planned Behaviour which postulates that behavioural intentions are influenced by attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Attitudes consist of both cognitive (beliefs and knowledge) and emotional (influenced by values) elements. There are several approaches to understand what causes attitude change. The theory of cognitive dissonance holds that people are motivated to hold attitudes that are consonant with others; hence social learning processes have to take into account initial attitudes. The theory of psychological reactance holds that people may react strongly to perceived limitations of freedom; hence they may reject convincing arguments because they are presented in a one-sided, extreme, emotional or untrustworthy manner. Learning processes may thus not always alter behaviour and reduce conflict. It is often difficult to measure the weak linkages between elements of these models and predict how attitudes can be changed and behaviour altered in favour of conservation. Whilst these individual social factors have been well studied, there have been few attempts to link them. A holistic perspective was thus explored in this report, and a mental map to illustrate potential linkages between conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes was drawn. The complexity of feedback loops and impacts of additional external factors were highlighted. It was concluded that biodiversity conservation management will be more effective if it is implemented with the recognition of the needs of contemporary democratic societies and with an understanding of the ways in which people interact, develop and change. This approach requires not only the use of tools borrowed from

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

social science fields but also an appreciation of the theories underpinning the fields concerned. Increased dialogue between natural and social scientists and conservation managers is required to achieve this goal. Recommendations were made for future research directions to further assist in achieving this goal.

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

1. Introduction European landscapes are complex and diverse and result from centuries of utilisation and management by human populations. They have been used to supply natural resources, for increasingly intensive agriculture, for expanding urban centres and as recreational sites. Environmental management has been a component of landscape planning for some decades. More specifically, biodiversity conservation is a major goal at the European, national and local levels, but may be seen to compete with other goals such as agriculture, construction or industry. Conflicts thus arise between dissenting parties with different priorities for the best management options within an area. A lack of inclusivity in decision making, constraints of social learning, difference in attitudes, limited understanding or poor information transfer may exacerbate such conflicts. A shift from a protectionist form of conservation towards one of sustainable utilisation and access has led to the promotion of participatory approaches in international conservation ideology and more recently at local government level. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) now recognises the need to include people in planning for conservation through the Ecosystem Approach. Such approaches are expected to improve the democratic process of decision making and empower people to contribute to the development of their society. Relationships between actors, the growth of trust and development of social learning affect the potential to successfully implement participatory processes. A further challenge is the apathy demonstrated by a large number of citizens, which threatens the validity of some participatory processes. One potential positive outcome of participation may be a more successful facilitation of conflicts, either within communities themselves or by outsiders. In today’s complex society, conflicts are usually multifaceted and include multiple stakeholders. However, even with improved social learning, differences in attitude arising from variation in culture, education and other socio-economic parameters may underpin causes of conflict and will not be addressed solely by improved participation. Even changing attitudes will not necessarily alter behaviour and hence have an influence on biodiversity conservation. This report explores the roles of conflict management, participation, attitudes and social learning in biodiversity conservation through a review of research with relevance to the European context. A section on each of these areas explains some of 1

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

the related theories and practice. A further section then explores the linkages between these areas and provides a novel view of their interactions within a cycle of conservation management and societal transformation. These linkages are illustrated using a case study. Finally, a brief section clarifies the importance of this cycle for biodiversity conservation management within Europe and recommends future research directions. The report is one of three that contribute to the provision, through interdisciplinary teams, of science based assessments, decision support systems and management tools for the practical implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the European Biodiversity strategy and associated policies and actions within ALTERNET Work package R4. Specific objectives for this report are: •

To review past and ongoing research on conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in the European Union



To explore global approaches to conflict management, participation, social learning and attitude assessment, particularly those used in developing countries, and their potential adaptation and use in Europe



To recommend suitable approaches for conflict management, participation, attitude assessment and the development of social learning



To demonstrate the linkages between these issues and clarify their implications for biodiversity conservation management.

2. Conflict management 2.1 Characteristics of biodiversity conflicts Biodiversity conflicts occur when there are fundamental and ongoing differences amongst parties concerning values and behaviour as they relate to the environment (O’Leary and Bingham 2003). In this definition, the differences between people are a key component. Some definitions further emphasise the need for adverse behaviour to provoke conflict. BIOFORUM participants defined such conflicts as situations where people deliberately, with or without knowledge of the consequences of their actions, destroy biodiversity, particularly when to do so has a perceived positive impact on their livelihoods (Young et al. 2003; Young et al. 2005). This focus on people and their activities is in contrast to the more pragmatic definition of a wildlife conflict 2

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

offered by Conover (2001), that a human-wildlife conflict occurs whenever an action by humans or wildlife has an adverse effect on the other. In this report the definition of O’Leary and Bingham (2003) is taken. These definitions imply an escalation of differences among people and a gradual change from a dispute to a conflict. The labelling of an ‘issue’or a ‘problem’as a conflict is thus not uniform across cultures and groups despite our attempts to define biodiversity conflicts. This gradual escalation into conflicts also allows for very different strategies to conflict management. The more usual strategy, and the one that we follow on to describe in this report, is to deal with emerged conflicts and manage them. However, an alternative strategy is to focus more broadly on participatory approaches and building understanding between groups within communities and at national and international levels such that relationships are improved and perspectives broadened and at least some conflicts may be avoided. Biodiversity conflicts are usually complex and multilayered, often making it difficult to reach the core of the conflict. Global perspectives of biodiversity conflicts differ. In Europe many conflicts arise over changes in land use, and these conflicts have recently been widely recognised. Such changes include the intensification or abandonment of silvicultural and agricultural practices, recreation and hunting, and policy related threats, particularly policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy and EU environmental Directives including the Wild Birds Directive and Habitats Directive (and associated Natura 2000 network). In USA a formal mechanism of environmental conflict mediation has developed to mitigate against expensive and time consuming legal mechanisms for resolving conflict (O’Leary and Bingham 2003). Biodiversity conflicts have thus been subsumed into a well recognised framework. In developing countries biodiversity conflicts are often not labelled as such but are perceived to be a typical challenge of natural resource management initiatives or development projects. Likewise in some management fields, such as forest management, foresters may consider issues with local people or other stakeholders to be part of management. Recognition of the label ‘biodiversity conflict’ can be useful in that it permits access to management and analytical tools from the field of conflict management. Biodiversity conflicts can occur at different spatial and temporal scales. Global conflicts include international stakeholders, national conflicts occur at national level and local conflicts are confined to a discrete region. Interactions between levels are 3

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

also important in the way conflicts evolve and for approaches to conflict management. On the one hand, multiple local conflicts may be replicated within a country to form a national level concern and the on the other, conflicts may rise when decisions made at higher levels are implemented at local or other sub-national levels. The intensity of conflict also varies. A conflict initiates as a disagreement that expands into a dispute and escalates further; at its most intense it can precipitate extreme violence. A diverse range of possible drivers has been identified (Young et al. 2005). Some latent conflicts have underlying causes such as power imbalances or unequal relationships or land ownership histories (Warner and Jones 1998). Other social drivers include different cultural values or belief systems. Socio-economic drivers may be livelihood based, where one or more parties exploit a resource for subsistence reasons, or commercially based, where one or more parties exploit a resource in order to derive funds from its sale. Biodiversity conflicts may also be initiated by ecological drivers such as resource scarcity or population increase. Each biodiversity conflict involves a range of stakeholders. Stakeholders are individuals, groups or organisations with an interest in the issue concerned. Typically in biodiversity conflicts the stakeholder spectrum will include local communities, NGOs and at least local if not national government representatives. Stakeholders can be identified through stakeholder analysis. Particular stakeholder groups may not be homogeneous and some stakeholders may have less capacity to express their views or engage in conflict management exercises than others. A number of conflict typologies have been developed to categorise conflicts, including one by Pendzich (1994) that places biodiversity conflicts into four broad categories: -

Conflicts of interest, i.e. One group wants one thing, while another wants something else from the same area or species

-

Conflicts over process. These include conflict over the legal process, customary (e.g. community) processes, and institutional processes

-

Structural conflicts. These refer to the way society is structured in terms of social, legal, economic and cultural arrangements

-

Inter-personal conflicts between two or more people that relate to personality differences may also impinge upon biodiversity conflicts, as they do in other areas of life.

4

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

A biodiversity conflict can include many of these typology aspects at the same time; for some stakeholders it may be the process that causes a problem while to other stakeholders the conflict may be about basic interests. This complexity must be taken into account while planning conflict management: a management approach must be able to handle different aspects of conflicts.

2.2 Biodiversity conflict management Although the choice and applicability of conflict management strategies will depend on the dimension of a conflict, a number of potential biodiversity conflict management strategies exist (Jones et al. 2005; Young et al. 2005). These can include political, economic or legislative means to reduce biodiversity conflicts, ranging from the provision of incentives for biodiversity conservation (such as agri-environmental schemes under the CAP) to EU level Directives aiming to legislate for the conservation of biodiversity (Natura 2000 networks). As with most conflict management strategies, political, economic or legislative means can lead to further exacerbation of conflicts, with stakeholders potentially resisting such top-down approaches unless they feel they have a level of control over the creation and implementation of laws or regulations. Other potential conflict management options are the buying or leasing of land for conservation purposes and the application of strict Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) to identify and avert negative effects of infrastructure projects and thus potentially defuse conflicts. The application of new technologies, management practices or land-use patterns, applying spatial planning methods (Nowicki et al. 2005) and other techniques can all contribute to conflict management processes. Deliberative and inclusionary processes such as community-based management, communication and dialogue, educational programmes and comanagement planning can assist conflict management through the inclusion of different stakeholders, sharing of common visions and positive social capital that is built by different parties working together on practical projects. A number of Best Practice Guidelines have been developed in support of International Development and Conflict Management. Practitioners and researchers have also developed many good practice guidelines, relating to the promotion of active communication between stakeholders (Mahanty et al. 2002), as well as cooperation in order to work towards win-win situations. Local level planning and the 5

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

improvement (or creation) of regional scale planning can be instrumental in conflict management (Nowicki et al. 2005). Facilitation of conflict management is a practical field, yet the science of conflict management is a rich academic area informed by multiple disciplines. One of the challenges for conflict management is the maintenance of strong links between practice and academia, whereby new theories inform practical approaches and on the ground experience tests and feeds back into theory. In this respect some authors have coined the term ‘pracademic’in recognition of the need for some individuals to span both aspects of conflict management (O’Leary and Bingham 2003). There is a considerable range of research, covering many disciplines including ecology, conservation biology, sociology, anthropology, social psychology, which has a bearing on the management of conflicts between biodiversity conservation and human activities. Research has focussed on a range of different approaches to environmental conflict management and resolution including public participation, stakeholder analysis, and collaborative management. Many NGOs working particularly in developing countries have discussed problem-solving approaches to community development and produced practitioners’guides and sets of good practice guidelines. Examples of related research initiatives in Europe include -

BIOFORUM (http://www.nbu.ac.uk/bioforum), reviewed conflicts and conflict management in five broad habitats of Europe

-

Integrated Management of European Wetlands (IMEW) (http://www.dur.ac.uk/imew.ecproject/) addressed the issue of how to accommodate socio-economic development with the goal of maintaining biodiversity in four wetlands of Europe

-

Framework for biodiversity Reconciliation Action Plans (FRAP), http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=2776 worked on the development of a procedural Framework for Action Plans to Reconcile conflicts between the conservation of large vertebrates and the use of biological resources: fisheries and fish-eating vertebrates as a model case

-

REDCAFE and INTERCAFE (http://web.tiscali.it/sv2001/cormo_news/eu1.htm) aim to reduce the conflict between cormorants and fisheries on a pan-European scale.

Some relevant national projects include 6

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

-

SUSLIVE, which aims to develop a generic framework for conflict resolution through an interdisciplinary examination of case studies (http://www.ukpopnet.org/).

-

RESEARCH CENTRE OF DEMOCRACY AND NATURE MANAGEMENT aims to develop a deeper understanding of the social and political structures in society vital for a more sustainable use of natural recourses (http://www.ruc.dk/teksam_en/research/Democracy_and_Nature)

3. Participation 3.1 Development of the concept of participation As noted in the introduction, there has been a shift in nature conservation from a protectionist form of preservation towards one of sustainable utilisation. As a part of this shift we have been witnessing the political promotion of participatory approaches, which means attempts to involve citizens more directly in the public planning process and regulation of the areas they live in. With the Rio-conference and the following Agenda 21 agreement on sustainable development and the Convention On Biological Diversity, both from 1992, and the Aarhus Convention on public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters,1 from 1998, we have been witnessing more and more international emphasis on the participatory aspects of environmental matters. Participation has become an important term to describe the changing role of laypeople and citizens in public planning. Through the implementation of these international agreements, politicians and different public institutions are now obligated to involve citizens in public planning processes within the field of environment and biodiversity conservation to a much higher degree than before. One reason for emphasising public participation is the understanding that sustainable utilisation of the natural recourses actually depends on all members of society changing their behaviour to some extent. The underlying rationale behind the idea of implementing participation is that the citizens of our modern contemporary liberal democratic society will not feel responsible for the realisation of political goals 1

Latest ratified by UK and Northern Ireland, bringing the total numbers of countries ratifying the convention up to 35.

7

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

set on a higher political institutional level –national or international –if they not are actively involved in the interpretation and implementation of these political goals; such as the goals and strategies pointed out in the Convention of Biodiversity. In addition, implementation of biodiversity conservation policies runs a risk of intervening in peoples' livelihoods and the ways they interact with their natural environment. There is thus a possibility that conflicts will emerge. However, this aspect of biodiversity conservation can be negotiated through deliberative decisionmaking. By using participation as a strategic tool, politicians have also recognised the limitations of legislation and control, and the need to strengthen central elements of the liberal democracy. Although it seems that participation is a relatively new issue on the political agenda, it is in fact not novel. Participation has been an element of political philosophy for centuries and within different fields there is an extensive history of working with participation. For example, within the field of sociology of labour there has been a long tradition of experimenting with participation since the 1940s. Since the 1960s participation has played a significant role in many countries in the field of physical public planning, especially within city planning. Nevertheless, it seems as though the spin-off effect from one field to another –in terms of knowledge and experience –has always been limited or at the very least happened slowly, even though recent research indicates that lessons learned in one field could actually be beneficial to others. One example of the lack of information flow regarding participation between fields is the fact that relatively broad experience with participation and sustainability in developing countries, producing a vast amount of literature, has only to a very small extent had an impact on environmental planning and biodiversity conservation in developed countries (Arler and Svennevig 1998). One reason for the low penetration of participatory knowledge and experiences between different fields is of course the very different contexts of participation. But these different contexts alone cannot supply the only explanation. Somehow it seems as though biodiversity conservation and sustainable planning face more fundamental barriers in progressing the development of knowledge and exchange of experience of participation. The discussions regarding participation and environmental planning among practitioners and researchers are similar today to those in the early 1990s. Discussions, seminars and conferences often seem to be separated from each other, which allow little progress in the development of knowledge and understanding of 8

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

problems related to participation. For example, the results of the participation seminar in Morschach, Switzerland in 1992 between practitioners and researchers from Europe and United States (Renn, Webler and Wiedemann 1995) are rarely brought into similar contemporary discussions. Given the limited exchange of ideas regarding participation between different research fields and different periods, this report section on participation does not aim to develop a new understanding of participation nor to add new knowledge to the term participation. Rather the objectives of this section are to summarise some general interpretations of participation and highlight major barriers to participation within the fields of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. By this means we hope to create a better understanding among practitioners and researchers regarding the complexity of the field of participation as an academic discipline. We will illustrate how the use of participation as an analytic tool links the practice of the real world to the theory of academia.

3.2 Difficulties of participation If we look beyond the normative political ambition of involving citizens more directly in public planning within the field of biodiversity conservation, it is clear that participation is not easily brought into practice. There are a number of reasons for this, but two major ones are different understandings of participation and institutional and social barriers. As a consequence of the different interpretations and the barriers of actually getting people to participate, some people propose that participation is too difficult or of little use. A common problem is the passivity of the citizens in local communities or the opposition from different interest groups to ideas and plans brought forward by planners and experts. Some people go even further and ask if participation is not just a kind of tyranny (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). This position can easily be taken by officials and experts, especially if they have conflicting perceptions of democracy and/or if they have experienced some of the difficulties of participation. It can be said that participation has a kind of ambivalence built in: on the one hand participation is something good, that we need more of, and on the other hand participation is very difficult to implement and so we try to avoid it. As Arnstein wrote in one of the classical articles on participation, participation rather like eating spinach, no one is against it in principle (Arnstein 1969). In other words, there is a broad consensus that in principle participation is good, but this does not mean that 9

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

everybody likes it. In the following sections we will address the two major problems of participation mentioned above.

3.3 Different interpretations of participation One of the classical articles on participation in public planning is A Ladder of Citizen Participation, written by Arnstein and published in 1969.2 By focusing on the nonspecific character of participation, and using a wide empirical list of references, the article manages to achieve two important goals. Firstly, it illustrates, by formulating a typology on participation, that the term participation as used for practical purposes is actually a continuum, starting with a category called Non-participation through a category called Degrees of tokenism and ending with a category called Degrees of citizen power. In addition to the three main categories Arnstein’s typology includes a number of sub-categories (see Fig 1), describing the transition from one maincategory to another.

Citizen control 8 Delegated power 7

Degrees of citizen power

Partnership 6 Placation 5 Consultation Degrees of tokenism

4 Informing 3 Therapy 2

Nonparticipation Manipulation 1

2

Later published in Journal of Town Planning Institute, pp. 176-182, in 1971.

10

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Fig 1. “Ladder of Citizen Participation”. Diagram made from original model by Arnstein 1969

Secondly, the article gives Arnstein’s own definition of Citizen Participation. She defines this based on two central premises: • Participation is about social and political equality by giving power to those who do not have power (for example for economic or racial reasons, or because of gender, age or religion). • Participation is a cornerstone of democracy By using those two premises, Arnstein constitutes a framework for analysing participation. Through describing participation as something that is about redistribution of the political and economic power of society –including those members of society who are currently excluded from political power –Arnstein defines participation as a social-political topic. The social-political dimension of A Ladder of Citizen Participation is probably also one of the main reasons why her article still appeals to students and researchers more than 25 years after publication and is still relevant to understand participation in biodiversity conservation today. Indeed, modern sociology still addresses social-political issues to develop social theories for participation and democracy. Social theorists such as Jürgen Habermas, Richard Sennett, Anthony Giddens, Axel Honneth and many others are concerned with the consequences of modernisation. They have directly analysed the democratic consequences of the modern liberal society, for example, in terms of the marginalisation of large member groups within societies. Jürgen Habermas describes the colonisation of the Life World through the instrumental rationalities and discourses of the System World (Habermas 1997; Habermas 1980) and argues that this colonisation is one of the most important democratic problems the contemporary world has to deal with. Other theorists argue that the marginalisation of lay people in an expert dominated world excludes people politically from society and creates a frustration that has the potential to destabilise society (Reason 2002; Honneth 2002). According to the perspectives of these theorists, participation becomes more than just a means or approach and actually should be seen as a goal in itself. In this report we will not delve deeper into the more sociological academic discussions behind participation, but rather will restrict ourselves to a more political and practical approach to participation. However, it is crucial to note that there are 11

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

more in depth sociological theoretical interpretations of participation. An understanding of the sociological analysis behind participation is necessary in order both to understand participation as a theoretical academic field and to understand some of the practical problems we face in implementing participation, such as power relations, silent majorities, heterogeneous communities and so on. By defining participation as a cornerstone of democracy, Arnstein addresses the political philosophical perspective of participation as well. Unfortunately she does not elaborate much on this. The classical conflicts within political philosophy can help us better understand the different meanings of participation. These conflicts express different views on democracy and the roles of the state, the public and the citizens, and address the longstanding debate over how to balance protection of the privacy of citizens from intervention by the state with simultaneous issues of common interest. Such arguments are particularly relevant to the challenges faced in the implementation of biodiversity conservation, where the needs of local people must be balanced with global biodiversity goals. Basically the different approaches to democracy can be divided into four categories:3 4 1. The constitutional approach (e.g. Rawls 1971; Nozick, 1974; Rawls 1993), focusing on democracy protecting the rights of individuals within society. 2. The utilitarian approach (e.g. Bentham 1789; Schumpeter 1943), focusing on democracy to fulfil most peoples’preferences (preference aggregation). 3. The participatory approach (e.g. Rousseau 1762; Pateman 1970; Barber 1984; Gould 1988), with focus on the establishment of the “common best of society”through the participation of the citizens of the society. 4. The deliberative approach (e.g. Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Habermas 1996; Eriksen and Weigård 2003), focusing –like the participatory approach – on the deliberative side of democracy, but combining it with the constitutional perspective. 3

This represents only an overview of different understandings of democracy. The debate in a number of countries after World War II especially contributed to the development of modern political philosophy, leading to different interpretations. For example, the debate led to different conclusions in USA and Scandinavia regarding the role of citizens. A more complete description of the historical development of different understanding of democracy and participation can be found in different literature, such as the classical work Participation and Democratic Theory, written by Carole Pateman in 1970, which addresses the debate in UK and USA. 4

The four categories are modified after Andersen, Jørgen Goul et al 2000. 12

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

In fact, the democracy practiced in liberal societies includes elements of all four categories. The first two categories express the representative –or vertical –side of democracy, while the last two represent the more deliberative –or horizontal –side of democracy. According to these categories, if participation is to have any role in democracy, as proposed by Arnstein, it is within the participatory and deliberative aspects of democracy that participation should most contribute

The role of the citizens in public planning Legitimating & representative. Instrumental & conflict oriented.

No participation

Ø Questionnaires Ø Referendums

Symbolic participation

Ø Public hearings Ø User groups Ø Consensus building Ø Anthropological methods

Genuine participation

Ø Participation "up side down" Ø ?? Involving & qualifying. Empowermental.

Fig 2. Different methods support different levels of participation. Model simplified after Arnstein, 1969. in contemporary society. In this respect it would not be an ideological democratic exclusive category, but rather one approach amongst others to decision-making that – depending on the context–can contribute to better and more profound solutions not achievable by a more vertical approach. But defining participation as a horizontal part of contemporary liberal democracy does not eliminate the more philosophical dichotomies of participation, such as the role of liberty versus the role of equality, self-interest versus the common interest of society, organised citizens versus nonorganised citizens, attitudes versus education and so on. These are elements that have been the focus of theoretical discussions on democracy and participation for centuries. For example, the political and economic equality of participants is regarded as 13

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

essential by several theorists in order to create the necessary independence of the participant for a well functioning participatory democracy. Social learning is a further theme closely related to the classical philosophical discussions of participation, and will be addressed in the following section. Apart from that debate, we will not be able to elaborate more on the traditional philosophical discussions on democracy and participation in this report. However –like our marking of the sociological aspects of participation –we strongly recommend practitioners and researchers not aware of those discussions, and with interest in participation, to delve deeper into some of the classical dichotomies. Such dichotomies are not just relevant from a purely academic point of view, but also from a practical point of view, when dealing with different interpretations of participation (Pateman 1970) that lead to different political traditions and cultures.

3.4 Institutional and social barriers At the beginning of this section it was noted that further limitations to putting participation into practice are institutional and social barriers. Most public planning systems in Europe developed within an industrial context, in order to support production and to ensure social stability within society. This type of planning is often referred to as synoptic planning or rational comprehensive planning (Hudson 1979), and does not include participation. Hudson (1979) characterises this type of planning as a method of decision making based on the use of objective data and standardised methods. This relatively technocratic way of modern planning and the use of standardised methods –often not taking the existence of heavily complicated social and political systems into account –typically result in very complex plans, that in reality can only be carried out to a limited extent, often resulting in the production of more plans. Within this context of planning, participation, which actually attempts to involve complex and often unpredictable social systems, makes planning processes even more difficult. However, the increased political focus on greater involvement and participation of citizens in public planning in general, and within the field of environmental management and conservation in particular, can be interpreted as a pressure towards a more horizontal practice of democracy and thereby an attempt to break down the purely legitimating character of public planning when it comes to participation. In this respect we can talk about an ongoing transformation of the 14

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

democratic limits and possibilities (Dahl 1989) that challenges the traditional way of public planning. Many specific barriers and challenges can be put forward when it comes to the implementation of more participatory planning. It can be very difficult for involved politicians, planners, interest groups and citizens, being in the middle of a participatory process, to identify the drivers behind the problems related to a specific process. Initiating and facilitating participatory processes requires social knowledge and understanding, experience and many personal resources. Based both on experience from different participatory processes and from the literature, we provide here a framework that can be used as a practical tool when analysing participatory processes and trying to identify the role, scale and problems of a particular process. The difficulties of participation have to be understood in time as well as in space. Participation is implemented in different phases of the political process and can therefore play different roles, for example explorative, decisive or implementing. But participation is also used at different scales –local, regional, national and international –and in relation to social, ecological and/or economic issues. In addition to this complexity, the social and intellectual capacity (wealth, power, knowledge, experience, attitudes and so on) of the institutions and citizens involved contribute significantly to the outcome of any participatory process, regardless of when and how the process is initiated. In the following paragraphs we elaborate on barriers to participation by highlighting eight fundamental key questions and suggesting how to address them. These key questions are meant to identify the “nature”of a participatory process in time and space, as described above. The questions overlap and are not meant to represent a single or final solution to the analysis of participation. Rather, they are designed to provide practical guidance towards how one can deal with some of the common problems of participation in “real life”, providing at least some kind of overview of the often complicated situation. The answers to the questions depend of course on the specific context and the solutions to the identified problems depend on the capacity of the individuals involved. By reflecting on each of these questions and answering them for a particular context, the manager of a participatory process can much better define and run the process.

15

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

1. What is the nature of the theme? One of the first questions to ask when preparing and/or analysing a participatory process is what the nature of the theme is. Is the theme, subject or issue relevant for the participants or is it purely an academic and/or abstract question that should perhaps be transformed into a more relevant theme? And to what extent are the theme(s) or subject(s) already politicised and restricted or open for participation, and to whom? 2. Why participation? Is the idea to legitimate decisions already made? Or to avoid or solve already existing conflicts and problems? Or is participation supposed to provide information and ideas? Are the intentions of the participatory process to create resources in terms of labour, money or time provided by participants? Or is it about actually involving the participant significantly in the planning process itself, giving the participants –lay-people as well as experts and officials –an opportunity to develop their social capacity and develop their own visions? 3. What are the temporal and spatial dynamics of the participatory process? When is the participatory process taking place? Is it in the initial phase of an exercise, in the middle of a process, at the end, or does it run throughout the whole process? Does the process have a pre-determined timeframe or is it a flexible process? At what scale is it taking place - locally, regionally, nationally or internationally? 4. To what extent is the participatory process inclusive or exclusive? Is it a stakeholder approach that is limited to particular groups to achieve a certain objective, or does the participatory approach actively include all groups of society, regardless of gender, age, cultural and social background etc? What are the impacts of the different kinds of knowledge, experience and values brought in to the process by, for example, lay-people, politicians, interestgroups and the experts chosen to participate? 5. What is the form and extent of local involvement in the participatory process? Who participates, who does not participate, are the local people offensive, defensive or inexpressive? Are the locals divided in their positions and attitudes? If so, is it important to ask why and how the local people are divided? 16

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

6. What are the demands, restrictions and resources applied to the process from political and institutional levels? What is demanded in terms of outcome and participation by target groups and what is actually provided in terms of time and money, capacities and skills available? Do the relevant people have sufficient knowledge about methods, experience with facilitation and understanding of the dynamics of society? What are the limitations of the personal resources and creativity of the officials and experts involved? Are the officials and politicians involved dedicated to the process and willing to support the outcome? Are the officials involved prepared to handling the unforeseeable? Are the available resources adequate to support the intentions of the participatory process? 7. What are the characteristics of the participants? What are the social, cultural and political characteristics of the groups, community and/or society involved? Are they homogeneous and do they function well as a group or are they heterogeneous and experiencing problems in functioning in society? Is it reasonable to expect the potential participants to involve themselves in the formulated question or do the potential participants have more important social or political issues to be concerned about and deal with? (The answers to this question are often overlooked but are essential to determine how much support, facilitation and emancipation are required in the actual situation.) 8. What evaluation and continuation processes are in place? One phenomenon of contemporary society is a strong focus on evaluation. Authorities and politicians are demanding that participatory initiatives and processes be evaluated. Should the evaluation be external or internal? What kind of criteria should be developed for evaluation and over what period of time should evaluation occur? Should the evaluation include officials and institutions? Should the evaluation be carried out throughout the entire process or should it take place post process? Finally, with regards to continuation of aspects of the participatory process, it is important to determine how the process will be followed up with participants and how it can be ensured that lessons will be learned from the process on a local as well as an institutional level.

17

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

3.5 Taking participation forward The different interpretations of participation and democracy make it difficult to define the term participation in the context of biodiversity and conservation. However, participation being a distinguishing part of our democracy, it must be understood as a deliberative process, actively involving citizens of the society in public planning. Participation constitutes a certain democratic obligation to involve those groups of society, who –whether for social, cultural or economic reasons –have little or no political power, by creating new political opportunities for those groups. Different institutional and social barriers make the successful implementation of participation a challenge. No single parameter can possibly be used to analyse the barriers and challenges of participation alone. Participation is a complex field requiring social knowledge and analytic capacity and many parameters have to be a part of such an analysis. However, it is essential to understand that participation is a social phenomenon. Depending on the theme, motivation, planning process, level of inclusivity, restriction and the actual social state of the society, the limitations and possibilities of participation will be different. During the last decade, there has been rapid development within the areas of conflict solving methods, such as different kinds of mediation and consensus building methods. One reason for this is probably the strong focus of governments and officials on the stakeholder approach to participation. It can be asked if this approach will strengthen participation as a distinguished cornerstone of our democracy. At the very least it seems that there is the need for an increased focus on the community aspects of participation, in order to deal with many of the social, socio-psychological and structural problems that seem to be occurring over and over again in the field of citizen participation. A better awareness of these issues and a more analytical perspective on participation could add some progression to the field of participation, biodiversity conservation and sustainability.

4. Social learning 4.1 Definitions of social learning This section of the report concentrates on presenting the concept of ‘social learning’ that can help to further explain what participation brings to conservation management 18

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

practices. Social learning is a concept that addresses the social dynamics taking place, for instance, in participatory decision making or collaboration between different stakeholders. As will be seen, participation, by enhancing communication, is a prerequisite of social learning. To some extent learning always results from participation, but not necessarily to the extent of avoiding or solving conflicts. The latter is dependent on how participation can lead to learning new ways of dealing with problems or whether it can lead to changed behaviour, as will be addressed in the following section discussing attitudes. Social learning is a concept that is widely used in social scientific studies of biodiversity conservation and environmental protection. It provides conceptual tools to analyse micro level social phenomena. Since it deals with interactions between individuals and groups it is especially used in studying conservation practices and processes. The concept of social learning, even though it has developed in a certain direction, still lacks one, commonly adopted definition. The various definitions used (for example, Maarleveld and Dangbégnon 1999: 268-9; Krasny and Lee 2002: 102; Valve 2003: 18) include, however, common features such as open communication, evolving thinking, and problem solving in collaboration with others. As an example Schussler et al. (2003: 311) define the concept in the following way: “… learning that occurs when people engage one another, sharing diverse perspectives and experiences to develop a common framework of understanding and basis for joint action.” Furthermore, Webler at al. (1995: 445-6) make an important observation that social learning consists of two components. It has a cognitive side when it refers to learning new knowledge, for instance new facts about the environment or learning about other stakeholders' positions. Social learning has also a normative dimension that is visible for instance in a situation in which a group of people learn to act together in a responsible or pro-social way. The concept has, in fact, also two types of uses. On the one hand it is used as an analytical concept to describe and study social phenomena, for instance participatory processes, and on the other hand it has a normative use when it is used to promote participatory and deliberative processes. In other words, "social learning is both a process and an outcome”(Sherlock and Clark 2004: 1).

19

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

4.2 Development of the concept of social learning Social learning is an issue that was much discussed during recent decades such that the concept itself has evolved and derived new meanings. The concept was first used and actually is still used in studies of animal behaviour and learning. From there it developed to use in the sphere of human behaviour, for example, in Bandura's work in 1970s and 1980s (e.g. see Bandura 1971) as a psychological concept analysing how individuals learn from others in groups. Issues for learning were new knowledge and behavioural patterns. Subsequently, the concept of social learning has evolved to address more the social processes and dynamics rather than just the learning processes of individuals. In the 1990s organisations and how they change were approached from a social learning perspective. At that time there was a shift from focusing only on individuals to also see groups and organisations as having the potential for 'learning'. Social learning has evolved into a truly sociological concept where it is understood as a “process by which changes in the social condition occur”(Webler et al. 1995: 445). The use of social learning has thus evolved from individuals or groups learning new things towards groups of people learning how to better work together as groups. The concept has become richer, because the old emphasis on individuals has not been abandoned, it has just become complemented by this emphasis on social dynamics. One way to demonstrate the difference between notions of learning new things and learning new ways of acting is to take a look at the three different loops of learning. Single loop learning refers to a learning in which outcomes of actions are evaluated in relation to current goals and expectations. In single loop learning new facts are learned and this can help to improve current practices. Double loop learning takes place when the set of assumptions behind the practices are stated to change because of feedback. Triple loop learning is reflection and actions on the conditions that structure interaction patterns in single and double loop learning. Triple loop learning is “learning to learn”(Maarleveld and Dangbégnon 1999: 269-270). Many of the impacts of social learning are believed to occur at the level of individuals or groups, but an important influence in the context of biodiversity conservation is also social learning by institutions. Even though participation, seen from its deliberative perspective, is a two way process of social learning between community and institutions, there is often little recognition of institutional learning in studies focusing specifically on social learning. The exploration of organisational theory and social psychology may further this perspective. 20

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

4.3 Social learning and social capital Some literature on social learning is closely connected to the discussion regarding social capital (for different definitions of social capital see e.g. McClenaghan 2000). Social capital can be seen as resources upon which social relations are built. Social capital strengthens the relations, but it can also be used to change them. “Relationships of trust, reciprocity and exchange, common rules, norms and sanctions, and connectedness in groups are what make up social capital, which is a necessary resource for shaping individual action to achieve positive biodiversity outcomes”(Pretty and Smith 2004). Social capital thus addresses similar attributes of communities and groups to social learning, but there is an important difference between these concepts. In short, social learning concentrates on processes and social change, whereas social capital refers to building blocks of social relations. “Recent initiatives that have sought to build social capital have shown that rural people can improve their understanding of biodiversity and agro-ecological relationships at the same time as they develop new social rules, norms, and institutions. This process of social learning helps new ideas to spread and can lead to positive biodiversity outcomes over large areas. New ideas spread more rapidly where there is high social capital.”(Pretty and Smith 2004).

4.4 Applications of social learning The social learning approach has been used in environmental social sciences, especially to study decision-making processes. The approach is particularly useful for this because social learning can help to analyse social interactions by highlighting what happens in these processes and how it happens. Emphasis on 'learning' is also useful to analyse environmental decision-making because epistemological complexity and uncertainties are typical of these processes and they require learning of capabilities (Lee 1993; Dryzek 1997; Röling and Wagemakers 1998; Schussler et al. 2003: 311). The social learning approach has been used to analyse decision-making processes in which different types of stakeholder work together to solve shared problems (e.g. Krasny and Lee 2002; Schussler et al. 2003) and also to study larger scale policy processes (e.g. Maarleveld and Dagnbégnon 1999; Valve 2003). An 21

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

example of a research study in which the social learning approach was used is presented below. Researchers from Cornell University in USA facilitated planning of comanagement on the Lake Ontario Islands where conservation of cormorants has caused a conflict with fishery sector interests (Schusler et al. 2003). The researchers identified process characteristics that enabled social learning among participants in the process. They also "investigated social learning's contribution to communitybased co-management in two requisite domains: identification of common purpose and transformation of relationships." (Schusler et al. 2003: 311). They studied how the decision making process evolved during the whole process and what the outcomes were, especially from a social learning perspective. Material was collected by qualitative interviews and questionnaires and in their analysis they paid attention to what extent participants had learned: factual information, concerns of other participants, areas of agreement and disagreement, problems and opportunities, action to address problems or realise opportunities and community capacity (Schussler et al. 2003: 314-5). The results showed that the deliberative process did help social learning. Participants had learned new factual information, but in addition to that all participants said that they had learned much about the other interest groups’views. An important fact for conflict management was that 83% of the interviewees said that through the participatory process they gained trust in others. The researchers also identified some problems related to the process when participants ‘learned’new things that were actually not correct and some of them developed negative perceptions of others. Another problem in the participatory process that the researchers recognised was that there is a risk of more powerful interests suppressing the less powerful. This is a very important notion regarding all participatory decision-making process. Schusler et al. (2003) also analysed how social learning happened. They could identify several elements in the participatory process that contributed to learning. Analysis of participants’reflections and researchers’own observations indicated that learning was enabled through open communication, diverse participation, unrestrained thinking, constructive conflict, democratic structure, multiple sources of knowledge, extended engagement and facilitation. Schusler et al. (2003: 324) concluded that social learning is essential but not sufficient alone for co-management to develop. Appropriate structures and processes 22

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

are needed to sustain learning and enable joint action. Developing appropriate local institutions for further collaboration requires leadership and commitment in terms of human and financial resources. In the Lake Ontario case the stakeholders were enthusiastic to continue working together, but it is unclear which of the actors will take the lead and provide institutional support for action. Because of this discrepancy, collaboration has not yet started. Further research on this case study could assess whether social learning can become disempowering if participants' expectations for joint action are raised but not met.

4.5 Social learning and biodiversity conservation The natural systems with which biodiversity conservation deals are complex and include dynamic aspects such as interaction between different components and lag or even uncertainty in response to actions. The dynamics entail that conservation practices should be adaptive, that is, be able to collect and process new information and change existing practices and decisions. Successful biodiversity conservation often deals with processes at large spatial scales. The social learning approach pays attention to the dynamics and processes of social action. It is conceptually built to address the complexity and uncertainty inherent to natural resource management (Lee 1993; Dryzek 1997; Röling and Wagemakers 1998). In this respect its insight regarding social action and the development of relationships between individuals and groups seem to provide an appropriate perspective to conservation practices. It is well suited to study and guide adaptive management. Studies using the social learning approach often analyse and even promote participatory processes in environmental decision-making. One problem common for this approach is that power relations are not sufficiently dealt with. A participatory process is supposed to be an egalitarian process, but to make it really egalitarian requires a lot of effort and does not always succeed (e.g. Singleton 2000). There are multiple asymmetries in processes that include different groups and stakeholders. There are power differences between authorities and citizen, differences in knowledge between scientific experts and laymen and differences between groups in economic or livelihood dependency on the natural resources. If participatory processes provide potential for social learning, as they often do, some of these problems can be decreased when actors learn new things about the problem they are dealing with and 23

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

about each other and when they learn to work better together for a solution; in other words, when cognitive and normative development takes place. Another problem related to participatory processes is that they take a lot of time and resources, and yet the outcome is unpredictable. However, it is often emphasised that without deliberative processes many of the natural resource management and conservation regimes cannot deal with conflicts efficiently. The social learning approach can contribute to the analysis and development of such processes especially because it provides researchers with a conceptual approach to analyse what happens in the participatory processes. It provides tools to analyse relationships between actors and changes that participatory processes bring. In addition, attention given to learning emphasises the knowledge needs: which knowledge is lacking, how scientific knowledge relates to local knowledge, and which procedures can enhance mutual knowledge production. Social learning is a concept that usefully opens up the process of participation by giving opportunities to discuss what happens during the process and how it takes place. However, regarding the overall purpose of this report, which is to discuss reconciliation of biodiversity conflicts and the relationships between the different social factors discussed, participation is only one, albeit important, procedural aspect. Another important aspect is peoples’behaviour and attitudes and especially how they may change during conflict management processes. Changes of behaviour and attitudes are often a prerequisite of conflict reconciliation. This section on social learning started to address these issues and introduced the important separation of cognitive and normative dimensions of social processes. The next section on attitudes probes this issue deeper to discuss behaviour and attitudes in conflict management.

5. Attitudes 5.1 Attitudes as the antecedents of behaviour What are the determinants of human behaviour? Why do people show a particular behaviour that causes conflict or maintains conflictive situations once they have been sparked off?

24

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Many social psychological theories describe actual behaviour as largely determined by behavioural intentions. These intentions in turn are informed by various factors such as attitudes and norms. One of the theories which are still used nowadays is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TOPB), elaborated by Fishbein and Ajzen in the 1970s and further developed by Ajzen and co-authors in the 1980s. The TOPB postulates three factors as the antecedent stages of behavioural intentions: (i) attitudes towards the behaviour in question, (ii) subjective norms and (iii) perceived behavioural control, and is applicable only to those cases where behaviour is, to some degree, premeditated (“planned behaviour”). Models to explain non-planned behaviour are much less widespread. They are either very specific (for example, models to explain compulsive buying: Dittmar, Beattie and Friese 1996) or have to include a number of very general factors which make these models difficult to handle. Models such as the TOPB can help explain the origin of behaviour that leads to or maintains conflict. It should be noted, however, that empirically, the relationship between the elements of these models is often much weaker than expected. This might be due to the difficulties of measuring these components through questionnaires and behavioural observation. The empirically evident gap between actual behaviour and its antecedents as postulated by theoretical models also highlights the importance of moderating factors that are context-dependent and difficult to capture empirically. The TOPB accounts for some of these moderating factors and recognizes that when an intention is to be translated into actual behaviour, the perception of behavioural control might change, and certain behaviour might not seem feasible any longer (see Fig. 3). In these cases, an individual might act against their previously stated intention. Behavioural Behavioural belief belief Outcome Outcome evaluation evaluation

Normative Normative belief belief Motivation Motivation to tocomply comply

Attitude

toward the behaviour

Preference Subjective Subjective norm norm

Behavioural intention

Perceived Perceived behavioural behavioural control control

Fig. 3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (see Ajzen 1988) Source: Ajzen (1988)

25

Actual behaviour

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

In the context of this report, attitudes are probably the most relevant construct and will be explained in more detail below, but subjective norms and perceived behavioural control might also play a role in determining conflictive behaviour. Subjective norms are assumed to depend on an individual’s belief that specific persons who are important to the individual approve or disapprove of the behaviour in question. They also depend on the individual motivation to comply with these persons’approval or disapproval. The construct of perceived behavioural control allows for those cases where individuals do not perform a particular behaviour despite a favourable attitude and subjective norm toward the behaviour, due to the anticipation of impediments and obstacles. It should be noted that the perceived behavioural control is not necessarily congruent with the actual behavioural control. The weight of these factors may vary: Ajzen (1988: 117) observes that “for some intentions attitudinal considerations are more important than normative considerations while for other intentions normative considerations predominate. (...) In addition, the relative weights of the attitudinal and normative factors may vary from one person to another”. In biodiversity-related conflicts, subjective norms may play an important role when individuals feel that they should act according to their organisation’s strategy or policy rather than according to their personal views. Subjective norms might gain in importance over time, as positions of groups solidify, and individual attitudes become less relevant as a determinant of actual behaviour.

5.2 Definitions of attitudes In the context of conflict management, participation and social learning, an understanding of the role of attitudes seems crucial. The following sections thus address the relationship between behaviour, attitudes and their determinants in more detail. A variety of definitions of the term ‘attitude’exist. However, a common element of most of these definitions is the dual nature of attitudes. A rather broad definition by Smith and Mackie (2000: 247), for example, describes attitudes as “cognitive representations that summarise an individual’s evaluations of particular objects”. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) see attitudes as “dispositions to evaluate given entities with some degree of favour or disfavour”. Attitudes thus seem to consist of 26

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

both cognitive and emotional elements that allow a personal evaluation of an object represented in the individual’s mind. The cognitive components of attitudes, in some context called beliefs, are a body of knowledge that an individual has stored in memory with regard to a particular object (Smith and Mackie 2000: 60). A cognition or belief could thus be a proposition such as “arctic terns feed on sandeels”or “the more diverse an ecosystem, the more resilient”. The word ‘belief’hints at the subjectivity of cognitions. The term ‘knowledge’however, is less subjectivist. The emotional component of attitudes is often described as the evaluation of the object: an individual attaches importance to the object to a certain degree, that is, feelings are linked with the object in question. These evaluations are most likely informed by more fundamental values (Ajzen 1988; Olson and Zanna 1993; Van Harreveld and van der Pligt 2003). Values are more permanent than attitudes (Howard 1994: 592) and can be defined as “important life goals or standards which serve as guiding principles in a person’s life”(Rokeach 1973).5

5.3 Approaches to assess attitudes How can attitudes be captured empirically? There are both qualitative and quantitative ways to describe and examine attitudes. Qualitative approaches include, for example, semi-structured interviews, focus-group discussions and observational techniques. Quantitative approaches are often components of questionnaires such as Likert-scaled item scales, and semantic differentials. Attitudes can be examined globally, for example, through semantic differentials or qualitative approaches, but also in a much more specific way, following measurement models such as the expectancy-value concept as part of the TOPB. According to the TOPB, the sum of the products of behavioural beliefs with regard to an object multiplied by the evaluation (importance) of these beliefs is proportional to the direction and strength of an attitude. An example of a behavioural belief would be “going by train causes fewer emissions than going by car”. A corresponding evaluation is “reducing emissions caused by transport is very important 5

“Values transcend specific actions and situations. Obedience and honesty, for example, are values that may be relevant at work or in school, in sports, business and politics, with family, friends or strangers. This feature of values distinguishes them from narrower concepts like norms and attitudes, concepts that usually refer to specific actions, objects, or situations.”(Schwartz 2003: 2)

27

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

to me”. With regard to the attitude towards ‘going by train’, an individual probably holds more than one salient belief. That is, the individual may be aware of several aspects of the behaviour. Another belief might be “the train to town x is often crowded”, and the corresponding evaluation may be quite unfavourable. Since the expectancy-value-model of attitudes is based on a sum of different beliefs and their evaluations, this type of model is referred to as a multi-attribute-model (e.g. Wilkie 1994; Kroeber-Riel and Weinberg 1996).

5.4 Environmental awareness Environmental awareness is often understood to be a global sort of attitude that does not refer explicitly to a particular behaviour (Homburg and Matthies 1998; Kuckartz 1998; Diekmann and Preisendörfer 2001). It does not focus on one single action, but on a whole bundle of actions. Antecedents of environmental awareness are general values with regard to environmental problems and the protection of the environment (Diekmann and Preisendörfer 2001). Specific ecological knowledge is not viewed as a direct determinant of environmental awareness. Diekmann and Preisendörfer (ibid. p. 101) observe that a general insight into the violability of nature and the environment is sufficient to inform individual environmental awareness. Special scales exist to assess environmental awareness. Some of these indices try to capture attitudes towards a selection of representative actions as a proxy for an underlying general attitude. Other awareness scales such as the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) choose more general approaches (Dunlap et al. 2000).

5.5 Attitude-related factors that affect processes of social learning Attitude-behaviour theories help explain learning processes that may eventually lead to behaviour modifications and, in conflict situations, thus to reduced conflict. Through alterations of the knowledge on and the evaluations of attitude objects due to social learning, individuals might change their attitudes and, as a consequence, also their intentions and their actual behaviour. Yet in actuality, learning does often not proceed that smoothly. Individuals change their attitudes into unexpected directions, or the information disseminated does not lead to the expected behavioural consequences. The following sections show why processes intended to stimulate learning have often unexpected outcomes. Two approaches to examine impacts of learning are presented: (i) theories of attitude change and (ii) empirical research on 28

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

moderating factors in the functional chain between knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.

5.6 Attitude change Though attitudes are considered relatively stable over time, it is obvious that they may change due to several processes. Often, participatory processes are intended to lead to favourable attitude changes that reduce conflict. However, many of these processes fail. Social psychological theories of attitude change might help to understand why as they describe how attitudes are constructed and modified. The term ‘attitude change’ does not necessarily imply a conspicuous alteration of an individual’s attitude. It also refers to small modifications, refinements and affirmations of attitudes. This process can be divided into several steps (see Güttler 1996; Herkner 1991). First, the individual has to be attentive to be able to perceive the respective stimuli. In a second step, the individual decodes and interprets these stimuli. Then, the information is correlated with existing information and corresponding attitudes and either accepted or rejected. The acceptance of new information may lead to an attitude change. Finally, the new attitude, if stable, is retained. If unstable, it is changed again. Eventually, the attitude may become manifest in the individual’s actual behaviour. Several personal and situational variables may moderate this process. Several approaches to explain attitude changes have particularly shaped the social-psychological discussion, among them Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (1978), Brehm’s theory of psychological reactance (1966) and dualprocess models such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty and Cacioppo 1986) or the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM; Chaiken, Liberman and Eagly 1989). The first two are presented in the following paragraphs as they are of particular relevance in social learning processes.

5.6.1 A theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1978) The starting point of Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (1978) is the assumption that in general, individuals are motivated to hold attitudes that are consonant with other attitudes held by the individual and with the attitudes held by others. Cognitions such as ‘I like cigarettes’and ‘smoking can cause cancer’are perceived as incongruent by most individuals. According to Festinger, these cognitive dissonances make people feel uncomfortable; dissonances are experienced as 29

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

unpleasant. The higher the rate of inconsistent elements, the stronger the feeling of cognitive dissonance. However, the perceived cognitive dissonance depends not only on the number of incongruent cognitions, but also on the importance of those cognitions. How can cognitive dissonance be reduced? Festinger (ibid.) names several strategies which may be performed even simultaneously: (i)

cognitive elements may be re-interpreted, re-evaluated or even denied

(ii)

additional cognitive elements may be acquired to change the ratio of consonant and dissonant elements in favour of the consonant cognitions

(iii)

the individual may change his or her behaviour.

The choice of one of these options depends on the relevance and the frequency of application of the respective attitude and the corresponding behaviour. Attitudes which are seldom stated and behaviour which is rarely performed tend to be changed more easily than behaviour which is performed more often or in public. The individual may not be aware of the strategy he or she applies in order to cope with cognitive dissonance; often, coping mechanisms are carried out spontaneously. If an individual is provoked to perform a behaviour that is incongruent with his or her attitudes, the individual may either (i) justify the behaviour retrospectively or (ii) change the underlying attitude to reduce dissonance (Festinger 1978). In this case, the choice of an option depends on potential external reasons for the deviant behaviour. If the individual felt forced to carry out an action or if strong incentives such as a reward took effect, the individual may explain the deviant behaviour by those external reasons and thus reduce the dissonance. If no external reasons can be applied to justify the behaviour, the person is likely to change his or her attitude retroactively. What does this mean with regard to social learning? §

In general, social learning processes have to take into account the attitudes of the participants at the beginning of the process: How strong are these attitudes, and to which behaviour do they refer? Is this behaviour performed quite often and in public? Which behaviour would be desirable in the context of the conflict, and how does this relate to the existing attitudes? Based on these considerations, mediators can obtain a clearer picture of the difficulties to be expected, and design appropriate approaches accordingly.

30

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

§

If social learning processes are intended to have a positive impact on individual attitudes and behaviour on the long run, participants should not be forced by external sources to perform a certain behaviour as they might not change their attitudes retrospectively; however, if people in a social process decide to perform a certain behaviour due to their own motivation, they are more likely to change their attitudes and thus their behaviour in the long term;

§

Often, some individuals appear resistant to learning. This might be due to high dissonance between the new information and the former attitude, leading to a denial or re-interpretation of information. This effect is enhanced when behaviour is affected that had been performed frequently, or when attitudes had been communicated explicitly and in public.

5.6.2 A theory of psychological reactance (Brehm 1966) The main message of Brehm’s theory of reactance is the observation that humans tend to react very sensitively to an elimination of their individual freedom (Brehm 1966). They may even react in contradiction to their attitudes just to regain and demonstrate their freedom of behaviour. Thus, an individual may reject “arguments which are in themselves quite convincing”(ibid. p. 94) just because he or she feels pressured by the information sender (the ‘communicator’in Brehm’s terminology) to behave in a particular way or to change a particular attitude. This phenomenon is called reactance. Brehm (ibid. p. 94) points out that the stronger the perceived pressure, the more threatened the freedom and hence, the more likely reactance behaviour occurs. Individuals feel that the communicator is deliberately attempting to influence their attitudes when: (i)

the communicator gives one-sided messages

(ii)

the communicator gives extreme or emotional messages

(iii)

the communicator appears untrustworthy on the issue.

The individual may then try to free him- or herself from these influences by explicitly not taking the position advocated by the communicator. In the light of this theory, it becomes obvious why in some cases attempts to persuasion lead to a reaction opposite to that intended, no matter how strong the arguments are. Again, this theory helps explain why some learning processes which were intended to lead to conflict reduction do not have the expected effects. As a consequence, the process 31

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

facilitator should carefully avoid any behaviour that might be perceived as pressurising, strongly biased or lacking credibility.

5.7 The relationship between behaviour, attitudes and their antecedents: empirical findings Another reason why learning processes might seemingly fail is the existence of moderating factors that impact on the role of knowledge and attitudes in the formation of behaviour. Empirical evidence suggests that the functional chain between knowledge, attitude and behaviour as postulated by the TOPB is much weaker than expected. One the one hand, this might be due to imprecise measurements. Diekmann and Preisendörfer (ibid. p. 117) emphasise once again that the predictive power of these models increases the closer attitude and behaviour measurements are with respect to their specificity of operationalisation. The more specific attitudes and behaviour are and the closer they match, the higher the predictive power of attitudebehaviour models. On the other hand, there are a number of factors that moderate the relationship between knowledge and values, attitudes and behaviour. What are these moderating factors? In a meta-analysis, Unterbruner and Pfligersdorffer (1994) re-analyse empirical findings on the correlation between knowledge on environmental issues and environmentally relevant behaviour. The term ‘environmentally relevant behaviour’is a somewhat vague concept including a great variety of activities. They conclude that on average, both parameters correlate to a relatively small degree (r=0.3). This means that about 90 % of the empirical variance of environmentally relevant behaviour is not explained by knowledge. The relationship between these concepts is thus much weaker than expected (ibid. p. 85). Apart from measurement errors (see above), the authors claim this to be due to the fact that the knowledge lacks relevance for everyday life. Survey results (Pfligersdorffer 1994) suggest that students’ environmental knowledge tends to be rudimental and fragmentary. Therefore, the young people focused on in the Pfligersdorffer study were unable to deduce actual guidelines when (re)considering their activities. Barkmann and Bögeholz (1999) observe that complex ecological knowledge is irrelevant for everyday routines, although it might be useful when it comes to more demanding behaviour. 32

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Another reason for the weak correlation between knowledge and behaviour may be the economic and psychological costs which differ across behaviour areas (Pfligersdorffer 1994; Diekmann and Preisendörfer 2001). Knowledge tends to have a stronger effect on behaviour when behaviour modification is not that costly. This may apply to areas such as the separate collection of household waste. In other areas where psychological (and economic) costs are high such as transport issues, the correlation between parameters tends to be much weaker. Unterbruner and Pfligersdorffer (1994) point out that knowledge also determines the perception of environmental problems. The more an individual knows, the more likely he or she is to perceive and to acquire new information on the issue. Hence, knowledge, perception and behaviour are interrelated.6 The authors quote correlation coefficients ranging between r=0.2 and r=0.24 with regard to knowledge and perception and r=0.31 to r=0.45 with regard to perception and behaviour. In line with the TOPB, Unterbruner and Pfligersdorffer (1994) mention another factor similar to the TOPB’s perceived behaviour control as a determinant of environmentally relevant behaviour. Individuals who attribute the control of environmental problems to themselves tend to act corresponding to their knowledge and degree of environmental awareness. In contrast, individuals who attribute control to external sources such as governments do not necessarily consider their attitudes and knowledge when acting in an environmentally relevant way (see also Erten 2000). Consequently, social learning should provide knowledge that is not abstract and fragmented, but is easily applicable to actual situations and thus easy to translate into specific attitudes and the respective behaviour. A high degree of perceived behavioural control enhances the consistency between knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.

6. Linkages between conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation 6.1 A holistic perspective The aspects of biodiversity conservation management addressed in this report have been much studied and discussed. There is a wealth of theory and of practical

33

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

experience relating to each component. The linkages between particular aspects have also been well studied. For example, it was discussed how the social learning benefits of participation are well documented. Likewise, the need for a participatory approach in conflict management is recognised. However, there have been few previous attempts to describe the possible linkages between all of these aspects. In this study, we thus further explored the interactions between these elements. In this novel exploration we drew upon the disciplinary expertises of our team to create an awareness of the theories behind different approaches. We drew on perspectives from different fields including social psychology theory, environmental education, liberal and deliberative theories of democracy and educational theory and practical experiences of facilitation. We present here a holistic perspective of how such processes can interact. This stylistic model does not assume to represent a single and absolute reality. It depicts a mental map of concepts and their relationships, and tries to express the dynamic nature of these interactions and the influence of other factors (Fig. 4). The complexity of feedback loops is illustrated and the repeated impact of external influences demonstrates that the interactions cannot form a closed system. For example, there are important external factors that influence conflict management and its outcomes. One especially important external factor that is not represented on the mental map is power. Power relationships between the actors are included in the conflict management process, but the management process is always embedded within a larger social and political context. For instance, the legitimacy and mandate of the process is often determined by the process’relationship to external factors such as the overall governance regime or to a more immediate social context. Regarding the latter, Webler et al. (1995: 445) make an important distinction in the analysis of social learning, which can be extended here to apply to the conflict management process in general. They write: "We distinguish between learning that happens immediately within the participatory process and learning that happens outside of the process." This is an important notion in emphasising the way in which participatory processes are embedded in a larger context and the fact that the final outcomes of these processes are also dependent on actors and forces outside the processes.

6

Here, links to the theory of cognitive dissonance can be drawn.

34

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

This complexity and context specificity preclude this model from defining a single theory or path, but offer flexibility in viewing other perspectives. The interactions pictured are independent of scale but may be temporally dependent. The cycle can be iterative and can begin at any stage.

6.2 A mental map of linkages An appropriate place to begin to describe the cycle is when biodiversity conflict occurs. However, this does not signify that participation and social learning are linked only to conflicts and their management. It merely provides one potential progression between the elements discussed that may be pursued by biodiversity conservation managers keen to implement the new philosophy of participatory engagement. A biodiversity conflict may occur at a local or national level and may lead to a decision to undertake conflict management. Conflict management processes normally include a participatory approach. Participation, when implemented according to its underlying principles and not in a tokenistic manner, leads to a number of outcomes that might be considered positive or negative as described previously. These could include ecological and economic benefits such as more stable populations of a target species, or the stabilisation of a source of income for certain stakeholders. Some of these benefits may be derived indirectly through the stimulation of social benefits, including social learning. Appropriately implemented participation will also involve a two way interaction whereby different actors influence and empower one another and in which social learning occurs. Again, we emphasise, as described in the previous section on participation, that participation is a process that is central to a deliberative democratic point of view and that it can be undertaken as part of general biodiversity conservation management without having to be instigated by a biodiversity conflict. Social learning is a multi-faceted factor that can have diverse impacts on individuals and society. It alters the framework through which individuals perceive their horizons. Social learning can have an impact on people’s behaviour through a variety of paths. Firstly, participants in a social learning process might modify their values, or the relative importance of the values they hold, through the interaction with other individuals and groups. The alteration of values might lead to an attitude change (Figs. 3 and 4) as certain behavioural options are re-evaluated, and thus create the basis for a change in behaviour. 35

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Secondly, social learning might have an impact on the knowledge of individuals –for example, on different biodiversity management options and their implications –which again leads to a change of attitudes. Social learning might also influence subjective norms through the interactions with members of the own and other groups. Finally, social learning might have an impact on individuals’and groups’skills to deal with conflicts. Whilst the gap between attitude change and behavioural change is acknowledged, the map (Fig. 4) does demonstrate a mechanism whereby conflict management can be successful in altering behaviour to result in no conflict. The cycle also illustrates further levels of influence and interaction. There are many other external factors that may alter behaviour either towards or away from conflict. In addition, as stated previously, if external processes of conflict management are not implemented or are deliberately withheld because social capital is relatively high, stakeholders may address their own conflict and in doing so further build on social learning and increase their capacity to avoid or manage further conflicts. Participation is, of course, a process that is not merely implemented through conflict management but may also be an approach used in the design or implementation of legislation or in other situations, such as development initiatives. Social learning can also result from experiences other than externally driven participatory processes. The cycle may thus be tracked from these points with positive benefits resulting and possible avoidance of any conflict. Finally, the cycle may continue to revolve when an iterative cycle of participation, social learning and gradual attitude and behaviour changes is maintained. This holistic perspective of the interactions between conflict management, participatory processes, social learning and attitudes permits an understanding and basis for further analysis of management strategies for biodiversity conservation. For example, it can be seen that clumsy attempts to implement biodiversity legislation may lead to conflict, but that participatory methods may lead to multiple benefits for society that include improved conservation, either directly or indirectly through an increase in social learning. It can be seen that an environmental awareness programme that aims to inform may influence attitudes through altered education, but that a participatory approach to environmental education that actively promotes interaction and social learning will have greater possible influences on attitudes and behaviour. 36

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Recognition of the subjective norm and mapping of its drifting in a different direction can signal opportunities or threats to conservation from altered behavioural patterns. The model demonstrates the mechanisms by which internal societal management of conflict can be positive; but also shows how active management can reduce conflict. An awareness of the complex interactions between these social processes and factors will enable conservation managers to better understand the context in which they engage with people to balance different goals in conservation areas. We hope that this model will prevent oversimplification of the processes and will help conservation managers understand why apparently long winded, time consuming and sometimes costly engagement processes with stakeholders can be worthwhile. This is a demonstration of how interdisciplinary approaches to biodiversity conservation can be beneficial.

Social impacts Ecological impacts Education Economic impacts

Social learning Values Subjective norm

Knowledge Capacity building

Attitudes

Other social impacts Ecological impacts

Participation Behaviour

No conflict

Conflict

Economic impacts

Conflict management Policy design or implementation

Fig. 4: Social learning in biodiversity-related conflicts: a mental map of potential linkages between some social parameters.

6.3 Case study illustration These linkages can be illustrated using practical case studies. For example, a study by Forster (2005) assessed the effectiveness of a public participation process in the designation of the boundary of the new Cairngorms National Park. Despite the increasing demand for agencies to account for the success of participatory processes, 37

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

evaluation frameworks to date have focused on process or outcome aspects of participation and there are few complete evaluations available (Rowe and Frewer 2004). This study was thus unusual in attempting to evaluate both and thus provides an example by which to explore the linkages discussed above. There had been previous controversy and a long political history to the development of the Park, but the participatory process was employed not in response to a particular conflict but rather as part of a broader planning process to develop the Park. The process included media reports, leaflets, displays, public meetings, interest group meetings, semi-structured interviews and specific community events, involving over 3000 people and leading to 850 formal submissions. Although there were some criticisms of the process, in general it was felt that the participation was broad and representative. Outcomes were then assessed. The influences on policy were perceived to be good in influencing the conservation authority’s recommendations but poor in terms of decisions from the Scottish Executive. It was felt that social learning increased within and between communities. Specific perceived outcomes included making new friends and strengthening contacts, communities gaining in organisation and confidence and improvements in environmental awareness. Interviewees felt that their communities were more capable of rising to future challenges as a result of the participation. These social consequences were perceived to be more important than the limited economic benefits that arose as a result. It was felt to be too early to see environmental benefits deriving from the participation. Despite the fact that not all interviewed respondents were happy with the policy and practical outcomes, all but one felt the participatory process had benefited them and they would participate in a similar process again. There was evidence of changes in attitudes amongst some community members, arising from increased communication and new information. However, since the participation process was not planning to alter behaviour, it is not possible to assess to what extent they changed and how this would influence other behaviours in relation to the Park. This study thus shows how a participatory process around a specific conservation planning issue can lead to social learning, with improved knowledge and some change in attitude of some individuals. The capacity building resulting from the social learning strengthened the ability of communities to meet future challenges and participate in future processes more effectively. 38

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

It can be concluded that there was not a big gap between the participatory process and its wider social context. In fact, the process strengthened the community and increased social capital. However, a potential problem can be detected in the process' position in wider institutional or governance context: the process had only limited effects on the official decision-making. This risk that participatory processes do not reach higher than 'tokenism' (Arnstein 1969) is clearly an issue common with many participatory processes and deserves a proper attention from authorities and other actors who plan participatory processes.

7. Conclusions In this report we have demonstrated some mechanisms by which social science can assist biodiversity conservation management. Stakeholder engagement and the management of biodiversity within a societal context are now promoted in global, national and local regulations. Acknowledging and understanding some of the theories behind practices that are recommended to achieve these aims will assist conservation managers to implement them more effectively. Whilst we have used some social science areas, namely conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes, as examples for explanation of theory and to explain potential linkages, it is important to recognise that these are not the only elements involved in the development of communities that should occur in parallel with the development of appropriate conservation management strategies. It is also important to note that the linkages expressed indicate only one possible interaction chain. For example, participation has far further reaching application and consequence than merely as a tool to use for conflict management; and the links between attitudes and behaviour are more complex than described in this context. The interpretation presented here was further influenced by the skills and experience of the authors and different perspectives are possible and valid. We conclude that biodiversity conservation management will be more effective if it is implemented with the recognition of the needs of democratic society and with an understanding of the ways in which people interact, develop and change. This approach requires not only the use of tools borrowed from social science fields but also an appreciation of the theories underpinning the fields concerned. Increased 39

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

dialogue between natural and social scientists and conservation managers to this end will be required to work towards this goal.

8. Recommendations for future research Recommendations for further research on the influence of conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes on biodiversity conservation management practices and their efficacy include: •

Comparison of approaches that reduce potential conflicts through a general programme of enhanced dialogue and approaches that address conflicts once they have emerged.



Analysis of the fields that have contributed to the practice of conflict management and exploration of how their theoretical underpinning relates to practice.



Linking poverty-related issues (including international development and European Union enlargement issues) to biodiversity conflict management, especially in addressing structural aspects of conflict



Investigation of different forms of participation, in terms of intensity and in terms of approach, such as the differences between community and stakeholder approaches.



Analysis of participatory processes in relation to respective institutional and governance structures. What effects do these processes have on decisionmaking? What mandates are given to processes?



Analysis of the effects of social learning on structures and institutions as well as individuals.



Investigation of the causative connection between education, attitude change and behaviour change with regard to biodiversity.



Further description of potential consequences of biodiversity management actions that are genuinely implemented within a societal context –to what extent do effects spill over beyond biodiversity conservation?



Testing of the linkages described in this report and others at different spatial and temporal scales and in different cultural contexts.

40

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation



Exploration of mechanisms by which natural and social scientists and conservation managers can learn from each other through the application of scientific theory to management and feedback of practice to development of theory. This will include recognition of the different objectives held, epistemologies used and scales at which they work.

41

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

9. References Ajzen, I. (1988): Attitudes, Personality, and Behaviour. Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Andersen, J. G., Torpe, L. and Andersen, J. (2000) Hvad folket magter, demokrati, magt og afmagt (The capacity of people, democracy, power and powerlessness). Jurist- og Økonomforlaget, Copenhagen. Arler, F. and Svennevig, I. (1998) Cross-Cultural Protection of Nature and the Environment. University Press of Southern Denmark, Odense. Arnstein, S. R. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4): 216-224. (Reprinted in Journal of Town Planning Institute 1971: 176-182) Bandura, A. (1971) Social learning theory. Motivational trends in society. General learning press: Morristown, NY. Barkmann, J. and Bögeholz, S. (1999): Ecosystem assessment of three peatland sites in northern Germany as an environmental education project. Paper presented at the 5th auDes conference on Environmental Education in Zurich, Switzerland, April 15-17, 1999. http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~msiegel/audes/papers/paper-barkmann.pdf Barber, B. and Whitman, R. (2004) Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bay-Larsen, I. A. and Sandersen, H. T (2005) Medvirkningsorientert partnerskap i verneplanprosesser - Eksemplet Junkerdal Nasjonalpark (Participatory Partnership in Nature Protection –Case Junkerdal Nasjonalpark, Norway) Utmark, 1-2005. Brundtland, G. H. (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brehm, J. W. (1966) A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press, New York. Chaiken, S.; Liberman, A. and Eagly, A. (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman, J. and Bargh, J. (Eds.): Unintended thought (pp 212-252). Guilford, New York. Conover, M. (2001) Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

42

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books, London. Dahl, R. A. (1989) Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press, London. Davies, B., Blackstock, K. and Rauschmayer, F. (2005) ‘Recruitment’, ‘composition’, and ‘mandate’issues in deliberative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 (4): 599-615. Diekmann, A. and Preisendörfer, P. (2001) Umweltsoziologie. Rowohlt, Reinbek. Dittmar, H., Beattie, J. and Friese, S. (1996) Objects, decision considerations and selfimage in men’s and women’s impulse purchases. Acta Psychologica 93: 187206. Dryzek, J.S. (1997) The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. Oxford University Press ,Cambridge, USA. Dunlap, R., van Liere, K., Mertig, A. and Emmet Jones, R. (2000) New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm. A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues 56: 425442. Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. (1993) Motivational Processes in Attitude Formation and Change. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York. Eriksen, E. O. and Weigård, J. (2002) Kommunikativt demokrati (Communicative Democracy). Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen. Erten, S. (2000) Empirische Untersuchungen zu Bedingungen der Umwelterziehung. Tectum, Marburg. Festinger, L. (1978) Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz. Huber, Bern. Fien, J. and Skoien, P. (2002) “I’m Learning… How You Go about Stirring Things Up— in a Consultative Manner”: social capital and action competence in two community catchment groups. Local Environment 7 (3) 269–282. Forster, J. (2005) Development of an evaluative framework to assess the effectiveness of public participation in conservation: the designation off the Cairngorms National Park boundary. M Res. Project, CEH and University of York, UK. Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right. Polity Press, Cambridge. Gould, C. C. (1990) Rethinking Democracy. Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics. Cambridge University Press, New York. 43

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Gutmann, L. S. A. and Thompson, D. (1998) Democracy and Disagreement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA. Güttler, P. (1996) Sozialpsychologie: soziale Einstellungen, Vorurteile, Einstellungsänderungen. Oldenbourg, München. Habermas, J. (1997) Between Facts and Norm. Polity Press, Cambridge. Habermas, J. (1989) The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society. Polity Press, Cambridge. Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Vol. 1-2. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt. Hallgren, L. (2005) To ”lungna upp sig”–The social responsive character of environmental conflict. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Society and Recourse Management, Östersund, Sweden. Hansen, H. P.; Clausen, L. T. (2004) The Democratic Transformation of Nature Conservation and Public Planning. Paper presented at 3rd Global Conference: Ecological Justice and Global Citizenship, Copenhagen. http://www.ruc.dk/teksam/forskning/Forskningscenter/Publikationer/ Hansen, H. P.; Tind, E. and Clausen, T. C. (2005) Democracy and sustainability –A challenge to modern nature conservation, Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Society and Recourse Management, Östersund, Sweden. http://www.ruc.dk/teksam/forskning/Forskningscenter/Publikationer/ Herkner, W. (1991) Sozialpsychologie. Huber, Bern. Homburg, A. and Matthies, E. (1998) Umweltpsychologie. Juventa, Weinheim. Hornneth, A. (2002) Kampf um Anerkennung. Zur moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Howard, J. (1994): Buyer Behavior in Marketing Strategy. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Hudson, B. M. (1979) Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association 45 (4) 387-398. Krasny, M. and Sun-Kyung L. (2002) Social Learning as an approach to environmental education: lessons from a program focusing on non-indigenous, invasive species. Environmental Education Research 8 (2) 101-119. Kroeber-Riel, W. and Weinberg, P. (1996) Konsumentenverhalten. Vahlen, München. Kuckartz, U. (1998) Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten. Springer, Heidelberg. 44

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Laesoe, J. (2003) Facilitation of Civic Participation in Sustainable Development, Paper presented for the 6th Nordic Conference on Environmental Social Science (NESS), Turku /Åbo, Finland. Lee, K.N. (1993) Compass and Gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, DC. Lund, S. (1998) Participation? A Question of Praxis, PhD.Dissertation, Roskilde University. Maarleveld, M. and Dangbégnon, C. (1999) Managing natural resources: a social learning perspective. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 267-280. McClenaghan, P. (2000) Social Capital: exploring the theoretical foundations of community development education. British Educational Research Journal 26 (5): 565-582. Naturvårdsverket (2003): Lokal förankring av naturvård (Local Rooted Nature Protection). Report Naturvpårdverket, Sweden. Nowicki, P., Young, J. and Watt, A. D. (2005) The Ecosystem Approach applied to Spatial Planning. A report of the BIOFORUM project. CEH Banchory. Nozick, R. (1980) Anarchy, State and Utopia. Blackwell, Oxford. O’Leary, R. and Bingham, L. (2003) The promise and performance of environmental conflict resolution. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C. Olsen, H. S. and Rasmussen, P. (eds.) (1996) Theoretical Issues in Adult Education – Danish Experiences. Roskilde University Press, Roskilde. Olson, J. and Zanna, M. (1993): Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology 44: 117-154. Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pedersen, J. D. (2005) The Dichotomy of Prescription and Practice: Managing Coastal Zone in an Imperfect World. PhD-Dissertation, Roskilde University. Pendzich, C. (1994) Conflict management and forest disputes - a path out of the woods? Forest, trees and people newsletter 20: 4-9. Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1986): Communication and persuasion - Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer, New York. Pfligersdorffer, G. (1994): Ist ökologisches Wissen handlungsrelevant? In: Pfligersdorffer, G. and Unterbruner, U. (eds.): Umwelterziehung auf dem Prüfstand. Österreichischer Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck. 45

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Pretty, J. and Smith, D. (2004) Social Capital in Biodiversity Conservation and Management. Conservation Biology 18 (3) 631-638. Rauschmayer, F. and Wittmer, H. (2004, in press) Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy, in press, corrected proof. Rawls, J. (2002) Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York. Rawls, J. (1999) The Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press , Oxford. Reason, P. (2002) Justice Sustainability, and Participation, Inaugural professorial lecture, Concepts and Transformations 7 (1), 7-29. Renn, O., Webler, T.; Wiedmann, P. (Eds.) (1995): Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Kluwer Academic Publisher. Robertson, David P; Hull, Bruce R (2003) Public ecology: an environmental sicience and policy for global society, Environmental Science and Policy 6: 399-410. Rokeach, M. (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New York. Röling, N. and Wagemakers, A. (1998) Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, New York. Rousseau, J. J. (1762/1968) The Social Contract. Penguin Books, London. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values 29(4): 512-556. Schumpeter, J. (1943) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. George Allen and Unwin, New York. Schusler, T., Decker, D. and Pfeffer, M. (2003) Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 15: 309–326. Schwartz, S. H. (2003) A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations across Nations. Proposal for the European Social Survey (ESS). http://naticent02.uuhost.uk.uu.net/ Sennett, R. (2003) The Fall of Public Man. Penguin Books, London. Skerwheim, H. (1974) Deltakarar og Tilskodar (Participants and Spectator). Skriftserie Nr. 6, University of Oslo. Sherlock, K. and Clark, J. (2004) WP8: Social learning, Participation and Deliberative Processes. Report to project: Achieving Sustainable Catchment Management: Developing integrated approaches and tools to inform future policies. Unpublished. 46

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

Singleton, S. (2000) Co-operation or Capture? The Paradox of Co-management and Community Participation in Natural Resource Management and Environmental Policy-making. Environmental Politics 9 (2):1-21. Sköllerhorn, E. (1998) Habermas and nature: The theory of communicative action for studying environmental policy. Journal of Planning and Management 41 (5): 555-573. Smith, E. and Mackie, D. (2000): Social Psychology. Psychology Press, Philadelphia. UNEP (1992) The Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/default.shtml Unterbruner, U. and Pfligersdorffer, G. (1994) Vom Wissen zum Handeln. In: Pfligersdorffer, G. and Unterbruner, U. (eds.): Umwelterziehung auf dem Prüfstand. Österreichischer Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck. Van Harrefeld, F. and van der Pligt, J. (2004): Attitudes as stable and transparent constructions. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 40: 666-674. Valve, H. 2003. Social learning potentials provided by EU rural development programmes. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 918. Tampere University Press, Tampere, Finland. PhD thesis. Wallsten, P. (2003) The “Inside-Out”Process. Journal of Mountain Research and Development 23 (3). Warner, M. & Jones, P. (1998) Assessing the need to manage conflict in communitybased natural resource projects. Natural Resource Perspectives No. 35, ODI, UK. Webler T., Kastenholz H. and Renn O. (1995) Public Participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15 (5): 443 –463 Wilkie, W. (1994) Consumer Behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Wittmer, H., Rauschmayer, F. and Klauer, B. (2005 in press) How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts? Land Use Policy in press, corrected proof. Wondolleck, J. M., and Yaffee, S. L. (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DC. Young, J., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Matouch, S., Niemela, J. and Watt, A. D. (Eds.) (2003) Conflicts between human activities and the conservation of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, grasslands, forests, 47

ALTERNet R4: Conflict management, participation, social learning and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

wetlands and uplands in Europe: A report of the BIOFORUM project. CEH Banchory. Young, J., Watt, A., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Laczko, E., McCracken, D., Matouch, S. and Niemelä, J. (2005) Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(7): 1641-1661.

48