Conflict Management, Participation, Social Learning and Attitudes in Biodiversity Conservation

Project no. GOCECT2003505298ALTERNet

Conflict management, Participation,Social learning and Attitudes inBiodiversity Conservation

Rehema White1, Anke Fischer2, Hans Peter Hansen3,Riku Varjopuro4, Juliette Young1 and Mihai Adamescu5

1Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK; 2Macaulay Institute, UK; 3National

Environmental Research Institute, Denmark; 4Finnish Environment Institute

(SYKE), Finland; 5University of Bucharest, Romania

WPR4200503

Instrument: Network of ExcellenceThematic Priority: Global Change and Ecosystems (Subpriority 1.1.6.3, Topic 6.3.III.1.1)Due date of deliverable: 2005Submission date:Start date of project: 1st April 2004Duration: 5 yearsDeliverable lead contractor:Revision: 1.0

wwwwww..aalltteerrnneett..iinnffoo

http://www.alter-net.info

http://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.


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

antecedents: empirical findings

31

6. Linkages between conflict management, participation, social learning

and attitudes in biodiversity conservation

33


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


Executive summarySuccessful biodiversity conservation within the complex and changing landscapes of

Europe and beyond requires consideration not only of ecological factors but also of

socioeconomic 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


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 onesided, 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


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.


1

1. IntroductionEuropean 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 socioeconomic 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


2

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


3

offered by Conover (2001), that a humanwildlife 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


4

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 subnational 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. Socioeconomic 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

Interpersonal 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.


5

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 agrienvironmental

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 topdown

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 landuse 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 communitybased

management, communication and dialogue, educational programmes and co

management 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 winwin situations. Local level planning and the


6

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 problemsolving 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 socioeconomic 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 fisheating 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 panEuropean scale.

Some relevant national projects include

http://www.nbu.ac.uk/bioforum

http://www.dur.ac.uk/imew.ecproject/

http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=2776

http://web.tiscali.it/sv2001/cormo_news/eu1.htm


7

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 Rioconference 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

decisionmaking 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 theconvention up to 35.

http://www.ukpopnet.org/

http://www.ruc.dk/teksam_en/research/Democracy_and_Nature


8

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 decision

making. 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 spinoff 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


9

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


10

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 non

specific 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 Nonparticipation 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 subcategories (see Fig 1), describing the transition from one main

category to another.

2 Later published in Journal of Town Planning Institute, pp. 176182, in 1971.

Citizen control

Manipulation

Therapy

Informing

Consultation

Placation

Partnership

Delegated power Degrees ofcitizenpower

Degreesoftokenism

Nonparticipation

8

3

4

5

6

7

1

2


11

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 socialpolitical topic. The socialpolitical 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 socialpolitical 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


12

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 numberof countries after World War II especially contributed to the development of modern politicalphilosophy, leading to different interpretations. For example, the debate led to different conclusions inUSA and Scandinavia regarding the role of citizens. A more complete description of the historicaldevelopment of different understanding of democracy and participation can be found in differentliterature, such as the classical work Participation and Democratic Theory, written by Carole Patemanin 1970, which addresses the debate in UK and USA.4 The four categories are modified after Andersen, Jørgen Goul et al 2000.


13

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

in contemporary society. In this respect it would not be an ideological democratic

exclusive category, but rather one approach amongst others to decisionmaking 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,

selfinterest versus the common interest of society, organised citizens versus non

organised 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

Legitimating & representative.Instrumental & conflict oriented.

Involving & qualifying.Empowermental.

Ø QuestionnairesØ ReferendumsØ Public hearingsØ User groupsØ Consensus buildingØ Anthropological methodsØ Participation "up side down"Ø ??

No participation

Symbolicparticipation

Genuineparticipation

The role of the citizens in public planning

Fig 2. Different methods support different levelsof participation. Model simplified after Arnstein,1969.


14

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


15

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.


16

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 – laypeople

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 predetermined 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, laypeople, politicians, interest

groups 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?


17

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.


18

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, sociopsychological 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


19

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: 2689; 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: 4456) 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 prosocial 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).


20

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: 269270).

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.


21

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 agroecological 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 decisionmaking 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 decisionmaking 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 decisionmaking

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


22

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 co

management 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 community

based comanagement 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: 3145).

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 decisionmaking 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 comanagement to develop. Appropriate structures and processes


23

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 decisionmaking. 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


24

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?


25

Actualbehaviour

Behaviouralintention

Attitudetoward thebehaviour

Preference

Behaviouralbelief

Behaviouralbelief

OutcomeevaluationOutcomeevaluation

Source: Ajzen (1988)

Subjectivenorm

Subjectivenorm

Perceivedbehavioural

control

Perceivedbehavioural

control

Normativebelief

Normativebelief

Motivationto comply

Motivationto comply

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 coauthors 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 nonplanned

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 contextdependent 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.

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


26

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 biodiversityrelated 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


27

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,

semistructured interviews, focusgroup discussions and observational techniques.

Quantitative approaches are often components of questionnaires such as Likertscaled

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 expectancyvalue 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 valuesthat may be relevant at work or in school, in sports, business and politics, with family, friends orstrangers. 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)


28

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

expectancyvaluemodel of attitudes is based on a sum of different beliefs and their

evaluations, this type of model is referred to as a multiattributemodel (e.g. Wilkie

1994; KroeberRiel 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 Attituderelated factors that affect processes of social learning

Attitudebehaviour 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


29

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

socialpsychological discussion, among them Festinger’s theory of cognitive

dissonance (1978), Brehm’s theory of psychological reactance (1966) and dual

process models such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty and Cacioppo

1986) or the HeuristicSystematic 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


30

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 reinterpreted, reevaluated 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.


31

§ 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 reinterpretation 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 onesided 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


32

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 attitude

behaviour 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 metaanalysis, Unterbruner and Pfligersdorffer (1994) reanalyse

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.


33

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


34

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.


35

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 multifaceted 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 reevaluated, and thus create the

basis for a change in behaviour.


36

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.


37

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.

Fig. 4: Social learning in biodiversityrelated 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,

Conflict

Values

Attitudes

Behaviour

Social learning

Participation

Conflictmanagement

Education

Subjective norm

Knowledge

No conflict

Policy design orimplementation

Capacitybuilding

Ecological impacts

Social impacts

Economic impacts

Other social impacts

Ecological impacts

Economic impacts


38

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, semistructured 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.


39

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 decisionmaking. 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


40

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 povertyrelated 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 decision

making? 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.


41

• 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.


42

9. ReferencesAjzen, 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) CrossCultural 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): 216224. (Reprinted in Journal of Town

Planning Institute 1971: 176182)

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 1517, 1999.

http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~msiegel/audes/papers/paperbarkmann.pdf

Barber, B. and Whitman, R. (2004) Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

BayLarsen, I. A. and Sandersen, H. T (2005) Medvirkningsorientert partnerskap i

verneplanprosesser Eksemplet Junkerdal Nasjonalpark (Participatory

Partnership in Nature Protection – Case Junkerdal Nasjonalpark, Norway)

Utmark, 12005.

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 212252). Guilford, New York.

Conover, M. (2001) Resolving humanwildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife

damage management. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

http://www.ini.unizh.ch/~msiegel/audes/papers/paper-barkmann.pdf


43

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): 599615.

Diekmann, A. and Preisendörfer, P. (2001) Umweltsoziologie. Rowohlt, Reinbek.

Dittmar, H., Beattie, J. and Friese, S. (1996) Objects, decision considerations and self

image in men’s and women’s impulse purchases. Acta Psychologica 93: 187

206.

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: 425

442.

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.


44

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. 12. 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) 387398.

Krasny, M. and SunKyung L. (2002) Social Learning as an approach to

environmental education: lessons from a program focusing on nonindigenous,

invasive species. Environmental Education Research 8 (2) 101119.

KroeberRiel, W. and Weinberg, P. (1996) Konsumentenverhalten. Vahlen, München.

Kuckartz, U. (1998) Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten. Springer, Heidelberg.




45

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: 267280.

McClenaghan, P. (2000) Social Capital: exploring the theoretical foundations of

community development education. British Educational Research Journal 26

(5): 565582.

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: 117154.

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. PhDDissertation, Roskilde University.

Pendzich, C. (1994) Conflict management and forest disputes a path out of the

woods? Forest, trees and people newsletter 20: 49.

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 StudienVerlag, Innsbruck.


46

Pretty, J. and Smith, D. (2004) Social Capital in Biodiversity Conservation and

Management. Conservation Biology 18 (3) 631638.

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), 729.

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: 399410.

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): 512556.

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.

http://naticent02.uuhost.uk.uu.net/


47

Singleton, S. (2000) Cooperation or Capture? The Paradox of Comanagement and

Community Participation in Natural Resource Management and

Environmental Policymaking. Environmental Politics 9 (2):121.

Sköllerhorn, E. (1998) Habermas and nature: The theory of communicative action for

studying environmental policy. Journal of Planning and Management 41 (5):

555573.

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 StudienVerlag, Innsbruck.

Van Harrefeld, F. and van der Pligt, J. (2004): Attitudes as stable and transparent

constructions. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 40: 666674.

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 “InsideOut” Process. Journal of Mountain Research and

Development 23 (3).

Warner, M. & Jones, P. (1998) Assessing the need to manage conflict in community

based 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,

http://www.biodiv.org/convention/default.shtml


48

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): 16411661.

Conflict Management, Participation, Social Learning and Attitudes in Biodiversity Conservation

Documents

Transcript of Conflict Management, Participation, Social Learning and Attitudes in Biodiversity Conservation