Tania M. Schusler

Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management

This article contributes to understanding about the potential and limitations of social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Participants in a deliberative planning process involving a state agency and local communities developed common purpose and collaborative relationships, two requisites of comanagement. Eight process characteristics fostered social learning: open communication, diverse participation, unrestrained thinking, constructive conflict, democratic structure, multiple sources of knowledge, extended engagement, and facilitation. Social learning is necessary but not sufficient for collaborative management. Other requisites for comanagement, including capacity, appropriate processes, appropriate structures, and supportive policies, are necessary to sustain joint action.

Youth Participation in Local Environmental Action: An Avenue for Science and Civic Learning?

This chapter considers environmental action as an avenue for developing young people’s capabilities for democratic participation as scientifically literate citizens. From the literature, we describe parallels between civic education conceptualised as civic engagement and science education approached as inquiry-based learning. We suggest six guiding principles for youth participation in local environmental action: youth as contributors, genuine participation, deliberate action, inquiry, critical reflection, and positive youth development. We illustrate these principles by applying them to local and national environmental programmes in the USA. The engagement of individual youth and the depth of their learning may vary widely even when programmes incorporate the guiding principles. We suggest future research directions around youth experiences, guiding principles, educator practices, participant characteristics, educational setting, impacts on adults and community, and culture. Such research will enhance understanding of environmental action and its contribution to science and civic learning.

Community‐based comanagement: Sharing responsibility when tolerance for wildlife is exceeded

Abstract A key question in considering wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity (WSAC) is scale of the problem or opportunity for which WSAC is a concern. Experience indicates that human communities, typically delineated by named places, usually are the relevant scale. This level of human organization seems to be where wildlife issues, especially problems in human‐wildlife interaction, are articulated. Communities can define where and when wildlife tolerance has been exceeded, the nature of problems, what objectives for wildlife impacts should be, and which approaches for resolving issues are acceptable to the community. Experience and recent inquiry described in this article have shown that communities want to be involved in management decisions and, in some cases, implementation of management actions. Community‐based comanagement is becoming an increasingly attractive option for agencies that are financially strapped and staff‐limited in the face of growing demand by communities for tailored management responses to mitigate local situations where wildlife acceptance capacity has been exceeded.