An Initial Social Process (Contextual) Map for Podocarpus ... - CiteSeerX

Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 28:680–693, 2009 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1054-9811 print/1540-756X online DOI: 10.1080/10549810902936276

An Initial Social Process (Contextual) Map for Podocarpus National Park, Ecuador

1540-756X 1054-9811 WJSF Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Forestry Vol. 28, No. 6, July 2009: pp. 1–29

SUSAN G. CLARK1, DAVID N. CHERNEY2, INES ANGULO1, RAFAEL BERNARDI DE LEÓN3, and CESAR MORAN-CAHUSAC1 Initial S. G. Clark SocialetProcess al. Map

Downloaded By: [University of Colorado, Boulder campus] At: 22:21 8 September 2009

1

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA 2 Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA 3 United Nations Development Program, Montevideo, Uruguay

The establishment of Podocarpus National Park (PNP), Ecuador, created a new social context (process) in which people interact. The outcomes and effects of this process determine the management policy for the park and surrounding buffer zone. Social process is the interaction of people as they influence the actions, plans, or policies of other people, even if they are unaware of each other. This process is made up of participants with varying perspectives, interacting in situations, seeking values, using strategies to achieve outcomes that have effects. Our rapid assessment (March 10–19, 2005) gave us an introduction to this dynamic context in PNP and these seven variables. Our initial assessment suggests there are procedural problems with how people interact with one another (e.g., poor communication, limited data sharing, conflict), leading to content problems managing the biological features of the park (e.g., orchid poaching, illegal logging, fires). We suggest that participants in PNP develop their own social process map, work to build new cooperative partnerships, and use prototyping to improve finding social process outcomes in the interest of all participants in the arena.

The authors would like to thank their Ecuadorian hosts, ArcoIris and The Nature Conservancy, Quito for allowing them the opportunity to explore the conservation challenges surrounding PNP, as well as the numerous individuals and organizations that offered friendship and valuable time to help the authors learn about the region. Address correspondence to Susan G. Clark, Joseph F. Cullman 3rd Adjunct Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Policy Sciences, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Fellow, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University—Kroon Hall, 195 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06511, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 680

Initial Social Process Map

681

KEYWORDS context, social process, politics, decision making, Podocarpus National Park, Ecuador, management, policy


INTRODUCTION The establishment of Podocarpus National Park (PNP), in 1982, not only created new boundaries and new government entities, it also created a formal process through which people can interact about their own and the region’s future. This “new” social process, or context, is dynamic and ongoing from PNP’s establishment to the present. This process will shape the future of PNP through outcomes and effects. It is not an “ordinary” process, but can be best understood as a “constitutive” process (Lasswell, 1971, pp. 76–111). A constitutive process may implement new methods of decision making, management, and policy quite different from historical practices. An effective social process is the only way to produce the kind of constitutive and ordinary decision-making outcomes needed to achieve a healthy and sustainable future. In contrast, many people reduce the social process to “largely a technical problem of engineering” (Brunner, 2004, p. 103). This discounts the importance of human dynamics and social factors. As a result, the technical problem-solving approach magnifies conflict, competition, and other problems. This makes finding common ground or the “common interest” that much more difficult (Brunner, Colburn, Cromley, Klein, & Olson, 2002). This article introduces a social process framework, illustrates it partially with data from Ecuador, and recommends that people interested in PNP use a systematic framework to “map” the social process within the limits of time and other resources. Many people are directly and indirectly part of this social process (see Honadle, 1999). A realistic contextual map can help citizens, associations, and nongovernmental and governmental organizations better orient themselves in the ongoing social process and result in more informed decisions about PNP’s future. This article lays out a logically comprehensive framework for researching the context of social process that participants in the PNP arena can use to map the context for themselves (more thoroughly) and to inform their own interactions and decisions. The next article by Cherney et al. (this volume) further explores the human context, the arena of human interactions, and the management decision process. This approach has been used in Brazil (Fenimore & Cullen, 2002), Costa Rica (Newcomer, 2002), Africa (Eves, Gordon, Stein, & Clark, 2002), Australia (Clark, Mazur, Cork, Dovers, & Harding, 2000), and in United States (Reading, Clark, McCain, & Miller, 2002), to cite only a few examples.

METHODS Information was gathered and analyzed as part of a Yale University rapid assessment course. This consisted of an initial literature review carried out in


682

S. G. Clark et al.

New Haven, Connecticut, USA; an intensive field trip to Ecuador (March 10–19, 2005); and a final analysis and review of literature. Many social scientists have written on the importance of context and why it should be mapped and understood to improve problem solving. The “principle of contextuality” is examined by Lasswell (1971) and Clark (2002), and used as methodology on this and previous rapid assessment field courses (e.g., Clark, Ziegelmayer, Ashton, & Newcomer, 2004). The 10-day field trip was conducted in Southern Ecuador and Quito. We met with more than 30 informants representing four NGOs, two community/base organizations, three governmental institutions, one private company, two universities, and two foundations. During the field trip we first visited the cantons of Loja, Gonzanamá, and Espíndola, looking at land-use patterns and natural resource use, and meeting with representatives of community and farmers organizations. We also visited the Bosque de Hanne and Tapichalaca reserve. We met with the director of PNP at the park’s Cajanuma visitor post, and with representatives from different government agencies. We also visited and held meetings at the San Francisco station of ArcoIris, the research station of Nature and Culture, and the Municipality of Loja; as well as meeting with other representatives of Programa Podocarpus, ArcoIris, Asociación Fe y Esperanza del Mañana, Unión Cantonal de Organizaciones Campesinas y Populares de Espíndola (UCOCPE), Biotur, Jocotoco Foundation, PNP, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), National University of Loja’s Herbarium and School of Forestry, Ministry of Environment, Municipality, the National Environmental Fund (FAN), UTPL (Catholic university), and Conservation International (CI).

THE SOCIAL PROCESS FRAMEWORK The concept of social process or context is well grounded in the social sciences literature. Understanding social process helps explain why people and groups behave as they do (see Stevenson, 2001 for a Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, example). Social process is the interaction of people as they influence the actions, plans, or policies of other people, even if they are unaware of each other (Clark & Wallace, 2002). Humans everywhere live in the context of social and power processes that are undergoing transformation at unprecedented rapidity, magnitude, and sometimes disruption. If these processes are not organized well for the benefit of the people involved, they will cause more problems than they solve. Management policy must be grounded in the social process or context of concern (Brunner, 2004). It is the social process in our respective communities that creates and sustains the human community. However, many people seek and use a “technical formula” for determining what to do and for recommending improvements. A reliable picture of people and their groups must distinguish key features of the social system including the flow of behavior between individuals and specialized institutions (Reisman, 1979). There may be great discrepancies between



683

what people think about their own behavior and that of institutions and the actual way of doing things (i.e., a discrepancy between beliefs and operations). All people, more or less, seek to understand this process and how the problem they are focused on is part of the process. To best “map” a social process such as the one in and around PNP, a method with sufficient analytic strength and insight is needed. Ordinary, conventional, everyday approaches have proven to be insufficient. The framework we used was derived from functional anthropology and the policy sciences to help us understand complex management and policy problems (see Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950). This approach focuses on participants with perspectives interacting in particular situations. These people draw on whatever bases (power) values they have and in turn use strategies to pursue specific value outcomes (decisions) that have effects or long-term consequences (Table 1).This model of social process is recommended to students and professionals by Clark and Ashton (1999, 2004). The social process mapping concept and tool is described in detail by Clark (2002, pp. 32–55). We sought data to understand the social process, through this framework, on our visit to Ecuador and the PNP region. Our goal was to make a preliminary social process map of the context that we could share with participants for discussion. Our initial social process map here is general and ultimately requires that the people in the PNP arena provide more detail, discuss it among themselves to explain differences and similarities, and use it to inform decision making.

SOCIAL PROCESS IN THE PODOCARPUS NATIONAL PARK ARENA PNP is a contested landscape (Brechin, Wilshusen, Fortwangler, & West, 2003). Past land uses have lead to the present situation—deforestation, TABLE 1 Research Questions to Ask in Mapping any Social Process or Context (After Lasswell, 1971; Clark, 2002). Questions Below Modified from Clark and Ashton (2004, p. 26) 1. How well have the people, groups, and organizations involved interacted with one another? 2. Participants. Who are the key participants (expert, authorities, special interests, “unknowledgeable” individuals, group and organizational participants, official or unofficial)? 3. Perspectives. What are the perspectives, goals, assumptions, and values of participants? 4. Situation (or arena). In what situations do participants interact (e.g., science, management, media, courts, other)? 5. Values. What values do participants have, use, and seek (e.g., power, wealth, knowledge, skill, respect, friendship, well-being, and rectitude)? 6. Strategies. What strategies do participants favor or use to get their way—education, economics, diplomacy, force? 7. Outcomes and Effects. What are the outcomes (short-term) and effects (long-term) of these interactions on the people involved, on public perceptions, and on other aspects of social dynamics?

684

S. G. Clark et al.


erosion, low water quality, biodiversity loss, fires, and other environmental degradation. These problems can be directly attributed to the decisions people have made about the landscape. In other words, these are the outcomes and effects of the current social process. These trends, and the conditions behind them, will lead to even greater impoverishment of Ecuador’s people and the region’s environment, if they are not addressed today. Understanding the social process will allow participants to find ways to improve the process and to find sustainable solutions in the common interest. We offer a systematic method to understand the social process and demonstrate its utility by creating an initial social process map of PNP through both narrative and table maps.

Participants Understanding any social process starts with the recognition of who is involved. Participants are groups and individuals who are affected by or have an interest in the issue or problem at hand, whether or not they are formally included in the process. When identifying participants it is often necessary to look past those who are formally participating and identify those who demand to participate and those who may be able to make significant contributions to the process. Classifying participants to maximize understanding may not always be intuitive. In a small-group setting, it may be easiest to classify participants as individuals. In the social process of PNP, where there are millions of individual participants, it is necessary to categorize individuals and groups into different types of participants in order to gain understanding in a timely fashion. One method of categorization is by nations, regional governing bodies and agencies, international government organizations (Organization of American States [OAS], United Nations [UN], etc.), transnational pressure groups (groups specifically organized to influence decisions by government, e.g., non-governmental organizations [NGOs]), transnational private groups (those who seek values other than power, such as well-being, wealth, and knowledge, e.g., businesses, NGOs, etc.), and individual human beings. However, it is often beneficial to look at the same set of data from different viewpoints. Another possible classification of participants in the PNP social process is by authorities, experts, special interests, citizens, people who are “unknowledgeable” of PNP, and non-human life forms (Table 2).

Perspectives Each participant involved in PNP will likely view the situation they are involved in differently. Describing each participant in terms of their perspectives allows for identification of common ground and divergent viewpoints between participants. Understanding perspectives can be challenging.


685


TABLE 2 Initial Map of Participants in Podocarpus National Park (PNP). This Incomplete List of Participants Identifies Two Possible Ways of Classifying Groups and Individuals Involved in the Social Process of PNP National Governments Ecuadorian Government Dutch Government Regional Governing Bodies and Agencies Provincial Governments Canton Governments International Government Organizations United Nations IUCN Transnational Public Groups United Nations Transnational Private Groups Nature and Culture International The Nature Conservancy Conservation International Individual Human Beings Farmers Government Officials NGO workers

Authorities Ecuadorian Government Provincial Governments Canton Governments United Nations IUCN Experts Nature and Culture Ecuadorian Universities Special Interests The Nature Conservancy Conservation International Citizens Farmers Government Officials NGO workers Etc. Non-human Lifeforms The flora and fauna of PNP

Perspectives of each individual and group are dynamic. They change over time, and may not be readily apparent to the observer. However, through observation and written record, a working understanding of the perspective can be formed. To facilitate an understanding of perspectives, participants can be understood in terms of their identities, expectations, and demands. Identities can be thought of as “who a person is.” For example, a person may assert that “I am an environmentalist” or “I am a farmer.” This is directly shaped by the individual’s cultural myth (their basic set of beliefs, the formula they use to achieve their goals, and symbols that represent their beliefs and formula). These factors help form the expectations of a participant. Expectations are what a participant views as the likely outcomes of the social processes in which they are involved. These expectations can often be observed through a participant’s demands. Demands are the preferences for particular values in the social process. While far from a complete map of perspectives, ArcoIris and the current director of PNP present two good examples of how demands can be used to map out expectations and identities. Both ArcoIris and the PNP director demand that local and regional conservation occur in PNP. To accomplish this, one of ArcoIris’ primary demands is that conservation occur through an open decision-making process. In contrast, one of the director’s primary demands is to increase the park’s capacity and control, although he sees open decision making as a legitimate demand (L. Medina,

686

S. G. Clark et al.

personal communication, March 14, 2005). We can translate these demands into expectations: ArcoIris believes the park can be managed effectively with local input, while the director believes that adequate management will not occur without additional resources under his control.


Situations A situation, or arena, is the zone of human interaction in the social process. This is where people meet to make decisions that impact their lives. There are many situations of human interaction in and around PNP. As previously stated, the social process of PNP can be thought of as one huge constitutive process. This takes place in both formal and informal situations where the broad expectations of the community are solidified into a set of rules or social norms on how to manage for conservation and other issues that impact their lives. However, embedded in this process are many smaller ordinary arenas. These focus around specific issues, e.g., biodiversity, fire, water. Situations can be described in terms of their geographic, temporal, institutional, and crises dimensions (Table 3). The geographic component focuses on the spatial scale of the area of concern. This includes both the physical geography of the issue at hand and the social geography of those interested in the outcome. The temporal component refers to the time scale at which the issue at hand and the social process are progressing. The Institutional dimension refers to the way in which values are distributed within the social process (understanding, e.g., religious beliefs or TABLE 3 Initial Map of Situations in Podocarpus National Park (PNP). This Incomplete Map Gives an Example of Sketching Out a Map of Both Constitutive and Ordinary Situations Component of situation

Constitutive (e.g., social process that sets rules or norms)

Geographical

Primarily consists of PNP and surrounding communities, but also includes the entire country of Ecuador, and to a lesser extent, the world as a whole. An on-going arena

Temporal

Institutions

Crisis

The formal governmental structure of Ecuador and PNP, environmental organizations, the educational system, informal social norms We were unable to acquire enough data.

Ordinary (e.g., road development) PNP and the surrounding communities

Project specific. The time scale is short in duration, and is responsive to formal procedures for road building The Ministry of Public Works, Regional Governments, Municipalities, Parroquias, Logging and mining Companies, Ministry of Mines, Ministry of Environment We were unable to acquire enough data.


687

political ideologies as institutions). The fourth component is to determine if the situation is the result of a crisis. Crises often shift participants’ perspectives in ways that one might not typically expect. Cherney et al. (this volume) further detail how to understand and improve situations of human interaction around PNP.


Values Values are typically viewed as principles or standards to guide behavior. In this system, values refer to much more. Values are the resources people have and those that they seek. Understanding values, and how participants shape and share them (how they are traded, e.g., wealth for respect), helps provide understanding on the full range of possible outcomes. Many people reduce values to simply power and economic motives. This, however, is a mistake when trying to understand why an individual or group has chosen a particular course of action. For example, the actions of multi-national corporations cannot be dismissed as a straightforward desire to maximize economic performance. Many corporations and executives are interested in the well-being of their employees (e.g., offering health care above the legal requirements), rectitude (e.g., providing a valuable service for the country in which they operate, such as providing oil), and/or respect (e.g., desiring to be held in high esteem by the public). We suggest that participants, in general, are trying to maximize eight values according to their personal preferences. These are affection, enlightenment, power, rectitude, respect, skill, wealth, and well-being. Affection is friendship, loyalty, and intimacy among interacting individuals. Enlightenment is the buildup of knowledge and information. Power is support and control. Rectitude is working from an ethical or morally right stance. Respect is to be held in esteem. Skill is to be competent in carrying out certain tasks. Wealth is the accumulation of physical resources. Well-being is safety, comfort, and security. While we are not claiming that these are all of “the values” that humans seek, using these eight values provides the ability to comprehensively understand the range of outcomes that participants desire. There is a continual trade-off of values around PNP. For example, preventing Podocarpus spp. extraction inside the park (maintaining the nation’s wealth, well-being) means reducing the opportunities for some individuals to obtain personal wealth and well-being. The issue of land tenure in the park provides another excellent example. Landholders inside PNP, whose lands were claimed by the government with no compensation, are being deprived of wealth, well-being, and respect in turn, landowners whom the park authorities were unable to evict cause authorities to be deprived of respect (lack of the ability to determine land use in the park), and rectitude (lack of ability to do their job). More complex scenarios

688

S. G. Clark et al.

involve contrasting visions of sustainability and development. For example, opening a road for economic development by a Municipality legitimately seeking the well-being and wealth of the population could lead to longterm degradation of ecosystems, which, in turn, would mean a loss of rectitude and well-being in the eyes of an environmental NGO.


Strategies Strategies are the way that people manage their values to achieve the outcomes they want. Understanding strategies, the way they are used, and their effects are central to any social process. Participants use a great variety of tools in a continuous process of persuasion and coercion. It is critical to assess what strategies participants are using, and to what degree of success. Due to the formula dictated by a participant’s perspective, the most effective strategy within any given context is often overlooked. We identify four basic strategies used in the social process (Table 4). Education, or mass communication, is the sharing and shaping of enlightenment, rectitude, and skill. Economics, the trading of goods and services, is the shaping and sharing of wealth. Diplomacy, leader to leader or individual to individual communication, is the shaping and sharing of power, respect, TABLE 4 Initial Map of Strategies in Podocarpus National Park (PNP). This Incomplete Map Gives an Example of Mapping Strategies in the Social Process of PNP for Two Participants Strategy

Ecuadorian government

Education

Educational activities of Park’s Direction. Works in training and capacity building for teachers, organizes activities with schoolchildren (gardening, cleaning, etc)

Economic

Partnered with Programa Podocarpus, to bring in US$5 million to help run the park Generated “Ecofondo,” a trust to manage funds for the Park Look for environmental services: e.g., water Has partnered with Programa Podocarpus to bring in additional practitioners with skill sets Use of the military to remove individuals mining in PNP Police to patrol PNP and control extractive activities

Diplomacy

Force

ArcoIris Local Communities/Interpretive Center Publication of wildlife manuals, posters promoting conservation, etc. Provide training to beekeepers and other development initiatives (e.g., Chuno production) Get support from International NGOs Beekeeping/other non-timber forest products, sustainable agricultural technologies. Promotion of ecotourism Legal disputes (Road to Cajanuma) Has organized campaigns Has rallied public support for Park Political lobbying Has not utilized force as a strategy Although, ArcoIris has promoted using force to block road Cajanuma


689

and affection. Force, through coercion, protection, or destruction, is the shaping and sharing of well-being and power. These strategies may be used independently, but they are used most often in conjunction with one another.


Outcomes The short-term results of any social process can be thought of as outcomes. Outcomes arise from decision making, and either indulge or deprive participants of particular values. Typically, outcomes are viewed by individual participants as positive or negative. However, the meaning of an outcome depends on the perspective of each individual participant. Outcomes themselves are neither desirable nor undesirable. They are simply how values (e.g., respect, wealth, rectitude) are distributed through any informal or formal decision process. We suggest two ways to understand outcomes. The first way is through values accumulated or lost. When humans interact there is a constant stream of informal and formal decisions. These interactions result in trade-offs of values. It is possible to identify who has accumulated or is being deprived of any particular value. The second method is looking at the distribution of values through each function of the decision process. Any decision-making process can be broken down into six functions. Cherney et al. (this volume) break them down into surveillance and planning, promotion, prescription, implementation, evaluation, and succession. Since decisions are made in a continual process, it is useful to understand the intermittent outcomes, as well as the final effect. For example, when information is collected (surveillance and planning), it is possible to determine who receives information (enlightenment), through what means (e.g., respect1, power, affection), and who is being denied it (deprived of e.g., respect, power, affection). Different outcomes are continually occurring in the PNP social process. One could say that the first important outcome of the PNP social process was the way in which the park was established in 1982. As described to us by the first Director of the park, the planning process was done without any input from the people that were going to be affected by the park’s creation; many of these people were evicted from their lands and never compensated for their loss. These contested boundaries have been a source of disagreement between local residents and the government. Other important outcomes include the result of the Programa Podocarpus, a 5 million dollar co-management program funded by the Dutch government from 1997 to 2002, which caused a boom of new NGOs in the area, each one with different values and priorities with regards to the future of PNP and working without any coordination among them (see Johnson, this volume).

690

S. G. Clark et al.


Effects Effects can be thought of as the long-term results of outcomes. As time progresses, the net distribution of values among participants will shift. This can be thought of as how values are accrued or lost through the value distribution of multiple outcomes. These net changes in values will signal a change in the institutions that govern both informal and formal decisions. As the institutional structure changes, it will lead to or restrict the formulation of new practices and innovations. Effects can be characterized in terms of values accumulated and lost, institutional practices, and the diffusion or restriction of innovations. Values accumulated and lost can be described in similar terms to outcomes. However with effects, values accumulated and lost need to be described through the long-term accounting of outcomes. The changes in institutional practices will help identify how values are distributed. These can be best identified with the change in number and type of organizations operating in the social arena (Lasswell & Fox, 1979). The innovations are new practices and institutional arrangements of value sharing. Not all of these new practices and arrangements are widely distributed. In understanding effects, it is helpful to identify what innovations are occurring, how they are diffused or restricted, and why. The most evident example of an effect in the PNP social process is the creation of the park itself. The formal act of designating the park signaled a new innovation, and shifted the current allocation of values. At some point prior to the designation of the park, the institutions around PNP could be characterized as utilitarian; the area in and around the park was seen as resource for mining, logging, farming, and forest products. While it is difficult to map every outcome that led to an effect on the park, today the park is seen as an ecological resource for its recreational, aesthetic, scientific, and ecosystem services, as well as for the traditional productive resources. In terms of values, the potential for wealth and wellbeing have decreased, while rectitude and enlightenment have increased. This is also signaled through new institutional practices that can be partially identified by the numerous environmental groups operating in the arena (e.g., ArcoIris, TNC, Nature and Culture International), in addition to the park management (Ministry of the Environment, Programa Podocarpus).

RECOMMENDATIONS Our initial map, although far from complete, suggests there are a number of problems in the way people interact in and around PNP. We offer three recommendations to improve the constitutive and ordinary social processes of PNP. First, we recommend that individuals in the region complete their



691

own social process (context) maps. This would be of greatest utility if mapped in a group setting with representatives from different perspectives. This would allow individuals to better understand the perspectives of others, and try to find common ground. Second, we suggest that participants use a practice-based approach to solve conservation challenges. In contrast to a pre-planned formula, a practice-based approach allows for improvement in management and policy through continual grounded experience. This active style of learning allows participants to identify for themselves what innovations and interventions work best given their social realities. This style of prototyping (see below) is reliant on participants to identify what management strategies are working, and what new innovations have the potential for success. Participants must systematically harvest the lessons from each strategy and learn why they work and how to adapt them to the current situation. These new strategies are then implemented in practice, and continually revised as the situation changes or new innovations are identified. Practice-based approaches and prototyping have been successfully used in a variety of conservation projects including bandicoot recovery in Australia (Clark, Backhouse, & Reading, 1995) and in community-based forestry in the United States (Cromley, 2005). Third, we recommend that participants seek new patterns of cooperation, co-management, and partnerships. Given the limited resources for conservation in southern Ecuador, it is critical for those involved in the region to leverage the available human, financial, and political capital for the greatest gain. While not explicitly mapped in this article, the diverse groups of participants in the PNP arena have overlapping agendas that can be perused simultaneously. For example, Wilkinson (this volume), Leahy (this volume), and Moran (this volume) show that increasing food security and regional development can complement conservation goals through improved agroforestry, cattle grazing techniques, and ecotourism, respectively. While the pairing of rural development and conservation is widely recognized by the practicing conservation community, there are a number of other opportunities for both intergovernmental and public-private partnerships around PNP. However, the specific partnerships should be identified and cultivated by those who have the best understanding of the regional social and political context—in other words, the people directly involved in the region.

CONCLUSIONS While often reduced to a technical problem, conservation is fundamentally about people, what they value, and how decisions are made. In PNP, the social process currently does not address the concerns of the greater

692

S. G. Clark et al.


community. Unfortunately, an inadequate social process will never lead to long-term conservation solutions in the common interest. Finding sustainable conservation solutions is about learning what works for all participants involved. Mapping out the context, using practice-based approaches, and finding new partnerships and methods of cooperation are all ways for participants to determine, for themselves, what works given their social context, what doesn’t work, and why. Improving the process through these methods will help shift the constitutive process toward an outcome that will benefit the broader community, leading to the long-term conservation outcomes desired.

REFERENCES Brechin, S. R., Wilshusen, P. R., Fortwangler, C. L., & West, P. C. (2003). Contested nature: Promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twentyfirst century. Albany: State University of New York Press. Brunner, R. D. (2004). Context-sensitive methods and evaluation for the World Bank. Policy Sciences, 37, 103–136. Brunner, R. D., Colburn, C. H., Cromley, C. M., Klein, R. A., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Clark, T. W. (2002). Social process: Mapping the context. In The policy process: A practical guide for natural resource professionals (pp. 32–55). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Clark, T. W., & Ashton, M. (1999). Field trips in natural resources professional education: The Panama case and recommendations. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 8(3–4), 181–198. Clark, T. W., & Ashton, M. (2004). Interdisciplinary rapid field appraisals: The Ecuadorian Condor Bioreserve experience. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 18(2–3), 1–30. Clark, T. W., Backhouse, G. N., & Reading, R. P. (1995). Prototyping in endangered species recovery programmes: The Eastern Barred Bandicoot experience. In A. Bennett, G. N. Backhouse, & T. W. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery (Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales). Mosman, New South Wales, Australia: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Clark, T. W. N. Mazur, S. Cork, S. Dovers, and R. Harding. 2000. The koala conservation policy process: An appraisal and recommendations. Conservation Biology 14(3), 691–701. Clark, T. W., & Wallace, R. L. (2002). Understanding the human factors in endangered species recovery: An introduction to human social process. Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 81–86. Clark, T. W., Ziegelmayer, K., Ashton, M., & Newcomer, Q. (Eds.). (2004). Conservation and development in the Condor Bioreserve, Ecuador. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 18(2–3), 1–327.



693

Cromley, C. M. (2005). Community-based forestry goes to Washington. In R. D. Brunner, T. A. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C. M. Cromley, C. M. Edwards, & D. W. Tucker (Eds.), Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy, and decision making (pp. 221–267). New York: Columbia University Press. Eves, H. E., Gordon, D. A., Stein, J. T., & Clark, T. W. (2002). Great ape conservation in Central Africa: Addressing the bushmeat crisis. Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 171–185. Fenimore, S. C., & Cullen, L., Jr. (2002). Projeto Abraco Verde: A practice-based approach to Brazilian Atlantic forest conservation. Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 179–185. Honadle, G. (1999). How context matters: Linking environmental policy to people and place. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier. Lasswell, H. D., & Fox, M. B. (1979). The signature of power: Buildings, communication, and policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Lasswell, H. D., and Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry. New Haven, CT: New Haven Press. Newcomer, Q. (2002). Path of the tapir: Integrating biological corridors, ecosystem management, and socio-economic development in Costa Rica. Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 186–193. Reading, R. P., Clark, T. W., McCain, L., & Miller, B. J. (2002). Black-tailed prairie dog conservation: A new approach for a 21st century challenge. Endangered Species Update, 19(4), 162–170. Reisman, W. M. (1979). Folded lies: Bribery, crusades and reforms. New York: The Free Press. Stevenson, M. J. (2001). Galapagos Island: Managing introduced species in an endangered ecosystem. In T. W. Clark, M. Stevenson, K. Ziegelmayer, & M. Rutherford (Eds), Species and ecosystem conservation: An interdisciplinary approach (Bulletin Series 105, pp. 83–100). New Haven, CT: Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.