Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners

When deciding how to conserve biodiversity, practitioners navigate diverse missions, sometimes conflicting approaches, and uncertain trade-offs. These choices are based not only on evidence, funders’ priorities, stakeholders’ interests, and policies, but also on practitioners’ personal experiences, backgrounds, and values. Calls for greater reflexivity—an individual or group's ability to examine themselves in relation to their actions and interactions with others—have appeared in the conservation science literature. But what role does reflexivity play in conservation practice? We explored how self-reflection can shape how individuals and groups conserve nature. To provide examples of reflexivity in conservation practice, we conducted a year-long series of workshop discussions and online exchanges. During these, we examined cases from the peer-reviewed and gray literature, our own experiences, and conversations with 10 experts. Reflexivity among practitioners spanned individual and collective levels and informal and formal settings. Reflexivity also encompassed diverse themes, including practitioners’ values, emotional struggles, social identities, training, cultural backgrounds, and experiences of success and failure. Reflexive processes also have limitations, dangers, and costs. Informal and institutionalized reflexivity requires allocation of limited time and resources, can be hard to put into practice, and alone cannot solve conservation challenges. Yet, when intentionally undertaken, reflexive processes might be integrated into adaptive management cycles at multiple points, helping conservation practitioners better reach their goals. Reflexivity could also play a more transformative role in conservation by motivating practitioners to reevaluate their goals and methods entirely. Reflexivity might help the conservation movement imagine and thus work toward a better world for wildlife, people, and the conservation sector itself.     

(Re-)producing bioassemblages: positionalities of regional bioeconomy development in Finland

ABSTRACT

Bioeconomy is a new political and economic buzzword that frames many proposed pathways to sustainable regional development in Europe, particularly in rural, biomass rich areas. Dissected by research into various strands, visions, shades of “green” and presented by bioeconomy stakeholders through regional examples and self-promoting bio-clusters, the socio-spatial processes of regional assemblages are often ignored in these accounts. Based on a prominent Finnish example, this case study employs the concept of bioassemblage to display the socio-spatial positionalities of regional bioeconomy development in the places of materialisation. Furthermore, it ties the spatial (re-)production of bioassemblages to their role as bioeconomy policy translation loops and consequently provides insights into the processes of bioeconomy policy mobility, translation and mutation. Examining the positionalities in a bioassemblage presents a complex and frequently shifting local environment accompanied by unequal power topologies and means of territorialisation. Shallow policy narratives create problematic mismatches between the “best-practices” employed by policy makers and regional bioeconomy materialisation in the places themselves. While the study makes no assumption on the sustained future of bioeconomy development, it shows that current processes enable the externalisation of risks at industrial sites, restrict wider participation and discredit the important role of institutional actors in development.