Engaging People in Meaningful Problem Solving

As the field of conservation biology grows, broadens, and matures, there is increasing understanding that people are at the heart of conservation. Although science is necessary, it is not sufficient to solve today’s problems. Even though countless books and papers have been written on collaboration, negotiation, consensus building, and dialogue, people really do not seem to know how to talk to one another. Something still seems to be needed in scientists’ formal training and in the institutions that train them to be able to effectively solve problems. As Chamberlain et al. (2012) pointed out, “simply conducting more scientific research related to a perceived problem may not change people’s problem definition or move them toward agreement because they may accept only the evidence that supports their existing beliefs and discount contrary evidence.” With this conundrum in mind, we provide insights learned through our experience into how to engage people in effective environmental problem solving. The foundation of understanding one another is to understand what motivates different individuals to do the things they do. The eight core values described by Lasswell (1971), power, enlightenment, wealth, well being, skill, affection, respect, and rectitude, capture the full range of world views and belief systems. People’s actions can be explained by their search for, or lack of, these core values. As one’s understanding of the eight core values broadens it becomes evident that two values are of particular importance in all human interactions. The first, power, is something those in authority tend to sequester and maintain. The second, respect, is all too often withheld in interpersonal relationships. Real solutions often require high levels of collaboration across organizational and sector, ethnic, educational, and other boundaries. Gone are the days in the United States and Canada when stilted public consultation, mostly through a process of informing the public of up-coming events, was the well-worn practice. It has become important to know whom to engage with and how. If decision makers believe they can implement their goals without the assistance of others, then perhaps only the people who may be affected by their action need to be informed. Often, however, decision makers need others to implement decisions. At the same time, people want to have a voice in decisions that affect them. It is the convergence of these two factors that points the way to the decision on how to engage people. A strong case can be made that solving complex problems requires the support of, and greater acceptance from, a wide array of people with different views. Moving toward collaboration would seem the logical first step for more effective engagement. If engagement through collaboration is the best model for complex decision making, then the fundamental question becomes what is the problem to solve. Problems are rarely as they first appear. In natural resources management, the traditional view has been that problems can be viewed as objective realities to be solved by actions. However, problems usually are based on particular world views and values of the people who perceive them. People do not act in response to objective problems; rather, they are part of them. Further investigation of the context of a problem at the beginning of any collaborative problem-solving effort often reveals deep-seated issues, such as lack of trust and other obstacles to collaborative relationships. Typically the obvious or trivial issue is the spark to the debate. More hidden from view and rarely discussed is who has the authority to decide on the outcome (Fig. 1). Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) management in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada, is a good illustration of these underlying, deep-seated problems. This population of grizzly bears is small and at risk of extirpation due to high rates of human-caused mortality and a polarized and acrimonious debate over balancing the needs of bears and people. Policy makers have struggled to reconcile conflicting demands for bear conservation, commercial development, and recreation (Chamberlain et al. 2012). Although the interaction between humans and grizzly bears was the entry point into the debate, it became increasingly evident that lack of trust, poor relationships, and wielding of agency power were the real problems (Gibeau 2012). The mandated power of the natural resource agency to make all decisions themselves was perceived as the real problem for many people (Fig. 1). If one comes to understand what the real problems are, how one engages others in problem solving determines whether an agreed-upon outcome is reached. No single approach will work for all situations because the problems, respective interests, and surrounding circumstances vary (Cormick et al. 1996). The very essence of effective engagement and dialogue is that the process