Research

INTRODUCTION

It is widely recognized that the active participation of stakeholders in social-ecological governance can support the integration of diverse values and knowledge systems to deal with complex conservation problems and collectively identify solutions (Cornell et al. 2013, Fischer et al. 2015, IPBES 2019). It has also been argued that collective action—understood as the voluntary sum of stakeholder efforts at different scales and sectors that allow for aligning interests, goals, and resources—can promote joint strategic actions that catalyze transformations toward sustainability (Wiek et al. 2012, Olsson et al. 2014). To assist practitioners and managers in addressing these social challenges, the scientific community has been increasingly active over the past decades in providing a wide diversity of participatory and deliberative approaches for involving stakeholders in natural resource decision making (Stirling 1999, Lynam et al. 2007). Examples of such participatory approaches include scenario planning focused on collectively envisioning plausible and ideal futures as part of planning and decision-making processes (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015), multi-criteria methods to support decisions based on a comparative assessment of alternative options to identify a preference order for possible action plans (Esmail and Geneletti 2018), cost-benefit analysis of a policy or interventions over ecosystem services (Atkinson and Mourato 2008), and agent-based models aimed at exploring interactions and resulting behaviors for social-ecological governance dynamics (Dupont et al. 2016, Bourceret et al. 2021). The development of such participatory techniques has placed an emphasis on dealing with plural understandings, whereas the focus on collective action has been less considered (Wiek et al. 2012). This fact is especially illustrated in the participatory scenario planning (PSP) field.

PSP is a powerful methodological approach to incorporate multiple perspectives, values, and knowledge in natural resource management and conservation decision making and engage stakeholders in governance strategies through vision building of plausible and desired futures (Wollenberg et al. 2000, Palomo et al. 2011, Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015). The normative intentions of PSP to influence decision making entail a wide range of implications for participatory governance that need to be navigated and addressed during its operationalization. These implications include supporting social inclusion, promoting intra- and intersectoral coordination and institutional integration, assisting capacity for systemic change, and recognizing the diversity of values, perspectives, and knowledge systems (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2021). The PSP field has developed a large variety of techniques to deal with these governance issues that can be framed into quantitative assessments (e.g., “Interactive Cross Impact Simulation” and “Fuzzy Cognitive Map based scenarios” [Amer et al. 2013]), qualitative approaches (e.g., “Rich pictures” [Monk and Howard 1998], “Value-based scenario planning” [Rawluk et al. 2018], and art science [Pereira et al. 2019, Heras et al. 2021]), or into a combination of methods (e.g., “Story and simulation” [Alcamo 2008, March et al. 2012]). The application of such techniques, individually or in concert, has led to PSP being regarded as a productive approach for guiding social-ecological systems governance in the face of uncertainties (Peterson et al. 2003, Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015) while supporting more inclusive responses to sustainability transformations (Pereira et al. 2019). In doing this, PSP can foster a better understanding of human-nature interactions and guide opinion-forming or policy decisions toward sustainability (e.g., Peterson et al. 2003, MA 2005, Oteros-Rozas et al. 2013, Butler et al. 2014, Beach and Clark 2015, Bennet et al. 2016). As a result, PSP has become a popular participatory approach used to support stakeholders in imagining futures through co-learning and co-creation processes globally (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015, Nalau and Gobb 2022). The increasing popularity of PSP has been reinforced in the science-policy interface at a global scale from processes such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) and the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). In particular, IPBES adopted participatory scenarios as one methodological approach to assess biodiversity and ecosystem services to help decision makers identify potential consequences of different policy choices (IPBES 2016).

However, PSP processes lack focus on guiding and supporting stakeholders in establishing action networks that help operationalize outcomes into management and conservation agendas (e.g., Nieto-Romero et al. 2016, Totin et al. 2018). Stakeholders have different degrees of willingness to initiate the reciprocity mechanism and achieve the benefits of collective action (Ostrom 2000). In turn, individuals’ willingness for reciprocity can be modulated by multiple internal and external barriers, which often prevent action toward future visions (Nieto-Romero et al. 2016). Internal barriers may include differences in ideology, culture, or perceived benefits, and lack of organizational capacity, financial resources, or motivation from counterproductive collaborative experiences in the past (Ghişa et al. 2001, Volkery and Ribeiro 2009, Nieto-Romero et al. 2016). External barriers often entail limited governmental support in the translation of PSP outcomes to action and legal constraints that can hinder the influence of local actors in governance (Armitage 2005, Volkery and Ribeiro 2009, Nieto-Romero et al. 2016). As a first step to dealing with these barriers, it is necessary to reflect and make visible the ways stakeholders are willing to act within the governance system (Charli-Joseph et al. 2018). Building upon this assumption and focusing on the PSP field, we intended to create a novel tool that might support stakeholders to move from theory to practice for collectively implementing tangible PSP outcomes.

Our study aims to develop, apply, and analyze a novel visual tool within PSP processes to explore stakeholders’ willingness to implement collectively formulated strategies. We used the case study of Sierra de Guadarrama National Park (SGNP, Spain). Specifically, we conceive a visual tool as a contextualized graphical means to open up a dialogue between stakeholders across different sectors and scales on the redistribution of tasks for working together toward the PSP resulting strategies and, at the same time, envision their willingness to collaborate as a group to implement them. We expected the visual tool could generate conversations around stakeholders’ organization and cooperation for implementing the PSP resulting strategies. We focused our research on the following questions: (1) What role does the visual tool play in the PSP process? (2) What are participants’ perceptions of the visual tool regarding its functionality and usability in the PSP process? (3) How do SGNP’s decision makers perceive the visual tool regarding its potential further applicability for the Park’s participatory governance? We argue that the visual tool might enrich PSP processes by opening dialogue for supporting diverse stakeholders in uncovering synergies and organizing themselves toward precise actions. Given that this ability is often associated with the boundary object concept—a device that facilitates communication between diverse worldviews and knowledge domains to work together (Star and Griesemer 1989)—we also reflect on the potential of the visual tool to be considered as a boundary object. We finally discuss the potentials and limitations of this visual tool for participatory conservation governance in the context of the PSP exercise and argue that it could be easily adapted to social-ecological knowledge co-creation processes and contexts.

METHODS

Case study

SGNP is located in central Spain, between the regions of Madrid and Castilla y León, with two regional parks and two UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves acting as buffer zones (Fig. 1). It is renowned for geological features and biological diversity, supporting notable bird and amphibian diversity, forest landscapes, and proximity to major cultural and historical features and monuments.

Two regional state administrations, Madrid and Castilla y León, manage SGNP (BOCM 2010, BOCYL 2010). SGNP’s constellation of stakeholders includes multiple state administrations with governing competencies in the area at different decision-making scales and non-state actors engaged in productive, recreational, educational, research, and conservation activities (López-Rodríguez et al. 2020a; Table 1). SGNP authorities have created a wide variety of formal and informal mechanisms since 2013 to promote stakeholders’ participation and collaboration to achieve conservation goals (BOE 2013, 2014). Examples of participatory mechanisms are the Advisory Board (i.e., Patronato; BOCM 2014, BOCYL 2014), a public process used to develop the management plan of SGNP (i.e., PRUG; BOCYL 2019, BOCM 2020), and workgroups for specific management issues. These participatory mechanisms have produced positive outcomes in cooperation between SGNP authorities and other stakeholders (e.g., governance arrangements to conduct dissemination/education activities and programs for voluntary work and reforestation activities). However, promoting collective alliances across different sectors and scales remains a challenge for the National Park (López-Rodríguez et al. 2020a).

Methodological approach

We adopted a social constructivist approach (Moon and Blackman 2014) to acquire knowledge of how stakeholders perceived a visual tool that was specifically created and applied within a PSP process in SGNP. We denominated it as the visual tool for envisioning stakeholders’ willingness to take collective action in implementing PSP outcomes (for practical purposes, hereafter, we refer to it as the visual tool). Methodologically, we followed a sequenced process of design, application, and analysis of the visual tool within an online PSP exercise designed by the authors (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2020). The online adaptation of the PSP process stemmed from the Spanish government lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic (BOE 2020). The PSP process combined traditional scenario methodologies (e.g., Palomo et al. 2011, Oteros-Rozas et al. 2013, Wiek and Iwaniec 2014) with innovative approaches based on artistic methods (Heras et al. 2021) and the use of the visual tool. We hereby describe the methodological development and implementation of the tool.

Phase 1: Design of the visual tool

We designed the visual tool to be applied after a PSP backcasting exercise (Dreborg 1996). In the backcasting process, participants define management strategies to achieve the desired aspects and avoid the undesired ones of future scenarios and identify stakeholders at different scales and sectors who might be engaged in implementing them. As a complement to the backcasting exercise, we created the visual tool to collectively deliberate and explore (1) the tasks to be developed by the diversity of the identified stakeholders in each resulting PSP strategy and (2) their different levels of willingness to collaborate in their implementation. The conceptual foundations of the visual tool derive from (1) the legal mandate of SGNP’s governance system to be participatory and socially inclusive (BOE 2013, 2014) and (2) our assumption that stakeholders’ motivation to act can be considered an indicator to move from the theory to practice (McKenzie-Mohr et al. 1999).

The design of the visual tool was inspired by the first author’s previous experiences with similar approaches to facilitate stakeholders’ organization for participatory conservation governance (e.g., López-Rodríguez et al. 2020b). We also relied on previous studies showing the effective power of images in communicating information in comparison with non-visual formats that favor a common understanding between different worldviews while reducing risks of miscommunication (Vervoort et al. 2010, Morseletto 2017). The last was relevant in the lockdown situation because we presumed these risks to be more pronounced in a virtual setting.

Graphically, the visual tool consisted of a hexagon-shaped graphical tool illustrated with cartoons from Streamline^[1] (De Vries and Metzger 2018) adapted to the SGNP context by ScienSeed (Fig. 2). Each hexagon section corresponds to a stakeholder group of the SGNP governance system (Table 1). These sections were built upon background information on stakeholders’ participation and collaboration within SGNP’s governance system (López-Rodríguez et al. 2020a). We designed a scale ranging from -2 to 3 to capture the various levels of stakeholders’ willingness to implement a given strategy (see Table 2 for level definitions). To visually represent such levels of stakeholders’ willingness, we designated the “hexagon” area to draw the levels with values from 0 to 3, and the center of the axes for visualizing those levels with negative values. Levels of stakeholders’ willingness were represented with a stakeholders’ ID accompanied with different symbols for positive and negative values.

Phase 2: Application of the visual tool within the PSP process

The online PSP exercise took place on 9 and 10 October 2020 supported by a team of 13 people (including facilitators, note-takers, and digital platforms assistants) and engaged 45 participants. We invited to participate in the PSP process a balanced sample of people (n = 134) from different stakeholder groups (Table 1), regions, and genders, with a variable degree of participation in SGNP’s decision making (Oteros-Rozas et al., unpublished manuscript). Virtual sessions were video and audio-recorded through the Zoom meeting platform with informed consent from each participant.

We used explorative scenarios (van Notten et al. 2003) with the aim of engaging multiple stakeholders in thinking about the future of the SGNP, which also involves supporting decision making in a further stage. Working in heterogeneous groups of 3–5 people, participants co-developed five future scenario narratives for SGNP (up to 2040) by following a two-axes approach that combined different intensities of two drivers of change (van’t Klooster and van Asselt 2006) plus the desired scenario (Oteros-Rozas et al. 2020). Using a backcasting approach, each working group first proposed strategies to achieve the desired outcomes and avoid the undesired ones from each designed scenario and then prioritized them based on their feasibility and the degree of cooperation needed. Next, each group facilitator invited participants to identify stakeholders (organizations or individuals) relevant to the implementation of each strategy. Facilitators then led the groups through the visual tool as the last step in the PSP process.

The practical operation of the visual tool within the online PSP workshop took place on the second day. Twenty-three participants were actively engaged in the session in which the visual tool was applied: nine decision makers, four researchers and teachers, five environmental NGO technicians, two local users from the tertiary sector, and three participants related to cultural aspects and media. Seventy-four percent of participants were residents of Madrid and 26% from Castilla y León; 31% were female and 69% male (Appendix 1).

From the identified stakeholders in each PSP strategy during the backcasting, the facilitators first invited participants to define potential tasks associated with each stakeholder to implement the strategy by using a table displayed with Google slides. A code (ID) was assigned to each stakeholder to facilitate their visual identification later in the graphic representation of the visual tool. Using a second template in Google slides, the facilitators presented the visual tool (Fig. 2) with an associated table that included the stakeholders’ ID previously defined for each strategy. Then, the facilitators invited those identified stakeholders who were participating in the process to select one of the levels of willingness to implement the PSP strategies contained in the visual tool’s scale (Table 2) and explain the reasons for their selection. In case of disagreement on the willingness level between participants working at an institution with the same stakeholders’ ID, the facilitators had planned to report all the levels of willingness identified and assigned the higher level to such stakeholders’ ID, flagging it with an asterisk as a symbol of the divergence. For those identified stakeholders who did not participate in the workshop session, each facilitator assessed their willingness as unknown according to the visual tool’s scale (Table 2) and asked participants for their perception of the potential willingness level of such stakeholders to identify information that might be relevant to implement the PSP resulting strategies. The levels of willingness assigned to each stakeholders’ ID were represented in the mentioned table with its respective values (Table 2). Then, the facilitators drew these results on the visual tool (Fig. 2). For the unknown and positive values of stakeholders’ willingness (from 0 to 3, Table 2), each stakeholder’s ID was drawn by arbitrarily locating a dot at the intersection area between its stakeholder group and its selected willingness value. The polygon resulting from the linking of all the different dots was colored. Here, it should be noted that we did not intend to build an area to show a precise measurement of stakeholders’ willingness. Instead, we aimed to make visible the diversity of stakeholders involved in each strategy and their willingness to implement it. Higher diversity in stakeholders involved and in their willingness may be considered indicative of better conditions for implementing each strategy, and vice versa. For the negative values of stakeholders’ willingness (from -2 to -1, Table 2), each stakeholder’s ID was combined with a mark located at the center point of the hexagon (Fig. 2). Once the potential willingness of all the identified stakeholders was represented graphically, the workgroups reflected on the final visual representation. This operation was repeated for each strategy.

Phase 3: Analysis of the visual tool

By relying on the literature on visual information analysis, we defined four variables on which to focus our analysis and understand how the visual tool was perceived by the participants involved in the PSP process: (1) “Interpretability” refers to the spontaneous interpretation of visual representations by participants (Morseletto 2017); (2) “Functionality” relates to what function invokes visual representations and its graphical components when applied (Morseletto 2017); (3) “Usability” is understood as ease of use of visual representations (Luzzardi et al. 2004); and (4) “Applicability” concerning the potential use and application of visual representations as a management tool (McInerny et al. 2014).

We used a combination of methods to collect data for the analysis of the visual tool. We collected online field notes during the visual tool session as part of the PSP process (Walford 2009, Howlett 2022). We used a template for field notes, which included information gathered by the visual tool (i.e., stakeholders involved in the PSP strategies, tasks to be developed by each one, and their willingness to implement them), participants’ reflections from the visual representation, observations concerning the use of the visual tool, and general comments on the virtual space (e.g., technological issues, participation patterns, and tensions). After the visual tool session, the facilitators and note-takers of each breakout group held sequenced discussions to complete the data collection template. Qualitative data were matched with the analysis of audiovisual recordings of the visual tool session to extend, clarify, or contrast information and to identify verbatim quotes.

After the online PSP exercise, we conducted an online survey to capture participants’ perceptions of the visual tool’s functionality and usability (Appendix 2). The survey included seven statements with a four-point Likert scale for agreement and one open-ended question. According to university ethical protocol, the survey was distributed using the Qualtrics platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) with anonymous responses. All participants who had actively engaged in the visual tool session responded to the post-PSP workshop survey.

We conducted a second online workshop (1 December 2020) with decision makers and protected area experts to explore the potential applicability of the visual tool as a management tool to support the organization of collective alliances within SGNP (López-Rodríguez et al. 2020c). Three SGNP decision makers who had also been part of the online PSP exercise and one expert on protected areas management (two from Madrid and two from Castilla y León; two female/male) participated in this online policy workshop (Appendix 1). Participants collectively assessed and reflected on the visual tool in terms of management goals that could be addressed, the steps of the management cycle in which the visual tool might be applied, suitability to be used within the SGNP management setting in particular, and the resources required for the visual tool’s adoption as a tool for governance practice. The online policy workshop was recorded and summarized with field notes.

We conducted a content analysis of the audiovisual recordings, field notes, and survey responses from the two online workshops and the open-ended survey question (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). We grouped the 12 PSP strategies co-developed in the backcasting according to their similarity, resulting in a total of nine strategies. We also checked the stakeholders’ ID gathered through the visual tool to ensure that each identified stakeholder had a unique code of identification as well as the levels of stakeholders’ willingness assigned to each stakeholder to confirm that they were consistent with the visual tool’s scale (e.g., unknown willingness values assigned to non-participants; see Table 2). We then examined and organized the collected data into the four themes of interest for our analysis: “The visual tool’s outputs and interpretability” (i.e., the outputs from applying the visual tool and participants reflections/observations arising from them), “The visual tool’s functionality” (i.e., the attributed functions to the visual tool within the PSP process), “The visual tool’s usability” (i.e., whether it is easy to use or not), and “The visual tool’s applicability for participatory conservation governance” (i.e., able or not to be used as a management tool for participatory conservation governance). To facilitate comprehension of the visual tool outputs, we built the visual representation of each of the nine PSP strategies using a drawing software. We assigned labels to the qualitative data to identify different stakeholder’s perceptions of the outcomes and interpretability and the other three themes. We quantitatively analyzed the Likert scale responses from the survey linked to the visual tools’ functionality and usability through descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The visual tool’s outputs and interpretability

The visual tool effectively illustrated the complexity of potential action networks to implement nine PSP strategies regarding stakeholders’ diversity and willingness to take action. Participants named a total of 47 stakeholders and defined a series of tasks for implementing each strategy (Table 3). Of the 47 stakeholders, 17 fell under the category of state administrations, 11 education and research centers, seven local users from the primary sector, four local users from the tertiary sector, six other local stakeholders, and two environmental NGOs (Appendix 3). Fifteen identified stakeholders were present during the visual tool session. Some strategies involved stakeholders of a wide diversity of sectors (S1, S3, S6, S7, and S8; see Table 3), whereas others included only a few (S2, S4, S5, and S9). Most strategies were associated with management initiatives implemented by state administrations, with the engagement of other stakeholder groups. This dominant pattern was highlighted by one of the participants: “the decision of implementing the strategy depends on the legal authorities responsible for managing SGNP ..., what we [referred to the other stakeholder groups] can do is request and put pressure to make it a reality.” Visually, the tool revealed a variable level of willingness for stakeholders to collaborate to implement strategies (Fig. 3, Appendix 4). We found a total of 57 stakeholders with positive willingness values assigned to the identified stakeholders across the nine strategies (n = 33, value level 1; n = 20, value 2; and n = 4, value 3) versus 31 unknown, uncertain, or non-manifested willingness values (value = 0). Most strategies included at least one stakeholder with unknown willingness. An example included the citizen science project for which just one of the stakeholders could confirm their willingness to implement the strategy as no representatives of the other identified stakeholders participated in the session. The results also revealed seven strategies (S1-S4, S6-S8; Fig. 3) with levels of willingness subjected to consultation (value = 1). For instance, a representative of a sports federation expressed positive willingness to be involved in the research project to estimate recreation carrying capacity in SGNP, but they needed to ask the other members of the federation first. There were eight strategies for which certain stakeholders presented willingness values from 2 to 3 (S1, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, and S9; Fig. 3). For instance, the representatives of SGNP authorities confirmed their positive willingness (value = 2) to take action in the strategy by improving their mechanisms to engage local communities in SGNP governance. They also expressed an ongoing line of work formalized on the education and awareness program for young people and confirmed their willingness (value = 3) to align it with the defined strategy. Participants did not identify negative willingness values for any of the nine strategies.

Overall, we found that most participants perceived that the visual tool provided a coherent picture of those stakeholders required to take action in each strategy and their willingness to do so (Fig. 3). They understood the green areas highlighted in the hexagons as initial pictures subjected to their knowledge and perceptions, bearing in mind that more efforts and resources would be needed for the effective implementation of the strategies. A participant explained this idea as follows: “the visual tool shows an optimistic image about what we could do in the SGNP, but more participants from other sectors would be needed to know their real willingness to be involved in the strategies.” Another participant expressed, “[the visual tool shows that] there is desire and positive intentions to do many things [in SGNP], but there is also a lack of resources, time and mutual support agreements to formalize the strategies.”

The visual tool’s functionality

Within the PSP process, our data showed that the visual tool helped to generate a new dialogue space for (1) exchanging ideas about the complex governance network of SGNP (e.g., stakeholders’ profiles and activities in SGNP), (2) creating tangible strategies on the ground, (3) identifying potential collaborations across stakeholder groups, (4) clarifying how stakeholders can align efforts, tasks, and resources, and (5) measuring stakeholders’ willingness as a starting point to undertake joint action. Survey data revealed that participants perceived the visual tool as helpful to support collaborative work to move forward and implement the devised strategies in the PSP process (Fig. 4). The most positive aspects reported by respondents was the visual tool’s potential for simultaneously visualizing a diversity of stakeholders needed and their willingness to engage with the strategies. Two respondents specifically wrote that the visual tool approach helped to visualize, “the importance of each social actor for good governance” and “all stakeholders and their level of willingness [to take action].”

The visual tool’s usability

In the survey, 64% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the visual tool was easy to use, with 60% expressing the desire to use the visual tool in future participatory processes. A few participants (8%) also identified potential limitations. First, some perceived that grouping stakeholders into pre-established categories might generate confusion and misrepresent certain stakeholders’ profiles given the variability within each group. Second, others perceived the visual tool as difficult to use and understand for people who are not used to working visually or with similar visual tools.

The visual tool’s applicability for participatory conservation governance

During the policy workshop, SGNP’s decision makers highlighted that the visual tool might be interesting “to visualize on whom we can count when it comes to implementing a certain strategy [in the National Park]” as well as “to provide insights on the establishment of collaborations with other state administrations to address conservation issues beyond our [SGNP’s authorities] legal competences.” They emphasized the helpfulness of the visual tool in identifying stakeholders who could cooperate in management strategies. SGNP’s decision makers stated interest in using the visual tool to support the development of a participation and volunteering subprogram they were planning to implement. The visual tool was perceived as particularly helpful to involve actors that are under-represented in decision making. For instance, during the PSP workshop, a representative of an environmental education cooperative that is not part of the Advisory Board expressed gratitude for the opportunity to have their voice heard and showed a positive willingness to stay engaged in resultant strategies.

SGNP decision makers also reflected on how to enhance the applicability of the visual tool for the protected area management. They suggested (1) an improvement of social science skills and economic resources regarding the park’s management to develop participative processes using the visual tool, (2) the creation of a stakeholder map to identify potential participants to be involved in the participatory processes, (3) the development of a technical protocol with instructions on how to use the visual tool, and (4) the promotion of institutional leadership to embed the visual tool into administrative procedures.

Methodological limitations

We assume that these results were dependent on the knowledge and perspectives of the participants’ sample in the visual tool workshop session, which included an under-representation of some stakeholder groups (e.g., local users of the primary sector). We designed the PSP process to include a balanced representation of stakeholder groups, but participation was voluntary, and not all groups responded to our invitation. Along similar lines, participation gradually declined over the PSP process, particularly in the last session when we applied the visual tool (Appendix 1). As recent work in SGNP found, multiple factors associated with the online format imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and confinement policy might have limited the participation of stakeholders (Lo et al. 2022). Nevertheless, it is important to note that our research aimed to explore the visual tool from a methodological perspective for which the participants’ sample provided a wide range of valuable contributions for its comprehensive analysis.

DISCUSSION

The role of the visual tool to support collective action in scenario planning

Our findings reveal the use of the visual tool to support the organization of stakeholders for collective action in conservation governance as part of PSP processes. In particular, the visual tool used herein helped guide and visualize how the diversity of stakeholders could be organized to carry out conservation strategies while enticing them to consider their willingness to be actively involved. We found that the tested visual tool opened up (1) dialogue between SGNP stakeholders from different levels and sectors on how to redistribute tasks and responsibilities to strategically work together for a common goal and (2) reflection on how they were willing to collaborate as a group to implement PSP strategies. As previous studies state (e.g., Olsson et al. 2006, Charli-Joseph et al. 2018), we found that the information exchanges and deliberations helped to identify diverse factors (e.g., individual intentions, motivations, plans, and beliefs) that are key to aligning interests, goals, and resources and promoting joint strategic actions. An example is the PSP strategy to improve participation mechanisms to engage local communities in SGNP governance (S1; Table 3), in which the participants aligned a set of complementary actions to make it a reality. Regardless of the SGNP authorities having the legal responsibility to develop participatory mechanisms (BOE 2013, 2014), the participants identified 13 other stakeholders from different levels and sectors that could support the strategy in multiple ways (e.g., through funding provisions by local administrations or the development of stakeholders mapping and consultancy on participatory governance by the universities that conduct research in the National Park).

The generated dialogue and reflections facilitated by the visual tool culminated in providing graphic outcomes (i.e., the green areas highlighted in the hexagons in Fig. 3) that correspond to initial pictures of who may or may not be willing to implement the PSP strategies to turn them into reality collectively. These graphic outcomes revealed the visualization of comparatively different collaboration patterns and willingness between stakeholders in proactively implementing the PSP strategies, providing some indications of the threshold for moving from scenario to action. These different patterns can be observed, for instance, by comparing the graphic outcomes associated with the education and awareness program for young people (S7; Fig. 3) and the citizen science project (S9; Fig. 3). In the first strategy, the participants identified that 10 stakeholders would collaborate to implement it, who, in turn, expressed different levels of positive willingness to do it. This may indicate that favorable conditions may exist to establish real agreements between stakeholders for taking joint action and implementing the strategy. However, in the second strategy, it can be observed that only one out of the seven stakeholders identified to implement the strategy showed positive willingness to engage in its implementation. This undetermined support to this strategy may imply it would be more challenging to make it a reality.

On this basis, we argue that the visual tool can be a useful starting point for organizing stakeholders to collaborate and take joint action in implementing the PSP strategies. The graphic outcomes of the visual tool (Fig. 3) can be interpreted as initial pictures that visualize who may be willing to get involved in each PSP strategy. Decision makers and practitioners could use them as the point of beginning to foster the creation of stakeholders’ action networks for protected areas. These graphic outcomes could evolve based on the reactions of the identified stakeholders as part of the implementation processes. Therefore, the initial pictures provided by the visual tool should not be interpreted as binding and conclusive because it is contingent on the subjective understanding of participants at a certain moment. The visualization functions as a thread to organize collective action, and it might evolve as stakeholders confirm or deny their involvement, or willingness, in the strategies. In line with previous studies (e.g., Rickards et al. 2014, Nieto-Romero et al. 2016), we are aware that applying the visual tool and making visible stakeholders’ willingness might not be a guarantee that stakeholders will then work together to implement PSP strategies. At present, we cannot predict whether the PSP strategies will be finally implemented in SGNP. It is widely recognized that multiple institutional, economic, and social factors (e.g., absence of political will, social skills, and organizational capacity, lack of resources and time availability, limited ability to make decisions of social actors, individuals’ tendency to attribute the responsibility of conservation to external bodies) can inhibit collective action (e.g., Ostrom 2000, Volkery and Ribeiro 2009, Nieto-Romero et al. 2016, Bosone et al. 2022). In this sense, it should be noted that our study’s focus did not include monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the PSP strategies. We think it would be interesting if future research assessed the potential impact of the visual tool to translate these strategies into action.

Responding to recent calls for the need to guide stakeholders in taking tangible action to implement PSP outcomes (e.g., Nieto-Romero et al. 2016, Totin et al. 2018), we posit that the visual tool can be considered a complementary method to backcasting techniques in the PSP process. Backcasting helps outline potential management strategies to address future scenarios’ negative or positive aspects (Dreborg 1996). Over the last few years, backcasting has also been hypothesized to help foster collective action to implement such strategies as outcomes of PSP processes (Butler et al. 2014, 2015). However, an increasing number of studies state that this technique usually fails to empower stakeholders to take collective action (e.g., Oteros-Rozas et al. 2015, Nieto-Romero et al. 2016). We believe that our visual tool approach offers support in this regard because of its role in successfully guiding stakeholders to better visualize and therefore eventually organize action networks (Fig. 4). Beyond PSP processes, we argue that the visual tool has the potential to be easily adapted to other social-ecological knowledge co-creation processes. As a single case study, we are aware that the context-specific design of the visual tool might be considered a constraint for replicability. It is widely recognized as an inherent challenge that certain social science-based approaches and tools can be successful in a specific context and scale, but not in another (Star 2010, Lundgren 2021). To overcome this challenge, we have set out a detailed methodology that provides a practical orientation to be easily adapted to different contexts, processes, and formats (e.g., in-person workshops).

Interestingly, some of the identified abilities of the visual tool (i.e., opening dialogue for promoting collaborative work across sectors) link to the concept of boundary object. Boundary objects are abstract or concrete tools adaptable to different perspectives and knowledge domains to maximize the autonomy of diverse worldviews and facilitate communication to work together (Star and Griesemer 1989). Research has focused on boundary objects that emerge organically through transdisciplinary processes facilitating dialogue and collaboration between different actors under specific conditions. These boundary objects embody concepts such as “ecosystem services” (e.g., Abson et al. 2014, Steger et al. 2018), “resilience” (e.g., Brand and Jax 2007, Baggio et al. 2015), and “stewardship” (e.g., Enqvist et al. 2018). Boundary objects can also encompass a wide range of frameworks (e.g., Partelow 2016), models (e.g., Clark et al. 2011), data (e.g., Venable 2017), and visual devices such as knowledge maps (e.g., Walters et al. 2019) and films (e.g., Schneider et al. 2009). We suggest that the visual tool developed herein might also be considered a boundary object because it has facilitated dialogue between stakeholders across sectorial boundaries and scales in SGNP and created shared reference points to support collaboration between them. Future empirical studies are needed to analyze the visual tool’s features from the boundary object theory (e.g., interpretive flexibility, structured aspects; Star and Griesemer 1989, Star 2010) and demonstrate its role as such.

Implications of the visual tool for participatory conservation governance

From the governance standpoint, our findings show that the visual tool has potential as a decision-support tool for participatory conservation governance. In fact, SGNP’s decision makers recognized the visual tool’s applicability to guide collaborations between a wide variety of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. They specifically expressed that the visual tool could support the ongoing development of the participation and volunteering subprogram of SGNP. This perception is complemented by most workshop participants who, in the post-workshop survey, considered the visual tool as an easy-to-use tool to support collaborative work to move forward and implement the co-defined strategies, and they advocated for its use in future participatory processes. We suggest that the visual tool we designed and tested could become part of the wide range of participatory research tools for supporting management decisions.

Based on the aspirational goals of PSPs to influence decision making (Wollenberg et al. 2000), the question remains as to how the visual tool approach can contribute to actual participatory governance. To address such a question, we refer to the framework proposed by Visseren-Hamakers et al. (2021) that identifies four governance dimensions that need to be combined and operationalized for fostering transformation toward sustainability goals. These four governance dimensions are inclusivity, integration, adaptation, and pluralism. We found that the visual tool shows potential contributions and limitations to reinforce participation in decision making in terms of the four dimensions.

Inclusivity

Under-representation of certain stakeholders in governance systems is a commonly recognized challenge. Institutional and socioeconomic factors often hinder stakeholders from being represented in participatory processes (Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2013). Our findings show two ways that the visual tool can facilitate inclusive approaches. First, the visual tool allowed the mapping of non-participant stakeholders as potential partners to successfully implement the PSP strategies. For example, a group of food production actors in the SGNP buffer zone did not participate in the PSP process but were considered pivotal by workshop participants (S3; Table 3). Second, the visual tool helped identify action networks between stakeholders formally included in the SGNP governance system (i.e., members of the Advisory Board of SGNP) and those who were not (e.g., educational and cultural sector). Making visible such potential alliances between well- and under-represented stakeholders may dissolve feelings of exclusion expressed by minority or previously excluded groups (López-Rodríguez et al. 2020a), thus, creating better conditions to facilitate their future engagement in the protected area governance (Innes and Booher 2004, López-Bao et al. 2017). Indeed, this happened in the case of a local environmental education cooperative without official representation in the Advisory Board within our own case study area of SGNP.

Our findings, however, reveal two potential limitations of the visual tool concerning inclusivity. One refers to the categorization and delineation of stakeholder groups that could generate feelings of exclusion by specific stakeholders who might feel they are not included in any predefined categories. To avoid stakeholders’ potential feelings of exclusion or misunderstanding when applying the visual tool, we suggest clarifying the stakeholder groups at the beginning of the exercise and redefining them if needed. The other is associated with the potential difficulty of understanding the visual tool by non-experienced people working with similar visual approaches. This perception may be in line with many experts in data visualization who warn that radar plots can be poorly perceived and understood by human eyes (e.g., Tufte 2001). We assume that this effect is less pronounced in a social space where facilitators guide the application of the visual tool, and probably, for this reason, the visual tool was well-interpreted and understood by most participants in SGNP. It would be interesting for further research to explore new design choices for the visual tool with a higher potential to be accessible and open to the eye to overcome potential limitations in terms of interpretation for certain people.

Integration

Integrating governance instruments across different sectors and scales is pivotal in developing coherent policies and actions that support transformative change toward global sustainability goals (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2021). The visual tool can identify state administrations and social agents to integrate institutional and societal efforts from diverse sectors (e.g., policy, academic, social, and cultural) and scales (e.g., local and regional). In our study, this integration became evident through the PSP strategies that included coordination between multiple state actors from different sectors and decision-making scales while embracing external forms of social engagement. This dominant pattern might be because SGNP is a government-led national park, in which multiple state administrations with legal authority converge to govern. In contrast, civil society groups play a consultative role. An example is the mobility plan to improve the public transport system and road traffic around SGNP (S2; Table 3), for which participants considered that articulation of institutional efforts at multiple scales and competencies (e.g., transport, environmental protection, infrastructure), as well as support from the tertiary sector (e.g., tourism companies and ski stations), would be needed. In addition, the visual tool might also guide grassroots initiatives needing support from and/or coordination with state administrations.

Adaptation

Visseren-Hamakers et al. (2021) argue that adaptive governance systems need to enable continuous opportunities for iterative learning, adjusting responses to uncertainty, social conflicts, and complexity over time. This type of governance can hardly be created by unilateral action of a sole authority (Chaffin et al. 2014). Instead, interactions between multiple stakeholders are needed to deal with the complexity and uncertainty associated with rapid environmental changes to pursue a desired state of social-ecological systems. Chaffin et al. (2014) argue that adaptive governance can emerge when such different stakeholders reorganize in response to perturbations such as policy windows, funding opportunities, and/or biophysical shocks to the system. Although the visual tool was not purposively designed to address systems’ adaptation, we argue that it might have the potential to facilitate adaptive capacity if it were applied in an adaptive governance context. In such an adaptive process, the visual tool can provide a flexible approach to follow the evolution of dynamics in the governance system by identifying stakeholders that could be interested in implementing adaptive responses and monitoring their involvement to make such responses a reality. In our study, this can be illustrated through the case of the sports federations, identified as partners who could estimate recreation carrying capacity in SGNP (S6; Table 3). Their willingness was “positive subjected to consultation,” but their confirmation depended on other federation members who would be consulted after the PSP exercise.

Pluralism

Scholars increasingly advocate for opening up participatory governance processes to consider a range of perspectives encapsulating differing ontological assumptions and epistemological positions (e.g., Anderson et al. 2016, Matulis and Moyer 2017, Rawluk et al. 2020, Skrimizea et al. 2020). According to previous work, such processes offer stakeholders the opportunity to (1) generate dialogue to reflect and learn on social-ecological systems’ complexity while dealing with dissonance that usually occurs when engaging a wide diversity of stakeholders (Rawluk et al. 2020); (2) create new actionable understandings about problem-solving in social-ecological systems’ governance (West et al. 2019); (3) promote innovative possibilities for transformative action of governance systems (Anderson et al. 2016, Skrimizea et al. 2020), and (4) engage with processes in agreement with stakeholders’ terms (Matulis and Moyer 2017). In this regard, the visual tool incorporated two negative levels for “willingness to collaborate” in effort to offer the opportunity for discordant voices to emerge as part of the collective deliberations. Interestingly, our findings show that participants did not assign any of such levels to the identified stakeholders in the PSP strategies (Fig. 3). A potential reason is that the co-learning and knowledge co-production approaches guiding the PSP process could facilitate the gradual generation of consensual outcomes (Oteros-Rozas et al., unpublished manuscript). The visual tool session occupied the last step of the PSP process, potentially prompting participants to a high level of agreement concerning the strategies and obscuring dissenting perspectives. Here, complacency bias could play a role in obscuring dissent perspectives. This could also arise because participants were not invited to explore potential trade-offs in the environmental, social, and economic consequences of different strategies (Ayre and Nette 2015). We suggest that future research could analyze factors that limit dissent perspectives from emerging when applying the visual tool and how to deal with them.

CONCLUSION

Our study presents a context-specific visual tool that is created, applied, and analyzed within a PSP process, as a complement to the backcasting exercise. We refer to it as the visual tool for envisioning stakeholders’ willingness to take collective action in implementing PSP outcomes. The aim of the visual tool was to open up a dialogue between stakeholders on the redistribution of tasks for working together toward PSP-resulting strategies while reflecting on their willingness to collaborate as a group to implement them. The generated dialogues and reflections facilitated by the visual tool culminated in providing graphic outcomes for each PSP strategy corresponding to initial pictures of who may or may not be willing to collectively engage to turn various conservation strategies into reality. The insights reveal that the visual tool can complement the backcasting technique by providing graphic outcomes that can be considered a useful starting point for creating action networks to put in motion the identified PSP strategies. Our study also reveals that the visual tool has the potential as a decision-support tool, and it can provide some practical contributions to four dimensions of participatory conservation governance during participatory scenario planning processes: inclusivity, integration, adaptation, and pluralism. We provide a practical orientation to adapt the visual tool to multiple contexts and social-ecological knowledge co-creation processes.

__________

^[1] Streamline is an open-source cartoon visualization tool for envisioning and developing different scenarios for protected areas management (De Vries and Metzger 2018).

LITERATURE CITED

Abson, D. J., H. von Wehrden, S. Baumgärtner, J. Fischer, J. Hanspach, W. Härdtle, H. Heinrichs, A. M. Klein, D. J. Lang, P. Martens, and D. Walmsley. 2014. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecological Economics 103:29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012

Alcamo, J. 2008. Chapter Six The SAS Approach: combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in environmental scenarios. Developments in Integrated Environmental Assessment 2:123-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-101X(08)00406-7

Amer, M., T. U. Daim, and A. Jetter. 2013. A review of scenario planning. Futures 46:23-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.003

Anderson, M. B., D. M. Hall, J. McEvoy, S. J. Gilbertz, L. Ward, and A. Rode. 2016. Defending dissensus: participatory governance and the politics of water measurement in Montana’s Yellowstone River Basin. Environmental Politics 25(6):991-1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1189237

Armitage, D. 2005. Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management 35(6):703-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0076-z

Atkinson, G., and S. Mourato. 2008. Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33:317-344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.112927

Ayre, M., and R. Nettle. 2015. Doing integration in catchment management research: insights into a dynamic learning process. Environmental Science and Policy 47:18-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.011

Baggio, J. A., K. Brown, and D. Hellebrandt. 2015. Boundary object or bridging concept? A citation network analysis of resilience. Ecology and Society 20(2):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07484-200202

Beach, D. M., and D. A. Clark. 2015. Scenario planning during rapid ecological change: lessons and perspectives from workshops with southwest Yukon wildlife managers. Ecology and Society 20(1):61. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07379-200161

Bennett, E. M., M. Solan, R. Biggs, T. McPhearson, A. V. Norström, P. Olsson, L. Pereira, G. D. Peterson, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, F. Biermann, S. R. Carpenter, E. C. Ellis, T. Hichert, V. Galaz, M. Lahsen, M. Milkoreit, B. Martin López, K. A. Nicholas, R. Preiser, G. Vince, J. M. Vervoort, and J. Xu. 2016. Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(8):441-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309

BOCM. 2010. DECRETO 96/2009, de 18 de noviembre, del Consejo de Gobierno, por el que se aprueba la ordenación de los recursos naturales de la Sierra de Guadarrama en el ámbito territorial de la Comunidad de Madrid. Madrid, Spain.

BOCM. 2014. Decreto 28/2014, de 27 de marzo, del consejo de gobierno, por el que se aprueban los estatutos reguladores de los órganos de gestión y participación del parque nacional de la Sierra de Guadarrama. Madrid, Spain.

BOCM. 2020. Decreto 18/2020, de 11 de febrero, del Consejo de Gobierno, por el que se aprueba el Plan Rector de Uso y Gestión del Parque Nacional de la Sierra de Guadarrama en el ámbito territorial de la Comunidad de Madrid. Madrid, Spain.

BOCYL. 2010. Decreto 4/2010, de 14 de enero, por el que se aprueba el Plan de Ordenación de los Recursos Naturales del Espacio Natural «Sierra de Guadarrama» (Segovia y Ávila). Comunidad de Castilla y León. León, Spain.

BOCYL. 2014. Decreto 13/2014, de 27 de marzo, por el que se aprueban los Estatutos reguladores de los órganos de gestión y participación del Parque Nacional de la Sierra de Guadarrama. Comunidad de Castilla y León. León, Spain

BOCYL. 2019. Decreto 16/2019, de 23 de mayo, por el que se aprueba el Plan Rector de Uso y Gestión del Parque Nacional de la Sierra de Guadarrama en el ámbito territorial de la Comunidad de Castilla y León. León, Spain.

BOE. 2013. Ley 7/2013, de 25 de junio, de declaración del Parque Nacional de la Sierra de Guadarrama. Spain.

BOE. 2014. Ley 30/2014, de 27 de noviembre, de Parques Nacionales. Spain.

BOE. 2020. Real Decreto 926/2020, de 25 de octubre, por el que se declara el estado de alarma para contener la propagación de infecciones causadas por el SARS- CoV-2. Spain.

Bosone, L., N. Chaurand, and M. Chevrier. 2022. To change or not to change? Perceived psychological barriers to individuals’ behavioural changes in favour of biodiversity conservation. Ecosystems and People 18(1):315-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2071343

Bourceret, A., L. Amblard, and J. D. Mathias. 2021. Governance in social-ecological agent-based models: a review. Ecology and Society 26(2):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12440-260238

Brand, F. S., and K. Jax. 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society 12(1):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02029-120123

Butler, J. R. A., W. Suadnya, K. Puspadi, Y. Sutaryono, R. M. Wise, T. D. Skewes, D. Kirono, E. L. Bohensky, T. Handayani, P. Habibi, M. Kisman, I. Suharto, Hanartani, S. Supartarningsih, A. Ripaldi, A. Fachry, Y. Yanuartati, G. Abbas, K. Duggan, and A. Ash. 2014. Framing the application of adaptation pathways for rural livelihoods and global change in eastern Indonesian islands. Global Environmental Change 28:368-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.004

Butler, J. R. A., R. M. Wise, T. D. Skewes, E. L. Bohensky, N. Peterson, W. Suadnya, Y. Yanuartati, Y. Handayani, P. Habibi, K. Puspadi, N. Bou, D. Vaghelo, and W. Rochester. 2015. Integrating top-down and bottom-up adaptation planning to build adaptive capacity: a structured learning approach. Coastal Management 43:346-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2015.1046802

Chaffin, B. C., H. Gosnell, and B. A. Cosens. 2014. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society 19(3):1-13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356

Charli-Joseph, L., J. M. Siqueiros-Garcia, H. Eakin, D. Manuel-Navarrete, and R. Shelton. 2018. Promoting agency for social-ecological transformation: a transformation-lab in the Xochimilco social-ecological system. Ecology and Society 23(2):46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10214-230246

Clark, W. C., T. P. Tomich, M. van Noordwijk, D. Guston, D. Catacutan, N. M. Dickson, and E. McNie. 2011. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113(17):4615-4622. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900231108

Cornell, S., F. Berkhout, W. Tuinstra, J. D. Tàbara, J. Jäger, I. Chabay, B. de Wit, R. Langlais, D. Mills, P. Moll, et al. 2013. Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environmental Science and Policy 28:60-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008

De Vries, A., and M. J. Metzger. 2018. STREAMLINE - a visual interview methodology that makes semi-structured interviews, focus groups and stakeholder workshops more fun and accessible, [dataset]. The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. https://doi.org/10.7488/ds/2437

Dreborg, K. H. 1996. Essence of backcasting. Futures 28(9):813-828. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00044-4

Dupont, H., F. Gourmelon, M. Rouan, I. Le Viol, and C. Kerbiriou. 2016. The contribution of agent-based simulations to conservation management on a Natura 2000 site. Journal of Environmental Management 168:27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.056

Enqvist, J. P., S. West, V. A. Masterson, L. J. Haider, U. Svedin, and M. Tengö. 2018. Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: linking care, knowledge and agency. Landscape and Urban Planning 179:17-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.005

Esmail, B. A., and D. Geneletti. 2018. Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: a review of 20 years of applications. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(1):42-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12899

Fischer, J., T. A. Gardner, E. M. Bennett, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, S. Carpenter, T. Daw, C. Folke, R. Hill, T. P. Hughes, et al. 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:144-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002

Ghişa, M., F. Goux-Baudiment, J. A. Dator, and S. Cole. 2011. Designing a foresight exercise for the future of rural communities in Romania. Futures 43(9):996-1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.06.009

Heras, M., D. Galafassi, E. Oteros-Rozas, F. Ravera, L. Berraquero-Díaz, and I. Ruiz-Mallén. 2021. Realising potentials for arts-based sustainability science. Sustainability Science 16(6):1875-1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01002-0

Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9):1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Howlett, M. 2022. Looking at the ‘field’ through a Zoom lens: methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research 22(3):387-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691

Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice 5(4):419-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2016. The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. S. Ferrier, K. N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W. W. L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K. A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. M. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, and B. A. Wintle, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3235428

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673

Lo, V. B. P. G., M. D. López-Rodríguez, M. J. Metzger, E. Oteros-Rozas, M. A. Cebrián-Piqueras, I. Ruiz-Mallén, H. March, and C. M. Raymond. 2022. How stable are visions for protected area management? Stakeholder perspectives before and during a pandemic. People and Nature 4(2):445-461. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10292

López-Bao, J. V., G. Chapron, and A. Treves. 2017. The Achilles heel of participatory conservation. Biological Conservation 212:139-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.007

López-Rodríguez, M. D., E. Oteros-Rozas, C. Piñeiro, H. March, and I. Ruiz-Mallén. 2020c. Co-producción de herramientas para promover gobernanza participativa y conservación inclusiva en espacios naturales protegidos. ENVISION, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4680736

López-Rodríguez, M. D., I. Ruiz-Mallén, E. Oteros-Rozas, H. March, R. Keller, V. B. Lo, M. A. Cebrián-Piqueras, and R. Andrade. 2020a. Delineating participation in conservation governance: insights from the Sierra de Guadarrama National Park (Spain). Environmental Science and Policy 114:486-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.019

López-Rodríguez, M. D., M. Salinas-Bonillo, M. T. Torres, M. Pacheco-Romero, E. Guirado, H. Castro, and J. Cabello. 2020b. Impulsando estrategias colectivas ciencia-gestión-sociedad para conservar el hábitat de Ziziphus lotus (Hábitat Prioritario 5220). Revista Ecosistemas 29(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.7818/ECOS.1890

Lundgren, J. 2021. The grand concepts of environmental studies boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 11(1):93-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-020-00585-x

Luzzardi, P. R. G., C. M. Dal Sasso Freitas, R. A. Cava, G. D. Duarte, and M. H. S. Vasconcelos. 2004. An extended set of ergonomic criteria for information visualization techniques. Proceedings of the Seventh IASTED International Conference on Computer Graphic Imaging (June 2014):236-241.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224285699_An_Extended_Set_of_Ergonomic_Criteria_for_Information_Visualization_Techniques

Lynam, T., W. de Jong, D. Sheil, T. Kusumanto, and K. Evans. 2007. A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society 12(1):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01987-120105

March, H., O. Therond, D. Leenhardt. 2012. Water futures: reviewing water-scenario analysis through an original interpretative framework. Ecological Economics 82:126-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.006

Matulis, B. S., and J. R. Moyer. 2017. Beyond inclusive conservation: the value of pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social instrumentalism. Conservation Letters 10(3):279-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12281

McInerny, G. J., M. Chen, R. Freeman, D. Gavaghan, M. Meyer, F. Rowland, D. J. Spiegelhalter, M. Stefaner, G. Tessarolo, and J. Hortal. 2014. Information visualisation for science and policy: engaging users and avoiding bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29(3):148-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.003

McKenzie-Mohr, D. 1999. Fostering sustainable behavior. An introduction to community-based social marketing. Third edition. New Society, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada.

Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystem and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Monk, A., and S. Howard. 1998. Methods & tools: the rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work context. Interactions 5(2):21-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/274430.274434

Moon, K., and D. Blackman. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology 28(5):1167-1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326

Morseletto, P. 2017. Analysing the influence of visualisations in global environmental governance. Environmental Science and Policy 78:40-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.021

Nalau, J., and G. Cobb. 2022. The strengths and weaknesses of future visioning approaches for climate change adaptation: a review. Global Environmental Change 74:102527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102527

Nieto-Romero, M., A. Milcu, J. Leventon, F. Mikulcak, and J. Fischer. 2016. The role of scenarios in fostering collective action for sustainable development: lessons from central Romania. Land Use Policy 50:156-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.013

Olsson, P., V. Galaz, and W. J. Boonstra. 2014. Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecology and Society 19(4):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401

Olsson, P., L. H. Gunderson, S. R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, and C. S. Holling. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01595-110118

Ostrom, E. 2000. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3):137-158. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137

Oteros-Rozas, E., M. D. López-Rodríguez, M. Heras, C. Piñeiro, H. March, V. B. Lo, and I. Ruiz-Mallén. 2020. Imaginando colectivamente el futuro del Parque Nacional Sierra de Guadarrama y su contexto socio-ecológico. ENVISION, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4423119

Oteros-Rozas, E., B. Martín-López, T. M. Daw, E. L. Bohensky, J. R. A. Butler, R. Hill, J. Martin-Ortega, A. Quinlan, F. Ravera, I. Ruiz-Mallén, M. Thyresson, J. Mistry, I. Palomo, G. D. Peterson, T. Plieninger, K. A. Waylen, D. M. Beach, I. C. Bohnet, M. Hamann, J. Hanspach, K. Hubacek, S. Lavorel, and S. P. Vilardy. 2015. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecology and Society 20(4):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432

Oteros-Rozas, E., B. Martín-López, C. A. López, I. Palomo, and J. A. González. 2013. Envisioning the future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: a case study in Spain. Rangeland Journal 35(3):251-272. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ12092

Palomo, I., B. Martín-López, C. López-Santiago, and C. Montes. 2011. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the Doñana social-ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society 16(1):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03862-160123

Partelow, S. 2016. Coevolving Ostrom’s social-ecological systems (SES) framework and sustainability science: four key co-benefits. Sustainability Science 11(3):399-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0351-3

Pereira, L., N. Sitas, F. Ravera, A. Jimenez-Aceituno, and A. Merrie. 2019. Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 7:35. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.374

Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17(2):358-366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x

Rawluk, A., R. Beilin, H. Bender, and R. Ford. 2020. Practices in social ecological research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31189-6

Rawluk, A., R. M. Ford, and K. J. H. Williams. 2018. Value-based scenario planning: exploring multifaceted values in natural disaster planning and management. Ecology and Society 23(4):2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10447-230402

Rickards, L., J. Wiseman, T. Edwards, and C. Biggs. 2014. The problem of fit: scenario planning and climate change adaptation in the public sector. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 32(4):641-662. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12106

Ruiz-Mallén, I., E. Corbera, D. Calvo-Boyero, and V. Reyes-García. 2015. Participatory scenarios to explore local adaptation to global change in biosphere reserves: experiences from Bolivia and Mexico. Environmental Science and Policy 54:398-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.027

Ruiz-Mallén, I., A. De la Peña, M. E. Méndez-Lopez, and L. Porter-Bolland. 2013. Local participation in community conservation: methodological contributions. Pages 117-133 in L. Porter-Bolland, I. Ruiz-Mallén, C. Camacho-Benavides, S. R. McCandless, editors. Community action for conservation: Mexican experiences. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7956-7_8

Schneider, F., P. Fry, T. Ledermann, and S. Rist. 2009. Social learning processes in Swiss soil protection — the ‘from farmer - to farmer’ project. Human Ecology 37(4):475-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9262-1

Skrimizea, E., L. Lecuyer, N. Bunnefeld, J. R. A. Butler, T. Fickel, I. Hodgson, C. Holtkamp, M. Marzano, C. Parra, L. Pereira, S. Petit, D. Pound, I. Rodríguez, P. Ryan, J. Staffler, A. J. Vanbergen, P. Van den Broeck, H. Wittmer, and J. C. Young. 2020. Chapter Seven - Sustainable agriculture: Recognizing the potential of conflict as a positive driver for transformative change. Advances in Ecological Research 63:255-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2020.08.003

Star, S. L. 2010. This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35(5):601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624

Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19(3):387-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

Steger, C., S. Hirsch, C. Evers, B. Branoff, M. Petrova, M. Nielsen-Pincus, C. Wardropper, and C. J. van Riper. 2018. Ecosystem services as boundary objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. Ecological Economics 143:153-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.016

Stirling, A. 1999. The appraisal of sustainability: some problems and possible responses. Local Environment 4(2):111-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725588

Totin, E., J. R. Butler, A. Sidibé, S. Partey, P. K. Thornton, and R. Tabo. 2018. Can scenario planning catalyse transformational change? Evaluating a climate change policy case study in Mali. Futures 96:44-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.11.005

Tufte, E. R. 2001. The visual display of quantitative information. Second edition. Graphic Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, USA.

van Notten, P. W. F., J. Rotmans, M. B. A. van Asselt, and D. S. Rothman. 2003. An updated scenario typology. Futures 35(5):423-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00090-3

van’t Klooster, S. A., and M. B. A. van Asselt. 2006. Practising the scenario-axes technique. Futures 38(1):15-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.019

Venable, N. B. H. 2017. Hydroclimatological data and analyses from a headwaters region of Mongolia as boundary objects in interdisciplinary climate change research. Frontiers of Earth Science 11:457-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-017-0644-1

Vervoort, J. M., K. Kok, R. van Lammeren, and T. Veldkamp. 2010. Stepping into futures: exploring the potential of interactive media for participatory scenarios on social-ecological systems. Futures 42(6):604-616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.031

Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., J. Razzaque, P. McElwee, E. Turnhout, E. Kelemen, G. M. Rusch, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, I. Chan, M. Lim, M. Islar, A. P. Gautam, M. Williams, E. Mungatana, M. S. Karim, R. Muradian, L. R. Gerber, G. Lui, J. Liu, J. H. Spangenberg, and D. Zaleski. 2021. Transformative governance of biodiversity: insights for sustainable development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 53:20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.002

Volkery, A., and T. Ribeiro. 2009. Scenario planning in public policy: understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76(9):1198-1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.009

Walford, G. 2009. The practice of writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Ethnography and Education 4(2):117-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457820902972713

Walters, R. S., E. S. Kenzie, A. E. Metzger, W. J. Baltutis, K. B. Chakrabarti, S. L. Hirsch, and B. K. Laursen. 2019. A systems thinking approach for eliciting mental models from visual boundary objects in hydropolitical contexts: a case study from the Pilcomayo River Basin. Ecology and Society 24(2):9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10586-240209

West, S., L. van Kerkhoff, and H. Wagenaar. 2019. Beyond “linking knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interventions. Policy Studies 40(5):534-555. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1618810

Wiek, A., and D. Iwaniec. 2014. Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 9(4):497-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6

Wiek, A., B. Ness, P. Schweizer-Ries, F. S. Brand, and F. Farioli. 2012. From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustainability Science 7:5-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y

Wollenberg, E., D. Edmunds, and L. Buck. 2000. Using scenarios to make decisions about the future: anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests. Landscape and Urban Planning 47(1-2):65-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00071-7

Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance. This article is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You may share and adapt the work provided the original author and source are credited, you indicate whether any changes were made, and you include a link to the license.