Search

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8.

Rural communities is Alaska—predominantly Alaska Native Tribes—are at the forefront of climate change impacts and climate justice concerns in the United States. According to the 2019 Alaska statewide threat assessment report, 29 communities are currently experiencing significant climate change-related erosion. Further, 38 communities faces significant flooding, and 35 have major problems with thawing permafrost. Some Alaska Native communities have explored community relocation to adapt to these impacts. Because federal law does not recognize gradual environmental impacts like thawing permafrost and coastal erosion as disasters, these communities are ineligible for disaster funding and struggling with how to adapt to the very urgent—albeit less immediate—issues that they face.This article analyzes the chalenges of Alaska Native Tribes attempting to access federal assistance for community relocation. While some posit that the federal trust responsibility for Tribal Nations might help leverage federal help with community relocation, the status of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) extinguished almost all claims of aboriginal title and reservations in Alaska. General access to federal disaster funding and programs may be another avenue for assistance; however, the limited definition of "disaster" and overly burdensome requirements for federal programs mean that many Alaska Native communities are left to struggle on their own.In response to these challenges, this article explores possible solutions to help these communities with their relocation efforts. It examines the newly adopted Building Resilient Communities and Infrastructure Program as a potential funding opportunity for community relocation efforts, along with programs focused on climate justice. Finally, the article concludes by proposing the expansion of a state role in helping coordinate federal grant programs on behalf of Alaska Native Tribes and the funding of resilience officers by the federal government at regional Alaska Native organizations to navigate requirements for community relocation grant programs.