# Who is local and what do they know? Braiding knowledges within carnivore management in Europe

Hanna Pettersson, Lou Lécuyer, Juliette Young, Lindsay Stringer, Simon

Calla, Erika Juhász, Zsolt Mólnar

► To cite this version:

Hanna Pettersson, Lou Lécuyer, Juliette Young, Lindsay Stringer, Simon Calla, et al. Who is local and what do they know? Braiding knowledges within carnivore management in Europe. People and Nature, 2025, 10.1002/pan3.10797. halshs-04965665

HAL Id: halshs-04965665

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04965665v1

Submitted on 25 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

BRITISH
ECOLOGICAL
SOCIETY

People and Nature

PERSPECTIVE

Sharing Landscapes with Wildlife: Conflict and Coexistence of Extensive Grazing Systems with Large Carnivores

# Who is local and what do they know? Braiding knowledges within carnivore management in Europe

Hanna Pettersson<fnref n="1" />,² ID
Simon Calla⁷

Lou Lécuyer³,⁴ ID
Erika Juhász⁸

Juliette Young⁵
Zsolt Mólnar⁸ ID

Lindsay Stringer²,⁶

**Correspondence**

Hanna Pettersson

Email: [hanna.pettersson@york.ac.uk](mailto:hanna.pettersson@york.ac.uk)

**Funding information**

Leverhulme Trust, Grant/Award Number:
RC-2018-021

**Handling Editor:** Tasos Hovardas

**Abstract**

1. Growing recognition of Indigenous Peoples and traditional local communities as stewards of biodiversity has brought to the fore the issues of knowledge and value pluralism in conservation policy and practice. Given their basis in practical and multi-generational experience, Indigenous and local knowledges are highly relevant to managing human-wildlife interactions, especially species that are challenging to live with. Yet, these situated forms of knowledge remain overlooked and marginalised, especially 'local knowledge', as it is unclear what or whom is encompassed within the term.

2. We explore local knowledge in the context of pastoral areas in Europe, where populations of large carnivores such as wolves are currently expanding. We ask: who is 'local', what constitutes 'local knowledge' and what can this knowledge contribute to carnivore management?

3. We show that continuous exchanges between long-settled residents, newcomers and transient people in pastoral areas mean that 'localness' cannot be approached as a dualist position. Similarly, local knowledge is dynamic and continuously evolving in the face of ongoing and emerging change, which makes efforts of categorisation and preservation complex.

4. We argue that current approaches to incorporating local knowledge often fail to account for this complexity, producing unjust and ineffective policies and strategies. To advance understanding, we offer an approach that situates local knowledge and those who hold it on a spectrum of knowledge characteristics. We then describe the challenges of braiding knowledge that are particularly relevant for carnivore management, illustrated by examples from our own research and the broader literature.

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *People and Nature* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

<footnote n="1">¹Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity, University of York, York, UK; ²Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK; ³Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS, Université Grenoble Alpes, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, Grenoble, France; ⁴FRB-Cesab, Centre de Synthèse et d'Analyse sur la Biodiversité, Montpellier, France; ⁵Agroécologie, AgroSup Dijon, CNRS, INRAE, University Bourgogne, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France; ⁶York Environmental Sustainability Institute (YESI), University of York, York, UK; ⁷Laboratoire de Sociologie et d'Anthropologie, Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, France and ⁸Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Vácrátót, Hungary</footnote>
5. To tackle the challenges, we propose 'spacing' conservation planning by investing in networks of emplaced practitioners, tasked with coordinating the mobilisation and braiding of relevant knowledges and producing locally adapted strategies for coexistence.

6. *Policy implications*. Pluralism in carnivore management goes beyond incorporating the technical know-how of local communities. It requires a better recognition and braiding of different kinds of knowledge and skills, at all scales, to produce better outcomes for people and nature.

KEYWORDS

biocultural diversity, carnivore management, human-wildlife coexistence, local knowledge, pastoral areas, stakeholder mapping

# 1 | INTRODUCTION

Much of what humanity knows about the natural world is embodied in stories, languages, practices, cultures and relationships, which have been forged over generations of coexistence with specific ecosystems and species (IPBES, 2022). Yet, such situated or ‘vernacular’ knowledge (see Bartel, 2014) is often neglected in environmental and natural resource governance, which is dominated by perspectives and information from the natural sciences (Kadykalo et al., 2021; Pascual et al., 2021). The failure to learn from and support the systems of governance that have co-evolved with and cared for nature has been a leading cause of misaligned conservation and development programmes worldwide (Dawson et al., 2021; Li, 2007).

To ensure locally relevant and socially just management strategies, and to redefine dominant visions of prosperity, a mounting body of work has emphasised that Western science must be complemented by other forms and sources of knowledge (Díaz et al., 2018; Ogar et al., 2020; Wall Kimmerer, 2013). This has become a central tenet of the 2030 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) (2022) and its underpinning guidelines from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2022). The increased focus on relational approaches to human-nature connections, recognising plural ways of knowing, valuing and living with/in/from/as nature, is highly relevant for managing large carnivores in pastoral areas. Numerous studies have illustrated that conflicting worldviews and priorities underpin most carnivore-related conflicts in these systems (Lécuyer et al., 2022; Redpath et al., 2015; Salvatori et al., 2021). Yet, interventions are still predominantly focused on mitigating the impacts of carnivores, rather than addressing underlying drivers of conflict (Zimmermann et al., 2020).

Many questions remain about the operationalisation of pluralism within conservation policy (Pascual et al., 2021), including whose and what type of knowledge is relevant. There is a growing emphasis on Indigenous Peoples and traditional local communities, referring to those whose identity, livelihoods and knowledge systems are tied to specific bio-cultural systems (IPBES, 2022). Indigenous Peoples constitute approximately 6% of the global population and often have distinct languages and cultures from their surrounding context (Hill

et al., 2019; IPBES, 2022). Their knowledge and rights are increasingly recognised, including through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations, 2007). ‘Local communities’, however, a category that concerns up to 45% of the global population, lack commensurate recognition, leading to uncertainty and disparity in the consideration of local knowledge (LK), and perpetuating injustice towards LK holders (Molnár, Fernández-Llamazares, et al., 2023). This is apparent in Europe, which has only one Indigenous population recognised as such (the Sámi in northern Fenno-Scandia), but where there are thousands of local communities whose cultures, identities and livelihoods are distinct and intimately tied to nature. Like the Sámi, many are pastoralists, and their co-evolution with the land can be traced back up to 7000 years in some parts of the continent (e.g. Antolín & Saña, 2022). However, in conservation efforts, their experiences and observations are often regarded as beliefs or opinions, rather than evidence that could inform action (Papp et al., 2022).

In this perspective, we advance the debate on how LK may be recognised and treated more justly in European conservation policy. Applying relational thinking (West et al., 2020), we explore the questions ‘Who is local?’ and ‘What constitutes local knowledge?’ in pastoral contexts; illuminate prevalent challenges of braiding knowledge within carnivore management; and illustrate how nurturing relationships in place and practice can help to address the challenges and produce locally adapted strategies for coexistence.

There is no internationally accepted definition of local communities (Brondizio et al., 2019), and we do not intend to provide one here. Similarly, we do not seek to compare or contrast Indigenous and local knowledges, but acknowledge there are important distinctions (including autonomy and epistemic compatibility) which have implications for whether they at all can or *should* be braided with science (see Corbera et al., 2024; Whyte, 2017 for discussions on decolonising conservation and sustainability science).

# 2 | WHO IS LOCAL?

Understanding who is ‘local’ in rural Europe is complicated by continuous socio-economic change, including the appropriation of
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Key characteristics of local knowledge holders, which with time and place-embeddedness are of increasing relevance for the design of locally adapted coexistence strategies.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Characteristics of "localness"</th><th colspan="3">Time, embeddedness in local place and relations</th></tr><tr><th>Not local</th><th>Long settled</th><th>Permanent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Resident in locality</td><td>No</td><td>Permanent</td><td>Permanent</td></tr><tr><td>Time spent in the locality</td><td>None</td><td>Since birth</td><td>Since birth</td></tr><tr><td>Ancestral ties</td><td>None</td><td>Multiple generations</td><td>Multiple generations</td></tr><tr><td>Integration within local knowledge networks</td><td>No</td><td>Carrier of knowledge from previous generations</td><td>Carrier of knowledge from previous generations</td></tr><tr><td>Familiarity with the bio-cultural system</td><td>None</td><td>Dependent on and/or spends ample time within the system</td><td>Dependent on and/or spends ample time within the system</td></tr><tr><td>Connection to/meaning of locality</td><td>None</td><td>Embedded through livelihood/family/(cultural) identity/worldviews</td><td>Embedded through livelihood/family/(cultural) identity/worldviews</td></tr><tr><td>Command of local language/dialect</td><td>No</td><td>Native speaker</td><td>Native speaker</td></tr><tr><th colspan="4">Locals of particular relevance for carnivore-pastoralism interactions</th></tr><tr><td>Likelihood of encountering carnivores</td><td>None</td><td>Frequent observations/encounters/direct impacts</td><td>Frequent observations/encounters/direct impacts</td></tr><tr><td>Vulnerability to carnivore impacts</td><td>None</td><td>High vulnerability (emotional, physical and/or economic)</td><td>High vulnerability (emotional, physical and/or economic)</td></tr><tr><td>Relationship to pastoralism and livestock keeping</td><td>None</td><td>Main livelihood, multi-generational understanding</td><td>Main livelihood, multi-generational understanding</td></tr><tr><td>Involvement in natural resource management and conservation (pastures, forests, commons, wildlife, and game)</td><td>None</td><td>Part of livelihood or identity, multi-generational understanding</td><td>Part of livelihood or identity, multi-generational understanding</td></tr><tr><td>Embedded within relevant local institutions</td><td>External</td><td>Deeply embedded in/representative of</td><td>Deeply embedded in/representative of</td></tr></tbody></table>

communities, tertiarization of the economy and agricultural policies that disfavour traditional farming practices (Donfrancesco, 2024; Torre et al., 2022). Difficult living and working conditions and poor economic returns have rendered pastoral areas susceptible to population and abandonment, and pastoralists have become reliant on supplementary economic activities to sustain their livelihoods (Krauß & Olwig, 2018). Many areas have observed a change in the pastoral workforce from family members to salaried labourers, and more recently, a growing dependency on migrant workers, including from Africa and Asia (Nori, 2022).

Pastoral areas are also increasingly well-connected, which has resulted in the arrival of new types of inhabitants ('neo-rurals') and the growth of tourism-related activities. The influx has introduced new interests, approaches, values and priorities (Vaccaro et al., 2023), including more favourable attitudes towards carnivores (Bruskotter et al., 2017), which can cause tensions with long-settled inhabitants (Nori & Berzi, 2021). However, newcomers can

also instigate a renaissance of traditional culture and activities that promote local identities and social cohesion (López & Pardo, 2018; Torre et al., 2022). For instance, new farmers/pastoralists adopt a range of non-conventional practices that are re-invigorating local agri-food systems (Vizuete et al., 2024), although shallow knowledge of system-dynamics often means that they are less resilient than traditional practices (Gretter et al., 2019; Mailfert, 2007).

Given these circumstances, defining who is local and a legitimate holder of LK is complex. The above examples illustrate that 'localness' should not be considered a dualist position but as a continuum from those not local to those long-settled. Factors such as time spent in the territory and the activities carried out can illuminate the locals with the deepest connection and contribution to the bio-cultural system, as well as those who are most knowledgeable of and vulnerable to carnivore impacts (Table 1).

The continuum approach recognises that the knowledge, world-views and values of traditional LK holders are deserving of particular
consideration and respect within conservation management, and facilitates identifying and empowering local biodiversity stewards (Carmenta et al., 2023; Roe, 2020). However, it does not mean disregarding new or temporary residents, who can still provide valuable perspectives. Examples include researchers with local expertise and neo-rurals whose ideas or practices are in the process of becoming embedded. In addition, not all locals have lifestyles that generate knowledge about wildlife, but their perceptions may still contribute to conflict or coexistence in significant ways, including through voting behaviour and advocacy (Linnell, 2023). Accordingly, different forms and timescales of 'localness' must be considered simultaneously within processes of stakeholder mapping, situational analysis and community engagement (see Hauck et al., 2016), for which Table 1 can function as a heuristic. The next step is to explore what these different groups of locals know.

## 3 | WHAT DO THEY KNOW?

Knowledge, simply defined, is the understanding of or information about a subject that can be gained through experience or study, known by one or more people (Cambridge Dictionary, 2023). Intimate familiarity with a place and dependence on its resources yields LK: a combination of understanding, practical wisdom and perceptions about what is appropriate in a place (Ingold, 2018; Ogar et al., 2020). It is expressed as practices, technologies, institutions and values that are embedded in the relationship between people and nature (IPBES, 2022), becoming increasingly profound and stable (but not static) through time and cultural maturation (Table 2). Such 'slow knowledge' (see Orr, 1996) underpins stewardship

that has maintained highly resilient bio-cultural systems across the globe, including some of Europe's pastoral areas (Agnoletti & Emanueli, 2016; Nori, 2022). Slow knowledge often sits in contrast to the scientific knowledge that underpins most conservation policy, which is (ostensibly) divorced from values and subjectivity (Matuk et al., 2020; Pascual et al., 2021). Scientific and other 'fast' knowledge, that is, that which can be measured, generalised and readily retrieved in a written form, has been propelled by the rise of the global economy and information age (Büscher, 2020). Accordingly, it is defined by power and instability, and its rapidly increasing volume impedes the assimilation of relevant information for specific contexts (Orr, 1996).

Yet, knowledge is often meaningless without the context, history and positionality of place (Büscher, 2020; Williams, 2014). In recent decades, LK has become a research topic under various umbrella terms, including traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and ethnoecological knowledge (e.g. Molnár, Aumeeruddy-Thomas, et al., 2023; Molnár & Babai, 2021). It overlaps with the work on Indigenous knowledge and shares its aim to challenge and complement scientific knowledge (Hill et al., 2020). This work has transformed understandings of multi-species interactions in pastoral areas and has proven invaluable in informing coexistence programmes (HWCCSG, 2023; Linnell, 2023). For instance, it has illustrated Romanian shepherds' intricate bond with guardian dogs, evolved over generations to protect their livestock from wolves, brown bears and lynx (Ivașcu & Biro, 2020). This aspect of LK has become popular among conservationists since it is compatible with carnivore conservation (i.e. a means to an end), as illustrated by widespread, often top-down efforts to revitalise and spread these practices (e.g. LIFE Euro Large Carnivores, n.d.).

<table><caption>TABLE 2 Local knowledge, progressing with time towards an increasingly profound understanding of how to live with, care for and manage nature in a particular place.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="3">Time, cultural maturation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Key characteristics of local knowledge</th><td>Fast, shallow, general</td><td>Slow, deep, emplaced</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Situated in place and social context</th><td>Developed externally</td><td>Developed within and for the biocultural system</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Focus</th><td>Isolated entities and their interactions</td><td>(Local) context and interconnections</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Scale/scope</th><td>Generalised</td><td>Specific</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Shared within the social context</th><td>Isolated</td><td>Widely held within interest groups or communities</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Locally validated</th><td>Not locally validated</td><td>Developed and adapted to local conditions</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Practised</th><td>Theoretical or practised elsewhere</td><td>Embedded in local resource practices, techniques, and innovations</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Relationally embedded</th><td>Not embedded</td><td>Embedded in local worldviews, identities, values, and heritage</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Locally cumulative (over time)</th><td>Disconnected</td><td>Based on multi-generational community learning, i.e. TEK</td></tr></tbody></table>
Yet, LK of relevance to carnivore management extends beyond traditional damage prevention, including the wider context in which these practices made sense, why they became obsolete and new adaptations and preferences that are impacting local coexistence conditions (Pettersson, Quinn, Holmes, Sait, & Lopez-Bao, 2021). One example is the introduction of digital fencing in Norway. It is highly valued since it has enabled the persistence of its mountain pastures (Søraa & Vik, 2021), but it leaves livestock vulnerable to predators. LK-holders can also illuminate whether traditional knowledge is maintained by choice or because of poverty and lack of alternatives, that is, the ‘TEK conundrum’ (see Hartel et al., 2023). For instance, the traditional use of guardian dogs, enclosures and shepherding is widely lauded as a solution to livestock depredation, yet pastoralists in Spain who maintained these practices described them as ‘slave-like’, economically unviable, detrimental to stock health and a cause of social tensions (e.g. guardian dogs attacking/scaring tourists and wildlife), all of which undermined their well-being and generational turnover (Pettersson, Quinn, Holmes, & Sait, 2021). LK is thereby instrumental in ascertaining if traditional approaches can be (re)adapted to the present context, whether new technologies can be useful and what problems remain or emerge once applied. LK also improves the accuracy of depredation statistics, which are often skewed by reporting biases, and the broader understanding of the economic, cultural and emotional impacts of different management strategies (Pooley, 2022; Salvatori et al., 2023).

An often neglected aspect of LK is ethnozoology, including detailed observations about the presence, behaviour and function of wildlife in a particular place (Ulicsni et al., 2019). These observations are generally disregarded by scientists as anecdotal but are essential to explain conflict and coexistence at the local scale. For instance, shepherds in northern Spain correlated increased livestock depredation with the growing expanse of scrub, providing wolves with favourable opportunities for sheltered ambush, including during daylight hours. Accordingly, the removal of scrub was considered crucial to promote coexistence, a measure that has been largely overlooked in policy (Pettersson, Quinn, Holmes, & Sait, 2021). In the Rhodope Mountains (Bulgaria), villagers are adapting to the marked increase in bear abundance by learning to read their tracks and behaviour, thus avoiding dangerous encounters (Toncheva & Fletcher, 2021). These examples illustrate the role of LK in complementing the understanding of cause-effect relationships (Nori & Scoones, 2019): animal agency (Edelblutte et al., 2023), vulnerability (Smit & Wandel, 2006) and the adaptive capacities of people and carnivores at fine spatial scales (Carter & Linnell, 2016), providing key insights for management.

## 4 | BRAIDING KNOWLEDGE AND ITS CHALLENGES

In the last decade, the concept of ‘braiding’ or ‘weaving’ has gained prominence among Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars (see

Tengö et al., 2017; Wall Kimmerer, 2013), coinciding with the establishment of IPBES and the increasing application of relational thinking to understand diverse human-nature connections (Chan et al., 2016; West et al., 2020). Together with ‘co-production’ (see Norström et al., 2020), it answers calls within sustainability science to move beyond integration, valuing the complementarity of different knowledge systems as a result of their inherent differences, rather than using one to (in)validate the other (Hill et al., 2020). Within conservation, the goal is to foster mutual respect and social learning, leading to more decentralised, effective and culturally appropriate strategies that amplify the contribution of local communities to biodiversity (achieving ‘connected’ or ‘convivial’ conservation, see Büscher & Fletcher, 2019; Carmenta et al., 2023). However, as described in depth by Nakata (2007) and Whyte (2017), true braiding faces various critiques and challenges. Below we discuss those of particular relevance for carnivore management in pastoral areas.

### 4.1 | Establishing equitable partnerships

Reconciling carnivore conservation and the maintenance of pastoral systems requires mutual trust and the ability to discuss issues on equal terms. Yet approaches to coexistence are typically negotiated within frameworks designed to fulfil conservation targets, placing scientists and conservationists as the gatekeepers of knowledge and solutions (Pascual et al., 2021). This can lead to tokenistic involvement of stakeholders; for instance, by consulting them once targets or plans are already established (Lécuyer et al., 2024; Papp et al., 2022). Even where carnivore management has been decentralised, such as in Norway and Sweden, Sjölander-Lindqvist et al. (2020) showed that LK holders still lack the capacity for real policy impact. While some local platforms successfully reached compromises about coexistence measures, their realisation was often overruled by central sector agencies who dismissed local evidence. Upward accountability to locally agreed outcomes is a common issue for stakeholder platforms across Europe, which hinders conflict transformation and risks exacerbating distrust and participation fatigue among locals (Salvatori et al., 2020, 2021).

### 4.2 | Narrow metrics of success

A related problem is that frameworks such as the EU Habitats Directive oblige member states to continuously monitor and report their performance against measurable targets, including ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ of species (Trouwborst, 2017). These targets and indicators are generally separate from and often contradictory to those meant to safeguard Indigenous and local knowledge and cultures, which are usually more discrete and have less legal sway (Orr, 1996; Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2020). For instance, carnivore abundance and livestock depredation are relatively easy to
measure and so become indicators of successful coexistence. What type of coexistence 'makes local sense' (Holmes et al., 2022), the knock-on effects on the bio-cultural system (Gippoliti et al., 2018) or feelings of lack of control, stress, fear and grief (Akampurira & Marijnen, 2024; Gieser & von Essen, 2021), are aspects that are usually left out, leading to a partial representation of the challenges and their possible solutions (Nori & Scoones, 2019).

## 4.3 | Aligning different scales

Managing carnivores in pastoral areas is inherently complex, with damages and benefits incurred over different spatio-temporal scales by different groups of people and wildlife (Pooley et al., 2017, 2020). Slow LK tends to be limited in geographic scope, such as a specific valley. Meanwhile, carnivore territories often transcend administrative borders, requiring cross-scale monitoring and coordination for which science is uniquely placed to provide information, for example, through telemetry and DNA sampling (IUCN HWCCSG, 2023; Linnell, 2023). Deducing what knowledge is most relevant in a given situation can be challenging, particularly if contradictions emerge between LK and scientific/conservationists' knowledge. For example, some pastoralists consider the killing of 'misbehaving' predator individuals as the most effective way of communicating boundaries and resolving local livestock depredation (Meuret, 2021; Pettersson et al., 2023). This is often contrasted with ecological models, covering larger scales, which may indicate that lethal control displaces damage elsewhere (in time or space) (Kutal et al., 2023; Santiago-Avila et al., 2018). The issue is further confounded by contrasting ethical standpoints on the killing of carnivores (Allen et al., 2023; Von Essen & Redmalm, 2023), and the lack of equitable spaces in which to promote a shared understanding between the different parties (Papp et al., 2022).

# 5 | WAYS FORWARD—CENTRING PLACE

International frameworks have successively strengthened obligations to safeguard Indigenous and traditional knowledge, most recently in targets 21 and 22 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2022), which also mandates efforts to minimise human-wildlife conflict (target 4). Yet, as evident from the previous section, the operationalisation of these targets is hampered by structural and legal barriers. As large carnivore populations continue to expand (Cimatti et al., 2021), efforts are needed to harmonise these targets within conservation strategies at all scales, especially when they concern high nature-value farming areas (Hinojosa et al., 2018; Scoones, 2023). It will require a transformation of funding and planning mechanisms to allow for 'biocultural design', whereby goals, metrics and indicators for coexistence are jointly designed to reflect local models of governance, knowledge and plural values (Carmenta et al., 2023; Davidson-Hunt et al., 2012; Papp et al., 2022). A priority area in the coming years is in the development of National

Restoration Plans, as mandated by the new EU restoration law (European Commission, 2024).

The success of harmonising efforts hinges on the intermediary actors, institutions and processes that facilitate the transfer of information across levels of governance (Gaventa, 2021), build trust between social groups (Saif et al., 2022) and promote downward and upward accountability (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2020). Building on Williams' work (2013, 2014, 2018), and taking inspiration from guardian programmes in various countries (see White, 2022), we argue that this requires spacing conservation management. This means shifting away from bringing LK up into policy spaces to a management approach anchored in place and local relations; in other words, not focusing on what knowledge is but on what it enacts on the ground (Ween & Riseth, 2011). Using place, such as a grazing system in a specific location, as and management unit facilitates the braiding of context-independent (e.g. scientific) and context-dependent (subjective, local) perspectives, producing a rich tapestry of its history, dynamism and possible future scenarios (see Molnár et al., 2020 for a practical example). It is achieved by providing equitable spaces in situ in which to jointly formulate questions, select methods, collect and analyse data, as well as share, reflect and learn from each other (Reed et al., 2023). These spaces can be organised through 'communities of practice' (see Hartel et al., 2019), where emplaced practitioners or mobile regional teams, who have well-established relationships with the local community and whose expertise cuts across knowledge systems, coordinate vertical and horizontal planes of relationships (Williams, 2013). This includes validating knowledge with locals, bringing grassroots perspectives up to national and regional levels, identifying capacity-building needs and translating policy into locally appropriate actions. This approach ensures meaningful participation and representation, as well as free, prior informed consent (FPIC) of local communities (Hill et al., 2020).

Recent initiatives have demonstrated the potential of the spacing approach. In Castile and Leon in Spain, a programme to mitigate human-derived wildfires (Plan 42, see Rada Sereno et al., n.d.) deployed practitioners in pastoral areas across the region, tasked with building networks for information exchange and planning. After 8 years of close collaboration within and between communities (2002–2010), fires had decreased significantly. While the programme ended, the established relationships persisted and yielded new initiatives, including a platform for human–wolf conflict mediation (GCG 2018). In Grosseto, Italy, a LIFE-funded project developed a successful protocol for adaptive co-development of wolf damage prevention measures (Marino et al., 2021; Salvatori et al., 2021, 2023). Reflecting on what worked, the managers emphasised the indispensable role of farmers in providing complementary knowledge on local system dynamics, especially on the conditions of their farms and their livestock's needs and behaviours. Both examples reflect what Williams (2013) calls 'epistemic betweenness', whereby scientific discourse and technical solutions are invigorated and adapted through collaboration with local communities.
6 | CONCLUSION

In this perspective, we have responded to a need to clarify what local knowledge (LK) is in order to advance its recognition within conservation management. Using the case of pastoralism-carnivore interactions in Europe, we have illuminated a local-external continuum of relevant knowledge-holders, exemplified the contributions of LK to carnivore management and explained how emplaced practitioners are instrumental in the work of coordinating equitable sharing, braiding and co-production of knowledge between different scales and knowledge-systems.

In so doing, this perspective supports ongoing efforts to learn from and empower the cultural norms and systems of governance that underpin local pastoral systems, which in many areas continue to be the most sustainable way for people to live off the land while maintaining biodiversity. As carnivores continue to expand into these systems, the design of sensible and legitimate coexistence policies requires scientific knowledge of species ecology, movement patterns and ecosystem trends to be braided with LK on multi-species interactions, local dynamism, cultural heritage, values and needs. Determining whose knowledge is relevant or irrelevant, reliable or unreliable in different places and who is best placed to decide, is one of the most pressing challenges of conservation governance in the 21st century. Advances can be made by mainstreaming relational thinking and knowledge braiding in funding calls and building associated capacity among government institutions and NGOs, as they often lack the openness, tools and accountability to achieve equitable partnerships with locals.

Leveraging the recognition of Indigenous and local knowledge, this work should be guided by the four principles described by Hill et al. (2020): respecting rights; supporting care and mutuality; strengthening local knowledge and institutions; and supporting knowledge exchange. While this perspective discussed how this transition can be achieved in European pastoral landscapes, we suggest that the continuum approach to understanding and mapping knowledge and knowledge-holders (adjusted to the system in question) is broadly applicable within natural resource management and sustainability science. Whether it concerns carnivores, pastures, fisheries or forests, the key to success is to build on local stewardship and skills, adapting system management in ways that make sense to local people and that enable continuous adaptation and innovation in the face of change.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Hanna Pettersson instigated, drafted and coordinated the manuscript based on an initial workshop with Juliette Young, Lou Lécuyer and Simón Calla. Lou Lécuyer and Lindsay Stringer wrote sections of the manuscript. Juliette Young, Zsolt Mólnar, Simon Calla and Erika Juhász provided ideas and feedback. All authors assisted in reviewing and editing the manuscript and approved the final version.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We extend our sincere gratitude to the locals and pastoralists whose perspectives, wisdom and generosity have inspired and made this work possible.

FUNDING INFORMATION

Hanna Pettersson is funded by the Leverhulme Trust (Grant number is RC-2018-021).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Zsolt Molnar is an Associate Editor and Hanna Pettersson and Juliette are guest editors for People and Nature, but were not involved in the peer review and decision-making process of this manuscript.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This manuscript does not include any data.

ORCID

Hanna Pettersson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2347-5282

Lou Lécuyer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3379-3639

Zsolt Mólnar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5454-4714

REFERENCES

Agoletti, M., & Emanueli, F. (2016). Biocultural diversity and landscape in Europe: Framing the issue. In M. Agoletti & F. Emanueli (Eds.), *Biocultural diversity in Europe* (pp. 1–18). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26315-1_1

Akampurira, E., & Marijnen, E. (2024). The politics of mourning in conservation conflicts: The (un)grievability of life and less-than-human geographies. *Political Geography*, *108*, 103031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.103031

Allen, B. L., Bobier, C., Dawson, S., Fleming, P. J. S., Hampton, J., Jachowski, D., Kerley, G. I. H., Linnell, J. D. C., Marnewick, K., Minnie, L., Muthersbaugh, M., O'Riain, M. J., Parker, D., Proulx, G., Somers, M. J., & Titus, K. (2023). Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it. *Science of the Total Environment*, *896*, 165283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165283

Antolín, F., & Saña, M. (2022). Subsistence activities in the early Neolithic in the northeast Iberian Peninsula: Crop and livestock farming practices, hunting, fishing and gathering. *Cypsela*, *22*, 329329–329349.

Bartel, R. (2014). Vernacular knowledge and environmental law: Cause and cure for regulatory failure. *Local Environment*, *19*(8), 891–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.798636

Brondizio, E. S., Diaz, S., Settele, J., Ngo, N. T., Gueze, M., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bai, X., Geschke, A., Molnár, Z. Z., Niamir, A. A., Pascual, U., Simcoc, A., & Jaureguiberry, P. (2019). Chapter 1 assessing a planet in transformation: Rationale and approach of the IPBES global assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Diaz, & H. T. Ngo (Eds.), *Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services*. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3831852

Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., Manfredo, M. J., Karns, G. R., Wolf, C., Ard, K., Carter, N. H., López-Bao, J. V., Chapron, G., Gehrt, S. D., & Ripple, W. J. (2017). Modernization, risk, and conservation of the world's largest carnivores. *BioScience*, *67*(7), 646–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix049

Büscher, B. (2020). *The truth about nature: Environmentalism in the era of post-truth politics and platform capitalism*. University of California Press.

Büscher, B., & Fletcher, R. (2019). Towards convivial conservation. *Conservation and Society*, *17*(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_75

Cambridge Dictionary. (2023). *Knowledge*. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/knowledge
Carmenta, R. L., Barlow, J., Bastos Lima, M. G., Berenguer, E., Choiruzzad, S., Estrada-Carmona, N., França, F., Kallis, G., Killick, E., Lees, A., Martin, A., Pascual, U., Pettorelli, N., Reed, J., Rodriguez, I., Steward, A. M., Sunderland, T., Vira, B., Zaehringer, J. G., & Hicks, C. (2023). Connected conservation: Rethinking conservation for a telecoupled world. *Biological Conservation*, 282, 110047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110047

Carter, N. H., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 31(8), 575-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006

Chan, M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S. & Luck, G. W. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 113(6), 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113.

Cimatti, M., Ranc, N., Benítez-López, A., Maiorano, L., Boitani, L., Cagnacci, F., Čengić, M., Ciucci, P., Huijbregts, M. A., Krofel, M., López-Bao, J. V. (2021). Large carnivore expansion in Europe is associated with human population density and land cover changes. *Diversity and Distributions*, 27(4), 602-617. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13219

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). *Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework (CBD/COP/DEC/15/4)*. United Nations Environment Programme.

Corbera, E., Maestre-Andrés, S., Collins, Y. A., Bukhi Mabele, M., & Brockington, D. (2024). Decolonizing biodiversity conservation. *Journal of Political Ecology*, 28(1), 889-903. https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5969

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Mainguy, G., Turner, K. L., Mead, A. T. P., Cabrera-Lopez, J., Bolton, R., Idrobo, C. J., Miretski, I., Morrison, A., & Robson, J. P. (2012). Biocultural design: A new conceptual framework for sustainable development in rural indigenous and local communities. *S.A.P.I.EN.S*, 5(2). https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1382

Dawson, N. M., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E. J., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, N. D., Wongbusarakum, S., Sangha, K. K., Scherl, L. M., Phan, H. P., Zafra-Calvo, N., Lavey, W. G., Byakagaba, P., Idrobo, C. J., Chenet, A., Bennett, N. J., Mansourian, S., & Rosado-May, F. J. (2021). The role of indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. *Ecology and Society*, 26(3), art19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319

Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K. M. A., Baste, I. A., Brauman, K. A., Polasky, S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P. W., Van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Van Der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S., & Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people: Recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. *Science*, 359(6373), 270-272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

Donfrancesco, V. (2024). (Co)producing landscapes of coexistence: A historical political ecology of human-wolf relations in Italy. *Geoforum*, 149, 103958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2024.103958

Edelblutte, É., Krithivasan, R., & Hayek, M. N. (2023). Animal agency in wildlife conservation and management. *Conservation Biology*, 37(1), e13853. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13853

European Commission. (2024). Nature restoration law. A regulation supporting the restoration of ecosystems for people, the climate and the planet. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en

Gaventa, J. (2021). Linking the prepositions: Using power analysis to inform strategies for social action. *Journal of Political Power*, 14(1), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1878409

Gieser, T., & von Essen, E. (2021). Wolves, ecologies of fear, and the affective challenges of coexistence. *Society and Space*, 39(4). https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/wolves-ecologies-of-fear

Gippoliti, S., Brito, D., Cerfolli, F., Franco, D., Kryštufek, B., & Battisti, C. (2018). Europe as a model for large carnivores conservation: Is the glass half empty or half full? *Journal for Nature Conservation*, 41, 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.11.007

Gretter, A., Torre, C. D., Maino, F., & Omizzolo, A. (2019). New farming as an example of social innovation responding to challenges of inner mountain areas of Italian Alps. *Revue de Géographie Alpine*, 107(2). https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.6106

Hartel, T., Fischer, J., Shumi, G., & Apollinaire, W. (2023). The traditional ecological knowledge conundrum. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 38(3), 211-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.12.004

Hartel, T., Scheele, B. C., Vanak, A. T., Rozylowicz, L., Linnell, J. D. C., & Ritchie, E. G. (2019). Mainstreaming human and large carnivore coexistence through institutional collaboration. *Conservation Biology*, 33(6), 1256-1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13334

Hauck, J., Schmidt, J., & Werner, A. (2016). Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. *Ecology and Society*, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08596-210249

Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W. V., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C. Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Diaw, M. C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V. E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., & Xue, D. (2020). Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 43, 8-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006

Hill, R., Guiomar Nates-Parra, J. J. G., Quezada-Euán, D. B., LeBuhn, G., Maués, M., Pert, P., Kwapong, P. K., Saeed, S., Breslow, S. J., da Cunha, M. C., Dicks, L. V., Galetto, L., Gikungu, M., Howlett, B. G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V. L., Lyver, P. O. B., Martín-López, B., Oteros-Rozas, E., Potts, S. G., & Roué, M. (2019). Biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation. *Nature Sustainability*, 2(3), 214-222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0244-z

Hinojosa, L., Lambin, E. F., Mzoughi, N., & Napoléone, C. (2018). Constraints to farming in the Mediterranean Alps: reconciling environmental and agricultural policies. *Land Use Policy*, 75, 726-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.047

Holmes, G., Clemoes, J., Marriot, K., & Wynne-jones, S. (2022). The politics of the rural and relational values: Contested discourses of rural change and landscape futures in west Wales. *Geoforum*, 133(April), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.05.014

Ingold, T. (2018). Five questions of skill. *Cultural Geographies*, 25(1), 159-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474017702514

IPBES. (2022). *Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services*. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7687931

IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence Specialist Group. (2023). *IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence* (1st ed.). IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/YG1K2927

Ivašcu, C. M., & Biro, A. (2020). Coexistence through the ages: The role of native livestock Guardian dogs and traditional ecological knowledge as key resources in conflict mitigation between pastoralists and large carnivores in the Romanian Carpathians. *Journal of Ethnobiology*, 40(4), 465-482. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-40.4.465

Kadykalo, A. N., Cooke, S. J., & Young, N. (2021). The role of western-based scientific, indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. *People and Nature*, 3(3), 610-626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10194

Krauß, W., & Olwig, K. R. (2018). Special issue on pastoral landscapes caught between abandonment, rewilding and agro-environmental management. Is there an alternative future? *Landscape Research*, 43(8), 1015-1020. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1503844
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Kutal, M., Duła, M., Selivanova, A. R., & López-Bao, J. V. (2023). Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses. *Conservation Letters*, 17(1), e12994. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12994

Lécuyer, L., Alard, D., Calla, S., Coolsaet, B., Fickel, T., Heinsoo, K., Henle, K., Herzon, I., Hodgson, I., Quétier, F., McCracken, D., McMahon, B. J., Melts, I., Sands, D., Skrimzea, E., Watt, A., White, R., & Young, J. (2022). Conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe: Looking to the future by learning from the past. *Advances in Ecological Research*, 12, 3-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2021.10.005

Lécuyer, L., Balian, E., Butler, J. R. A., Barnaud, C., Calla, S., Locatelli, B., Newig, J., Pettit, J., Pound, D., Quétier, F., Salvatori, V., Von Korff, Y., & Young, J. C. (2024). The importance of understanding the multiple dimensions of power in stakeholder participation for effective biodiversity conservation. *People and Nature*, 6(4), 1407-1420. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan.3.10672

Li, T. M. (2007). *The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics*. Duke University Press.

LIFE Euro Large Carnivores. (n.d.). *Coexistence of Europeans and wild animals. Watch how coexistence works*. https://www.eurolargecarnivores.eu/videosofcoexistence

Linnell, J. D. C. (2023). Perspective: Recognising the power and limits of different forms of knowledge. *Carnivore Damage Prevention News*, Spring-Summer (26). https://www.protectiondestroupeaux.ch/fileadmin/doc/International/CDP_and_General_Infos/CDPNe ws26__Summer2023.pdf

López, I., & Pardo, M. (2018). Tourism versus nature conservation: Reconciliation of common interests and objectives—An analysis through Picos de Europa National Park. *Journal of Mountain Science*, 15(11), 2505–2516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-4943-0

Mailfert, K. (2007). New farmers and networks: How beginning farmers build social connections in France. *Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie*, 98(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00373.x

Marino, A., Ciucci, P., Redpath, S. M., Ricci, S., Young, J., & Salvatori, V. (2021). Broadening the toolset for stakeholder engagement to explore consensus over wolf management. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 296, 113125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113125

Matuk, F. A., Turnhout, E., Fleskens, L., do Amaral, E. F., Haverroth, M., & Behagel, J. H. (2020). Allying knowledge integration and co-production for knowledge legitimacy and usability: The Amazonian SISA policy and the Kaxinawá Indigenous people case. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 112, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.018

Meuret, M., Moulin, C. H., Bonnet, O., Garde, L., Nozières-Petit, M. O., & Lescureux, N. (2021). Missing shots: Has the possibility of shooting wolves been lacking for 20 years in France's livestock protection measures? *Rangeland Journal*, 42(6), 401-413. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ20046

Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Babai, D., Díaz, S., Garnett, S. T., Hill, R., Bates, P., Brondízio, E. S., Cariño, J., Demeter, L., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Guèze, M., McElwee, P., Öllerer, K., Purvis, A., Reyes-García, V., Samakov, A., & Singh, R. K. (2023). Towards richer knowledge partnerships between ecology and ethnoecology. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 39(2), 109-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.10.010

Molnár, Z., & Babai, D. (2021). Inviting ecologists to delve deeper into traditional ecological knowledge. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 36(8), 679-690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.04.006

Molnár, Z., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Schunko, C., Teixidor-Toneu, I., Jarić, I., Díaz-Reviriego, I., Ivascu, C., Babai, D., Sáfián, L., Karlsen, P., Dai, H., & Hill, R. (2023). Social justice for traditional knowledge holders will help conserve Europe's nature. *Biological Conservation*, 285, 110190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocen.2023.110190

Molnár, Z., Kelemen, A., Kun, R., Máté, J., Sáfián, L., Provenza, F., Díaz, S., Barani, H., Biró, M., Máté, A., & Vadász, C. (2020). Knowledge

co-production with traditional herders on cattle grazing behaviour for better management of species-rich grasslands. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, 57(9), 1677-1687. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13664

Nakata, M. (2007). The cultural interface. *The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education*, 36(S1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1326011100004646

Nori, M. (2022). Redressing policy making in pastoral areas of the Mediterranean region. *Journal of Policy & Governance*, 2(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.33002/jpg020103

Nori, M., & Berzi, D. (2021). *The uncertainties of co-existing with predators: Experiences from southern Europe*. Pastoralism, Uncertainty and Resilience - PASTRES. https://pastres.org/2021/05/21/the-uncertainties-of-co-existing-with-predators-experiences-from-southern-europe/

Nori, M., & Scoones, I. (2019). Pastoralism, uncertainty and resilience: Global lessons from the margins. *Pastoralism*, 9(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-019-0146-8

Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. *Nature Sustainability*, 3(3), 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Ogar, E., Pecl, G., & Mustonen, T. (2020). Science must embrace traditional and indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis. *One Earth*, 3(2), 162-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.006

Orr, D. W. (1996). Slow knowledge. *Conservation Biology*, 10(3), 699-702. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2387090

Papp, C.-R., Scheele, B. C., Rákosy, L., & Hartel, T. (2022). Transdisciplinary deficit in large carnivore conservation funding in Europe. *Nature Conservation*, 49, 31-52. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.49.81469

Pascual, U., Adams, W. M., Díaz, S., Lele, S., Mace, G. M., & Turnhout, E. (2021). Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. *Nature Sustainability*, 4(7), 567-572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7

Pettersson, H. L., Holmes, G., Quinn, C. H., Sait, S. M., & Blanco, J. C. (2023). Who must adapt to whom? Contested discourses on human–wolf coexistence and their impact on policy in Spain. *People and Nature*, 5(6), 1989–2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10543

Pettersson, H. L., Quinn, C. H., Holmes, G., & Sait, S. M. (2021). 'They belong here': Understanding the conditions of human-wolf coexistence in North-Western Spain. *Conservation Society*, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.4103/css_cs_13_21

Pettersson, H. L., Quinn, C. H., Holmes, G., Sait, S. M., & Lopez-Bao, J. V. (2021). Welcoming wolves? Governing the return of large carnivores in traditional pastoral landscapes. *Frontiers in Conservation Science*, 2, 710218. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.710218

Pooley, S. (2022). The challenge of compassion in predator conservation. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.977703

Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A. J., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A. J., Macdonald, D. W., Marvin, G., Redpath, S. M., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Zimmermann, A., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017). An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations. *Conservation Biology*, 31(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12859

Pooley, S., Bhatia, S., & Vasava, A. (2020). Rethinking the study of human-wildlife coexistence. *Conservation Biology*, 35(3), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13653

Rada Sereno, O., Sampedro Ortega, Y., Cadenas Fernandez, R. M., De La Fuente Valdivieso, A., Dominguez Riba, C., Turino Garcia, M., Espinoza Rincon, J. R., & Garcia Fernandez, J. (n.d.). *El Plan 42: Un programa integral para la prevención de incendios forestales (5 Congreso Forestal Espana)*. Junta de Castilla y Leon. file:///C:/Users/hlp555/Downloads/Resumen+Plan+42++Congreso+forestal.pdf

Redpath, S. M., Guitérres, R. J., Wood, K. A., & Young, J. C. (2015). *Conflicts in conservation: Navigating towards solutions*. Cambridge University Press.
Reed, M. G., Robson, J. P., Campos Rivera, M., Chapela, F., Davidson-Hunt, I., Friedrichsen, P., Haine, E., Johnston, A. B. D., Lichtenstein, G., Lynes, L. S., Oloko, M., Sánchez Luja, M., Shackleton, S., Soriano, M., Sosa Peréz, F., & Vasseur, L. (2023). Guiding principles for transdisciplinary sustainability research and practice. *People and Nature*, 5(4), 1094–1109. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10496

Roe, E. (2020). A new policy narrative for pastoralism? (STEPS Working Paper 113). STEPS Centre. https://opendocsids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/14978/STEPS_WP_113_Roe_FINAL.pdf?sequence=105&isAllowed=y

Saif, O., Keane, A. M., & Staddon, S. (2022). Making a case for the consideration of trust, justice and power in conservation relationships. *Conservation Biology*, 36(4), e13903. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13903

Salvatori, V., Balian, E., Blanco, J. C., Carbonell, X., Ciucci, P., Demeter, L., Marino, A., Panzavolta, A., Sólyom, A., von Korff, Y., & Young, J. C. (2021). Are large carnivores the real issue? Solutions for improving conflict management through stakeholder participation. *Sustainability*, 13(8), 4482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084482

Salvatori, V., Balian, E., Blanco, J. C., Ciucci, P., Demeter, L., Hartel, T., Marsden, K., Redpath, S. M., von Korff, Y., & Young, J. C. (2020). Applying participatory processes to address conflicts over the conservation of large carnivores: Understanding conditions for successful management. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution*, 8, 182.

Salvatori, V., Marino, A., Ciucci, P., Galli, C., Machetti, M., Passalacqua, E., Ricci, S., Romeo, G., Rosso, F., & Tudini, L. (2023). Managing wolf impacts on sheep husbandry: A collaborative implementation and assessment of damage prevention measures in an agricultural landscape. *Frontiers in Conservation Science*, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2023.1264166

Santiago-Avila, F. J., Cornman, A. M., & Treves, A. (2018). Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbors. *Public Library of Science ONE*, 13(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189729

Scoones, I. (Ed.). (2023). *Pastoralism, Uncertainty and Development*. Practical Action Publishing Practical Action Pub. https://practicalactionpublishing.com/book/2667/pastoralism-uncertainty-and-development

Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Risvoll, C., Kaarhus, R., Lundberg, A. K., & Sandström, C. (2020). Knowledge claims and struggles in decentralized large carnivore governance: insights from Norway and Sweden. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution*, 8(June). https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00120

Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. *Global Environmental Change*, 16(3), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008

Søraa, R. A., & Vik, J. (2021). Boundaryless boundary-objects: Digital fencing of the CyborGoat in rural Norway. *Journal of Rural Studies*, 87, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.08.015

Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T., & Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—Lessons learned for sustainability. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 26–27, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005

Toncheva, S., & Fletcher, R. (2021). Knowing bears: An ethnographic study of knowledge and agency in human-bear cohabitation. *Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space*, 251484862110150. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211015037

Torre, C. D., Stemberger, S., Bottura, J., Corrent, M., Zanoni, S., Fusari, D., & Gatto, P. (2022). Revitalizing collective resources in mountain areas through community engagement and knowledge cocreation. *Mountain Research and Development*, 42(4), D1–D13. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.2022.00013.1

Trouwborst, A. (2017). Law and conservation conflicts. In S. M. Redpath, R. J. Gutierrez, K. A. Wood, J. C. Young, A. Evely, & M. Reed (Eds.), *Conflicts in conservation* (pp. 108–121). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084574.009

Ulicsni, V., Babai, D., Vadász, C., Vadász-Besnyői, V., Báldi, A., & Molnár, Z. (2019). Bridging conservation science and traditional knowledge of wild animals: The need for expert guidance and inclusion of local knowledge holders. *Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment*, 48(7), 769–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1106-z

United Nations. (2007). *United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples*. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section. https://www.ohchr.org/en/indigenous-peoples/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples

Vaccaro, I., Beltran, O., & Del Mármol, C. (2023). Reimagining modern politics in the European mountains: Confronting the traditional commons with the neo-rural conception of the common good. *Theory and Society*, 53(1), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-023-09528-1

Vizuete, B., Oteros-Rozas, E., & García-Llorente, M. (2024). Role of the neo-rural phenomenon and the new peasantry in agroecological transitions: A literature review. *Agriculture and Human Values*, 41, 1277–1297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10537-0

Von Essen, E., & Redmalm, D. (2023). Social licence to cull: Examining scepticism toward lethal wildlife removal in cities. *People and Nature*, 5(4), 1353–1363. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10518

Wall Kimmerer, R. (2013). *Braiding sweetgrass*. Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.

Ween, G. B., & Riseth, J. Å. (2011). Doing is learning: Analysis of an unsuccessful attempt to adapt TEK/IK methodology to Norwegian Sámi circumstances. *Acta Borealia*, 28(2), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/08003831.2011.626944?needAccess=true

West, S. L., Haider, J., Stålhammar, S., & Woroniecki, S. (2020). A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. *Ecosystems and People*, 16(1), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417

White, E. (2022). *Good for the land good for the people good for the economy—A call to action to recognize, support and implement indigenous protected and conserved areas and Indigenous Guardians in British Columbia*. Indigenous Leadership Initiative. https://www.wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/2022-01-20-ipcas-indigenous-guardians-discussion-paper_final_web-min.pdf

Whyte, K. (2017). Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing Futures, decolonizing the anthropocene. *English Language Notes*, 55(1–2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-55-1.2.153

Williams, D. R. (2013). Science, practice, and place. In W. P. Stewart, D. R. Williams, & L. E. Kruger (Eds.), *Place-based conservation* (pp. 21–34). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5802-5_2

Williams, D. R. (2014). Making sense of 'place': Reflections on pluralism and positionality in place research. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, 131, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.002

Williams, D. R. (2018). Spacing conservation practice: Place-making, social learning, and adaptive landscape governance in natural resource management. In T. Marsden (Ed.), *The sage handbook on nature*, V3. Sage Publications.

Zimmermann, A., McQuinn, B., & Macdonald, D. W. (2020). Levels of conflict over wildlife: Understanding and addressing the right problem. *Conservation Science and Practice*, 2(10), e259. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp.2.259

**How to cite this article:** Pettersson, H., Lécuyer, L., Young, J., Stringer, L., Calla, S., Juhász, E., & Mólnar, Z. (2025). Who is local and what do they know? Braiding knowledges within carnivore management in Europe. *People and Nature*, 00, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10797