Community engagement and power dynamics in conservation philanthropy grant making

Author:

Betsill Michele M.1ORCID,Gruby Rebecca L.2,Blackwatters Jeffrey2,Enrici Ash3,Le Cornu Elodie2,Basurto Xavier4,English Chad5,Hudson Charlotte6,Meth Leah7,Fairweather‐Morrison Imani8,Okano Dana9,Secord David10

Affiliation:

1. Department of Political Science Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA

2. Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA

3. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy Indiana University Indianapolis Indiana USA

4. Nicholas School of the Environment Duke University Beaufort North Carolina USA

5. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation Los Altos California USA

6. Lenfest Ocean Program Washington, DC USA

7. California Environmental Associates San Francisco California USA

8. Oak Foundation Geneva Switzerland

9. Hawaii Community Foundation Honolulu Hawaii USA

10. Barnacle Strategies Salt Spring Island British Columbia Canada

Abstract

AbstractFunding decisions influence where, how, and by whom conservation is pursued globally. In the context of growing calls for more participatory, Indigenous‐led, and socially just conservation, we undertook the first empirical investigation of how philanthropic foundations working in marine conservation globally engage communities in grant‐making decisions. We paid particular attention to whether and how community engagement practices reinforce or disrupt existing power dynamics. We conducted semistructured remote interviews with 46 individuals from 32 marine conservation foundations to identify how conservation foundations engage communities in setting their priorities and deciding which organizations and projects to fund. We found that community engagement in foundation decision‐making was limited in practice. Eleven of the 32 foundations reported some form of community engagement in funding decisions. Two of these foundations empowered communities to shape funding priorities and projects through strong forms of engagement. Many engagement practices were one way, one time, or indirect and confined to certain points in decision‐making processes. These weaker practices limited community input and reinforced unequal power relations, which may undermine the legitimacy, equity, and effectiveness of conservation efforts. We suggest that foundations aim for stronger forms of community engagement and reflect on how their grant‐making practices affect power relations between foundations and communities.

Funder

David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Publisher

Wiley

Reference84 articles.

1. Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network (AEGN). (2022).Environmental and Climate Change Giving Trends 2022.https://www.aegn.org.au/environmental‐and‐climate‐change‐giving‐trends‐2022/

2. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation

3. Decolonizing Environmental Justice Studies: A Latin American Perspective

4. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation

5. Asiti W.(2023 June 14). Actualizing trust‐based participatory grantmaking for youth climate movements!Alliance.https://www.alliancemagazine.org/blog/actualizing‐trust‐based‐participatory‐grantmaking‐for‐youth‐climate‐movements

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3