Empowering conservation decisions: Toward a theory of authentic arenas for environmental conflict management

Environmental decision-making is challenged by the complexity and intensity of environmental problems, social needs, and moral values. One way to address these challenges is to facilitate empowered and effective arenas for problem-solving. Toward that end, I have synthesized the Authentic Arena Theoretical Framework (AATF). The AATF is a holistic, practical, interdisciplinary, and theory-based approach to creating and improving decision-making arenas. The driving force of the AATF is the concept of authenticity, which fosters decisions that are satisfactory, effective, implemented, and environmentally and socially sound. I base the framework and concept of authenticity on an earlier definition of authentic arenas, three case studies, and a broad multidisciplinary literature review. This review includes conflict management, conservation biology, political science, and anthropology, as well as adaptations of authenticity from the fields of leadership, public governance, and eastern philosophy.; Authenticity in an arena is critical because it determines the relevancy and favorableness of decisions for a society and an environment. To explore this idea, I evaluated the authenticity of three arenas using the AATF as an analytical lens. The arenas were the Land Use Commission (LUC) of Hawaii, the Kona/Kohala Natural Resources Roundtable (KKRT) in Hawaii, and the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (RMPAT) of Tasmania, Australia. Each arena addressed disputes between conservation and development to varying degrees of success. My focus was on the functionality, empowerment, and effectiveness of the arenas for dispute resolution and decision-making. Data collection included archival extraction, in-depth interviews, surveys, and personal observation. I found the LUC was functionally authentic, the KKRT had limited authenticity, and RMPAT appeared functionally authentic but, when tested by a particular dispute, had limited authenticity. I suggest the AATF can be used to diagnose strengths and weaknesses of an arena and to identify areas for improvement. A final comparative assessment of the arenas provided insights on the power of authenticity for decision-making and demonstrated the utility of the AATF as a problem-solving tool. I conclude arenas with greater degrees of authenticity tend to have more capable decision-making and more effective decisions.