Collaborative governance approaches have been suggested as strategies to handle wicked environmental problems. Evaluations have found promising examples of effective natural resource governance, but also highlighted the importance of social-ecological context and institutional design. The aim of this study was to identify factors that contribute to the achievement of social and ecological sustainability within Swedish moose (Alces alces) management. In 2012, a multi-level collaborative governance regime was implemented to decrease conflicts among stakeholders. We carried out semi-structured interviews with six ‘good examples’ (i.e., Moose Management Groups that showed positive social and ecological outcomes). We found that ‘good examples’ collectively identified existing knowledge gaps and management challenges and used their discretionary power to develop procedural arrangements that are adapted to the social-ecological context, their theory of change, and attributes of local actors. This contributed to the creation of bridging social capital and principled engagement across governance levels. Thus, our results indicate the existence of higher-order social learning as well as a positive feedback from within-level collaboration dynamics to between-level collaboration. Furthermore, our study illustrates the importance of institutional flexibility to utilize the existing knowledge across stakeholder groups and to allow for adaptations based on the social learning process.

European researchers from both the natural and social sciences show growing interest in studying interactions between society and wildlife. A wealth of theoretical frameworks, concepts, and methods are used, but an integration of perspectives is lacking. This research note summarizes results from two workshops that included 63 delegates from 25 European countries, as well as a follow-up survey of 41 respondents. Two main theoretical approaches to the study of human–wildlife interactions were identified. One approach focuses on the collective societal level relying on theories of governance, social representation, deliberative procedures, and commons theory. The other approach targets individuals or groups, and is based on theories such as the cognitive hierarchy, theory of reasoned action, and theory of planned behavior. Interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to identify the best options for wildlife conservation and management in a more politically integrated Europe.

Foraging on crops by wild ungulates may create human–wildlife conflicts through reducing crop production. Ungulates interact with and within complex socio‐ecological systems, making the reduction of crop damage a challenging task. Aside from ungulate densities, crop damage is influenced by different drivers affecting ungulate foraging behaviour: food availability and food quality in the landscape (i.e. the foodscape) as well as fear from hunting and scaring actions (i.e. the landscape of fear) may together affect the degree of damage via both direct and indirect effects. A better understanding of the individual effects of these potential drivers behind crop damage is needed, as is an appreciation of whether the effects are dependent on ungulate density. We investigated this by applying path analysis to test indirect and direct links between ungulate density, foodscape, landscape of fear and human management goals on crop damage of oats and grass, respectively. Our results suggest that crop type is the major driver behind crop damage, with more damage to oats than to leys, implying that human decisions (i.e. changing crop type) influence the level of crop damage. We found that management goals and actions influenced the foodscape and the landscape of fear, by affecting the amount of forage produced in the agricultural landscape and the amount of scaring actions. Additionally, we found that supplementary feeding influenced the local ungulate densities in the area. Our results highlight the importance of including human actions on multiple levels when assessing drivers behind damage by ungulates in managed landscapes. We suggest that more studies using path analysis on multiple scales are needed in order to tackle complex issues, such as crop damage and other human–wildlife conflicts.