Biodiversity conservation are increasingly focused on involving stakeholder engagement, making power a key concept in understanding its success and failure. Power is often conceptualized as unidimensional and coercive, but a multidimensional view better reflects structural power, as well as its productive and enabling potential. This paper investigates how different dimensions of power in participatory processes affect biodiversity conservation objectives. Six case studies from Europe and Asia‐Pacific were analysed using an adapted framework that explores the interlinkages between ‘power over’ and ‘transformative power’, looking at the scale and space in which power occurs, and analysing in which arenas of power and under which form of expression it appears. The framework distinguishes between the different ways to exert influence (‘power to’, ‘power with’, ‘power within’, ‘power for’), as well as the dynamics of domination and resistance observed in decision‐making (visible power), hidden biases and exclusionary experiences (hidden power), and actions that either reinforce or resist social norms and beliefs (invisible and systematic power). Focusing on biodiversity, the different arenas of power allow us to go deeper than the surface issues and conflicting interests of diverse participants, regarding for example wildlife, to question underlying power dynamics. Different expressions of power, more specifically the ‘power for’ dimension, allow an understanding of how participants integrate nature and biodiversity in their aspirations. The different levels of power also highlight the need to focus not only on the local level but to analyse how participatory processes are embedded in national, or even international governance in a globalized world. Finally, they shed light on two challenges in participatory processes regarding biodiversity: the representation of non‐human interests (designated here as ‘beyond‐human’ voices), and the integration of multiple forms of knowledge systems. Synthesis and applications: Integrating power into biodiversity issues involves deconstructing normalized discourses that focus solely on certain more powerful human agents, their interests and scientific knowledge, and creating new narratives, knowledge and embodied practice of learning and action to encompass a wider diversity of voices and views. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Conservation biology is a mission‐driven discipline that must navigate a new relationship between conservation and science. Because conservation is a social and political as well as an ecological project, conservation biologists must practice interdisciplinarity and collaboration. In a comparative study of 7 cases (Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Jaguars in Mexico, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico), we examined motivations for collaboration in conservation, who can collaborate in conservation, and how conservation professionals can work well together. In 5 case studies, successful conservation outcomes were prioritized over livelihood benefits. In the other 2 cases, livelihoods were prioritized. All case studies employed participatory approaches. There were multiple external actors, including local and Indigenous communities, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, regional and national governments, and international organizations, which enhanced conservation and wider sustainability outcomes. Key collaboration aspects considered across the case studies were time (mismatch between relationship building and project schedules), trust required for meaningful partnerships, tools employed, and transformative potential for people, nature, and the discipline of conservation biology. We developed guidelines for successful collaboration, including long‐term commitment, knowledge integration, multiscalar and plural approaches, cultivation of trust, appropriate engagement, evaluation, supporting students, and efforts for transformation.

Successful adaptation often involves changes to the decision context to enable new ways of thinking and acting on climate change. Using 16 adaptation initiatives the authors were engaged with, we analysed how and why decision contexts changed to identify ways to improve adaptation as a process of collective deliberation and social learning. We used the scope of the adaptation issue and governance arrangements to classify initiatives into four types and scored changes in the decision context using three frameworks: (1) the values, rules and knowledge (VRK) perspective to identify changes to adaptation decision‐making; (2) the five dimensions of futures consciousness to identify the building of adaptation capabilities and (3) the social learning cycle to reveal evidence of reflexive learning. Initiatives using novel governance arrangements for discrete problems (‘problem governance’) or complex, systemic issues (‘systems governance’) scored highest for influences of VRK, futures consciousness and the social learning cycle on the decision context. Initiatives using existing management for discrete problems (‘problem management’) scored moderately for change in the decision context, while those using existing management for systemic issues (‘systems management’) scored low because change was often impeded by existing rules. All three frameworks influenced decision contexts in systems governance initiatives. Problem governance initiatives revealed interactions of VRK and futures consciousness but limited influence of VRK on the social learning cycle. Scope and governance arrangements differ with the adaptation issue and initiatives adapt over time: some small‐scale ones became more systemic, developed novel governance arrangements and changed the decision context. Our findings do not show that some adaptation initiatives are better or more transformative than others; just that their scope and appropriate governance arrangements are different. This questions the notion that successful adaptation requires building generic transformative adaptation approaches and capabilities. There is a diversity of arrangements that work. What is important is to align the approach to the adaptation problem. We suggest two directions for improving adaptation initiatives: first, by influencing how they can shift between problem and systems focus and between standard management and novel governance, and secondly, by using methods to diagnose and direct change in the decision context. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.