Adapting Adaptive Management to a Cultural Understanding of Land Use Con£icts KETIL SKOGEN Social Research, Oslo, Norway, and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) Human Environment Division Lillehammer, Norway Adaptive management models are designed to include a variety of stakeholders, but they may still exclude significant groups. Drawing on two Norwegian studies of conflicts over large carnivores, one such group is identified as working-class men with strong ties to local hunting and ‘‘outdoorsman’’ culture. For them, the carnivore controversies are part of a conflict between dominant and subordinate cultural forms and bodies of knowledge. Representing dominant culture and hegemonic knowledge, managers and scientists have a hard time establishing rapport with anticarnivore hardliners. It is suggested that joint practical work may diminish some cultural barriers, and a project where this has been crucial is described. The lynx registration program in southeastern Norway brings together biologists, managers, and local hunters in practical field work in order to make population estimates. Although motivated by a demand for ‘‘exact numbers,’’ this project apparently has succeeded in narrowing some cultural gaps as well. Keywords adaptive management, culture, knowledge, land use conflicts, large carnivores, social class Various models for resolving conflicts over land use have been developed in recent years. Common to many of these is that they attempt to integrate a range of interest groups in collaborative decision-making processes, thus (hopefully) forming new ‘‘cooperative multi-stakeholder partnerships’’ (Sinclair and Smith 1999; Blumenthal and Jannink 2000) and reaching consensus-based decisions. These new management approaches are improvements over older ones exclusively founded on scientific- technical paradigms and trust in expert solutions (see Jacobson and McDuff 1998). However, many attempts at integrating multiple interest groups into decision- making processes appear to have limitations that may be of consequence (Selin and Chavez 1995; Gray 2000). In this article I discuss why collaborative decision-making processes may, however inadvertently, exclude some concerned groups, and I indi- cate one possible course of action for improving this situation. Received 4 June 2001; accepted 9 July 2002. This research was funded by grants from the Research Council of Norway, Environment and Development Division. Address correspondence to Ketil Skogen, NOVA—Norwegian Social Research, PO Box 3223 Elisenberg, N-0208 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: ketil.skogen@nova.no 435 Society and Natural Resources, 16:435–450, 2003 Copyright # 2003 Taylor & Francis 0894-1920/2003 $12.00 + .00 DOI: 10.1080/08941920390190069