Suchergebnisse

Conservation conflicts tend to be highly complex, feed on uncertainty and affect people and organisations at different scales (Chapter 15). Traditionally, resolving these conflicts has been a 'top-down' process, led by governments and their official representatives, supported by scientifically trained specialists, with those affected by the conflict often relegated to the role of data-gatherers and passive recipients of information and instructions. These top-down conflict resolution processes typically seek the 'right' answer, as determined by national politics, laws or academic opinions. They are often framed in Western discourses about the intrinsic value of nature, over-riding older, more utilitarian values as 'backward' and 'damaging' (Zammit-Lucia, 2011). However, rather than resolve conflict, these top-down approaches have often inflamed conflict – for example, prompting violent protest or resettlement of protected areas by evicted communities (Brockington and Igoe, 2006). In contrast to this, it has been claimed that more bottom-up, participatory approaches to controversial conservation issues have the capacity to avoid, cope with or resolve conflicts. Bottom-up approaches to resolving conservation conflicts, it is argued, have the capacity to build trust and facilitate learning among stakeholders, who are then more likely to support project goals and implement decisions in the long term (Beierle, 2002; Reed, 2008). However, there are also many critics of bottom-up approaches to conservation conflicts. For example, problems with stakeholder representation or participatory process design mean processes fail to achieve their goals or exacerbate conflict (Stringer et al., 2007; Scott, 2011). As such, it has started to be recognised that the outputs (e.g. strategies, plans or other agreements) and ultimate outcomes (e.g. social learning, network forming, preference change, implementation of solutions) of bottom-up approaches to conservation conflicts are highly dependent on the selection of participants, the process design and the context in which they are conducted (de Vente et al., in press). Top-down and bottom-up approaches represent two opposite extremes, and in reality elements of both approaches are often combined successfully. © British Ecological Society 2015.

This paper outlines five principles for effective practice of knowledge exchange, which when applied, have the potential to significantly enhance the impact of environmental management research, policy and practice. The paper is based on an empirical analysis of interviews with 32 researchers and stakeholders across 13 environmental management research projects, each of which included elements of knowledge co-creation and sharing in their design. The projects focused on a range of upland and catchment management issues across the UK, and included Research Council, Government and NGO funded projects. Preliminary findings were discussed with knowledge exchange professionals and academic experts to ensure the emerging principles were as broadly applicable as possible across multiple disciplines. The principles suggest that: knowledge exchange needs to be designed into research; the needs of likely research users and other stakeholders should be systematically represented in the research where possible; and long-term relationships must be built on trust and two-way dialogue between researchers and stakeholders in order to ensure effective co-generation of new knowledge. We found that the delivery of tangible benefits early on in the research process helps to ensure continued motivation and engagement of likely research users. Knowledge exchange is a flexible process that must be monitored, reflected on and continuously refined, and where possible, steps should be taken to ensure a legacy of ongoing knowledge exchange beyond initial research funding. The principles have been used to inform the design of knowledge exchange and stakeholder engagement guidelines for two international research programmes. They are able to assist researchers, decision-makers and other stakeholders working in contrasting environmental management settings to work together to co-produce new knowledge, and more effectively share and apply existing knowledge to manage environmental change.

This paper outlines five principles for effective practice of knowledge exchange, which when applied, have the potential to significantly enhance the impact of environmental management research, policy and practice. The paper is based on an empirical analysis of interviews with 32 researchers and stakeholders across 13 environmental management research projects, each of which included elements of knowledge co-creation and sharing in their design. The projects focused on a range of upland and catchment management issues across the UK, and included Research Council, Government and NGO funded projects. Preliminary findings were discussed with knowledge exchange professionals and academic experts to ensure the emerging principles were as broadly applicable as possible across multiple disciplines. The principles suggest that: knowledge exchange needs to be designed into research; the needs of likely research users and other stakeholders should be systematically represented in the research where possible; and long-term relationships must be built on trust and two-way dialogue between researchers and stakeholders in order to ensure effective co-generation of new knowledge. We found that the delivery of tangible benefits early on in the research process helps to ensure continued motivation and engagement of likely research users. Knowledge exchange is a flexible process that must be monitored, reflected on and continuously refined, and where possible, steps should be taken to ensure a legacy of ongoing knowledge exchange beyond initial research funding. The principles have been used to inform the design of knowledge exchange and stakeholder engagement guidelines for two international research programmes. They are able to assist researchers, decision-makers and other stakeholders working in contrasting environmental management settings to work together to co-produce new knowledge, and more effectively share and apply existing knowledge to manage environmental change. © 2014 The Authors.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of existing policies, programmes and legislation in promoting sustainable land management and livelihoods in mid-central Botswana. The paper is based on data from the survey of relevant literature, analysis of policy and legal documents, field observations and a series of stakeholder workshops held in the villages of Mopipi, Mokobaxane and Rakops in Boteti Sub-District between 2008 and 2009. The study's findings indicate that formal land use and rangeland management institutions have influenced the process of environmental change in the study area, mostly in a negative way. Institutional failure and support to the expansion of the livestock sector have promoted overstocking; arable production support has encouraged land clearance in a drought-prone and windy area; whereas protectionist wildlife management has been in conflict with, rather than complementary to, traditional uses of the communal rangelands. The environmental outcomes of all this have been the shrinkage of the Boteti commons, overgrazing, deforestation and wind erosion. The study recommends adoption of a community-based natural resource management strategy, which could simultaneously secure livelihoods and conserve the commons. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

It has become increasingly clear that desertification can only be tackled through a multi-disciplinary approach that not only involves scientists but also stakeholders. In the DESIRE project such an approach was taken. As a first step, a conceptual framework was developed in which the factors and processes that may lead to land degradation and desertification were described. Many of these factors do not work independently, but can reinforce or weaken one another, and to illustrate these relationships sustainable management and policy feedback loops were included. This conceptual framework can be applied globally, but can also be made site-specific to take into account that each study site has a unique combination of bio-physical, socio-economic and political conditions. Once the conceptual framework was defined, a methodological framework was developed in which the methodological steps taken in the DESIRE approach were listed and their logic and sequence were explained. The last step was to develop a concrete working plan to put the project into action, involving stakeholders throughout the process. This series of steps, in full or in part, offers explicit guidance for other organizations or projects that aim to reduce land degradation and desertification. © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media New York.

The theoretical framework outlined in this paper was developed initially through a series of expert workshops as part of the Valuing Nature Network — BRIDGE: From Values to Decisions project, funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). It was developed further through the follow-on phase of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (Work Package 6: Shared, Plural and Cultural Values) funded by the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh Government, NERC, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). ; Social valuation of ecosystem services and public policy alternatives is one of the greatest challenges facing ecological economists today. Frameworks for valuing nature increasingly include shared/social values as a distinct category of values. However, the nature of shared/social values, as well as their relationship to other values, has not yet been clearly established and empirical evidence about the importance of shared/social values for valuation of ecosystem services is lacking. To help address these theoretical and empirical limitations, this paper outlines a framework of shared/social values across five dimensions: value concept, provider, intention, scale, and elicitation process. Along these dimensions we identify seven main, non-mutually exclusive types of shared values: transcendental, cultural/societal, communal, group, deliberated and other-regarding values, and value to society. Using a case study of a recent controversial policy on forest ownership in England, we conceptualise the dynamic interplay between shared/social and individual values. The way in which social value is assessed in neoclassical economics is discussed and critiqued, followed by consideration of the relation between shared/social values and Total Economic Value, and a review of deliberative and non-monetary methods for assessing shared/social values. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of shared/social values for decision-making. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed