Suchergebnisse

Assessments of environmental issues are often expected to tackle the perceived disconnect between scientific knowledge and environmental policy making. However, their actual influence on processes of knowledge communication and use remains understudied. We provide one of the first studies of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA), itself one of the first national-level assessments of ecosystem services. We explore expectations, early experiences, and implications for its role in promoting knowledge use, drawing on both documentary evidence and qualitative analysis of interviews with NEA authors and potential users. Many interviewees expected instrumental use; that is, facts directly assisting problem solving. This matches the rhetoric surrounding the NEA's creation. However, we found more early evidence of interacting conceptual uses (learning), and strategic uses (sometimes deemed misuse). Such uses depend not only on assessment outputs, such as reports, but also on the processes of communication and interaction by which these are created. Thus, planning and analysis of such assessments should deemphasise instrumental use and instead focus on the complex knowledge 'coproduction' processes by which diverse and interacting forms of knowledge use may be realised.

Conflicts between people over conservation are increasing and are likely to become more acute with global change and increased competition for resources. In this article, we add to the toolbox of conservation practitioners trying to prevent and resolve conflicts, often in a local or regional context, with insights and knowledge from the techniques that diplomats employ. These techniques include conflict prevention such as early-warning systems and knowledge gathering for in-depth understanding of conflicts. Conflict resolution is managed through quiet or preventive diplomacy, such as mediation, shuttle diplomacy and arbitration, or the application of external pressures including through media campaigns, legislation and sanctions. We argue that while conservation may in some cases already use these techniques, their application could be more widespread, and conservationists could make greater use of the wealth of resources available to guide the use of those techniques. We conclude with a need for more systematic dissemination and use of these techniques, as well as sharing of experiences of conflict prevention and resolution in conservation to build greater capacity and reduce the negative impacts of conflicts on conservation outcomes and human well-being.

The way in which research-based knowledge is used, interpreted and communicated by different actors can influence the dynamics of conservation conflicts. The conflict that occurs between grouse shooting interests and the conservation of birds of prey in Scotland is notoriously complex, involving multiple actors at multiple levels, and shaped by the values and world views of these actors. This paper explores how research-based knowledge is used in the debate by six key organisations, and looks to understand the drivers that may influence knowledge use and interpretation in this, and other, cases of conservation conflict. Research was used to both legitimise and reinforce certain world views, and to support associated political actions that would cause these to become reality. Actors offered divergent interpretations of the same piece of research, emphasising different findings and outcomes. Research-based knowledge was thus employed by actors to support or counter the 'status quo', and challenge other claims that clashed with their own values. Although the intention of such knowledge use is unclear, the selective reconstruction of research by actors could stem from, and reiterate, divergent value systems. This may pose significant challenges to conflict mitigation efforts; whilst some may look to research-based knowledge as the bringer of truth, its interpretation by different actors may exacerbate existing rifts between stakeholders; promoting polarisation of views. Mitigation strategies should be sensitive to this, and aim to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of the knowledge transfer process.

In February 2016, the EKLIPSE project started. This project, funded by the European Union, aims to develop an innovative, light, ethical and self-sustainable EU support mechanism for evidence-based and evidence-informed policy on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and to hand over this mechanism to the wider community once established. The mechanism will provide trustworthy evidence for policy and society upon request and will make the knowledge community more responsive by providing a platform for mutual learning and engagement with policy and society. This presentation will cover the challenges at the science-policy-society interface and ways of addressing them. In particular, we will share and discuss how different approaches are currently being developed at the EU level to support better policy decisions on our environment based on the best available knowledge. ; peerReviewed

Improving resilience in forests relies on an understanding of the values, knowledge and practices associated with forests. In this paper, based on a case study from the UK, we present qualitative data on how the concept of resilience is understood by decision-makers, the effectiveness of existing policy tools to promote resilient forests and the current boundaries and social acceptability of different management options. Our research reveals that the articulation of actual, possible and needed policy responses reflects the challenge that resilience is a multifaceted concept with an array of potential implications, connected with a diverse set of forest ecosystems. Our research suggests that the collaborative development and promotion of an overarching vision for resilience, which recognises the needs and contexts of different owners and managers in the sector, might begin to overcome the current challenge of fragmented policy and lack of policy tools. This will necessarily involve discussion and coordination across different areas of government and involve those agencies and organisations responsible for the science behind resilience approaches and applications. In particular, there is a need to contextualise and communicate resilience in line with stakeholder needs, and to articulate the uncertainty associated with resilience measures in a range of situations so public agencies, forest owners and managers can make informed choices.

Stakeholder cooperation can be vital in managing conservation conflicts. Laboratory experiments show cooperation is less likely in the presence of uncertainty. Much less is known about how stakeholders in real-life conservation conflicts respond to different types of uncertainty. We tested the effects of different sources of uncertainty on cooperative behaviour using a framed field experiment and interviews. The experiment compared a baseline scenario of perfect certainty with scenarios including either: (a) scientific uncertainty about the effectiveness of a conflict-reduction intervention; (b) administrative uncertainty about intervention funding; or (c) political uncertainty about the extent of community support. We applied these scenarios to a conservation conflict in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, involving the management of geese to simultaneously meet both conservation and farming objectives. We asked 149 crofters (small-scale farmers) if they would commit to cooperate with others by helping fund a goose management plan given the three sources of uncertainty. On average, intention to cooperate was highest (99%) in scenarios without uncertainty, and lowest under administrative uncertainty (77%). Scientific uncertainty and political uncertainty both had less of an effect, with over 95% of crofters predicted to be willing to cooperate in these scenarios. Crofters who indicated concern for other crofters suffering the impact of geese were more likely to cooperate. The longer an individual had been a crofter, the less likely they were to cooperate. Synthesis and applications. Crofters' intention to cooperate is high but lessened by uncertainty, especially over the commitment from other stakeholders such as government, to cooperate on goose management. Existing cooperation on goose management may be at risk if uncertainty is not reduced outright or commitments between parties are not strengthened. This has wide applicability, supporting the need for researchers and government advisers to: (a) determine how ...

Interactions between individuals and groups drive conservation conflict. Interventions to reduce conflict based on altering interaction characteristics such as frequency, type or even existence of an interaction, require an understanding of how the variables which influence interactions are interrelated. Variables include: the group affiliation of actors involved in the conflict; the power imbalances actors perceive between themselves and others; and the influence actors have both formally and informally on decision making. Social network analysis can be used to understand the relationships between variables such as group affiliation and the likelihood of interaction between two actors. At several locations across Scotland, UK, large increases in wild goose populations have resulted in increasing goose grazing and fouling damage to arable crops and to grassland intended for livestock. Conflict between those with goose conservation priorities and those with agricultural priorities has emerged. Having recognised goose conflict as a problem, the Scottish government promoted the formation of formal local goose management groups (LGMGs) at several conflict hotspots. Each group includes local representatives from stakeholders involved in the conflicts including farmers, wildlife conservation NGOs, government, protected area managers, wildfowl hunters and land owners. We collected network data at two island locations in Scotland, The Orkney Islands, and The Uists, where increasing numbers of greylag geese (Anser anser) have resulted in LGMGs being formed. In order to examine how different individuals interact with both the LGMG and with other groups involved in conflict, we use exponential random graph modelling (EGRM) to determine if: i) groups perceived as having greater influence on goose management are more likely to have interactions with individuals; ii) farmers are a homogenous group, more likely to interact with the same groups as other farmers; and iii) the member groups of the LGMG are less likely to interact with individuals who are not themselves affiliated with the LGMG. Here we present how the network structure in each goose conflict offers potential interventions, both at these locations and more generally for managing conservation conflict. ; peerReviewed