 |
| Title | Size | Date | Provider | Folder |
 | BESAFE D2.3 2016-07-18 Revised
| 3.34MB | 29.09.2016 | Marion Bogers | DELIVERABLES | |
 |
| BESAFE_Deliverable_5.2_2016_Revised
| 1.75MB | 29.09.2016 | Marion Bogers | DELIVERABLES | |
|
| BESAFE Deliverable 5.3 2016 Revised
| 848.89KB | 29.09.2016 | Marion Bogers | DELIVERABLES | |
|
| Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis
For many deep-rooted resource conflicts where the cultural component of ecosystem services (ES) is strong, standard monetary valuation may be methodologically difficult and not always meaningful. A deeper understanding of the value plurality of key stakeholders may be called for to develop acceptable policies. We use the Q method to analyse the perceived and actual trade-offs related to Norwegian wildlife management, a source of prominent conflict in Norway. We identify and classify distinct arguments in the wildlife management debate following the ES framework, and use the Q method to explore extant/prominent narratives characterising stakeholders' perceptions of the importance of arguments about biodiversity and ES. Finally, we reflect on whether and to what extent the Q method can contribute to our understanding of resource conflicts, underlying values, and ES trade-offs. Three clear narratives appeared: Pro-sheep grazing (cultural), pro-carnivore conservation (intrinsic) and a middle position emphasising recreational hunting (utilitarian). Despite considerable disagreement among narratives, the Q analysis also revealed areas of common ground useful for developing acceptable policies. Given the inherent complexity of socio-ecological systems, it is useful to draw from a diverse toolbox of methods, including the Q method for ES analysis. | 619.88KB | 12.08.2015 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
|
| Wildlife comeback in Flanders: tracing the fault lines and dynamics of public debate
Conflicts and debates on wildlife issues often prove “intractable” or resistant to resolution. This paper develops a three-layered methodological approach to identify the fault lines and dynamics, which perpetuate social division and conflict. This approach was applied to the analysis of six publicly debated events that followed the comeback of the red fox and wild boar in Flanders, Belgium. The integrated findings demonstrate that conflict was not merely a manifestation of incompatible goals and views, but was highly determined by the conduct of the debate itself. The debates evolved along a few main fault lines, most notably “belonging/not belonging”, “opportunity/threat” and “control by intervention/nature controls itself”. A number of dynamics were identified along these fault lines, including the convergence and alignment of arguments (in particular, dichotomisation), the linking and scaling up of issues and the stigmatisation of outgroups. These processes were largely driven by the parties’ strategies to gain credibility and support with audiences. At the same time, however, they tended to magnify the problems, polarised positions along the fault lines, and thus hampered resolution. Furthermore, part of the debate served to confirm institutional roles and identities, which, in turn, contributed to the perpetuation of conflict. Contrasting views on “nature” were hardly a topic of discussion. Rather they were locked into dichotomies and classifications expressed by the contending parties. Together, the findings from this paper provide useful clues for transforming the dynamics perpetuating the conflict to different dynamics that allow for more constructive relations between the parties involved. | 318.72KB | 01.06.2015 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
|
|
Document Library