HomeDocument Library

        

  Document Library - Sorted Descending by Size

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
Title ↓ ↑Size ↓ ↑Date ↓ ↑Provider ↓ ↑Folder ↓ ↑
MS PowerPointExchange day - introduction
This is an introduction to the BIOMOT-BESAFE exchange day		 441.8KB27.04.2012Pavel StoevPresentations_24-4-2012 
MS WordDeliverable template
 435.5KB20.11.2012Marion BogersGENERAL DOCUMENTS (DoW, GA, logos) 
PDFCommunication strategy
 420.74KB29.09.2012Marion BogersDELIVERABLES 
PDFCommon Implementation Framework (CIF) of the Biodiversity Strategy
 407.09KB27.09.2012Joachim MaesSeptember meeting 2012 (Sweden) 
MS PowerPointWP1 argument classification
 401.73KB11.04.2013Marion BogersPROTOCOLS 
MS PowerPointWP1 argument classification
 401.73KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointExchange day - speed dating
This is an introduction to the speed dating		 399.98KB27.04.2012Pavel StoevPresentations_24-4-2012 
MS PowerPointcase study expectation Primmer
 394.5KB11.04.2013Marion BogersPROTOCOLS 
MS PowerPointcase study expectation Primmer
 394.5KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointFox controversy
 382.95KB21.02.2013Marion BogersDeep cases PPTs 
MS WordBESAFE WP4 Review Form_Cseq_Bunker et al
 378KB05.04.2012Paula HarrisonReview Forms 
PDFN2000 EU LIFE case
 360.76KB16.10.2013Marion BogersSeville meeting 15-17 October 2013 
PDFSeptember meeting (Sweden) - practical info
 358.05KB17.09.2012Malgorzata BlicharskaSeptember meeting 2012 (Sweden) 
MS PowerPointWP1 Manchester meeting - team overview1_Bruce
 340.32KB21.02.2013Marion BogersManchester meeting Feb 2013 
PDFDeliverable No: D2.1 Report on the selection of case studies
The general aim of the BESAFE project is to investigate which arguments are the most effective in conserving biodiversity in different contexts. This report outlines the selection process of the case studies which will be used to answer the main research questions of the project. The paper reports the particular steps of the process, describes the relevant criteria for selection and provides the most essential information about each of the chosen case studies. The final set of 12 case studies represents a wide variety of ecological, social-economic and political contexts, as well as a diversity of different governance levels. Moreover, the cases address several governance levels and thus enable analysis of the links and transferability between the levels. In addition, two comparative studies have been chosen to enable a European level comparison between different countries.		 331.35KB29.11.2012Margarita GrudovaDELIVERABLES 
PDFWildlife 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.		 318.72KB01.06.2015Margarita GrudovaBESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS 
MS PowerPointWP1 classification
This is a presentation of WP1 - classification.		 309.36KB27.04.2012Pavel StoevPresentations_23-4-2012 
MS PowerPointCase study template Bugter
 307.85KB11.04.2013Marion BogersPROTOCOLS 
MS PowerPointCase study template Bugter
 307.85KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointWP1 SteeringGroup
This is a presentation of WP1.		 307.39KB27.04.2012Pavel StoevPresentations_23-4-2012 
PDFD2.2 WS1 evaluation of methodology, protocols and case studies, with stakeholder recommendations
Deliverable No: 2.2 WS1 evaluation of methodology, protocols and case studies, with stakeholder recommendations		 301.97KB25.04.2014Margarita GrudovaDELIVERABLES 
MS PowerPointNature 2000 test case Joachim
 297KB11.04.2013Marion BogersPROTOCOLS 
MS PowerPoint Nature 2000 test case Joachim
 297KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointExchange day preparations
This is a presentation about the BIOMOT-BESAFE meeting on 24 April 		292.08KB27.04.2012Pavel StoevPresentations_23-4-2012 
MS PowerPointBESAFE Intro-SC meeting
This is the introduction to SC meeting.		 291.41KB27.04.2012Pavel StoevPresentations_23-4-2012 

See all files in tree view 


 
   © 2025 BESAFE. All rights reserved. Created and maintained by Pensoft