 |
 | What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland
This paper addresses the long-standing debate over the conservation and management of the Białowieża Forest in North-eastern Poland, frequently referred to as the last, large, close-to-natural, temperate, lowland forest in Europe. With the present research we aim to document how particular conceptualisations of “forest” shaped the debate and the fate of the Białowieża Forest. Based on our reconstruction and analysis of argumentation, three dominant discourses could be distinguished, each offering different concepts of forest and people–forest relationships: 1. ‘managerial’ — with foresters presented as stewards of the forest, actively managing it for sustainable outcomes; 2. ‘livelihood’ — considering the forest as local heritage and underlining its role in fulfilling people's needs; and 3. ‘primaeval’ — highlighting the forest's intrinsic value and natural processes, being an international concern. The three discourses remained remarkably stable over the past two decades, but their status of institutionalisation evolved, which in turn influenced their hegemony and power. Importantly, our study demonstrates the active role of parties involved in the debate as they used particular concepts (their own, those of others or new ones) for strategic purposes. We conclude that both the achieved hegemony of a discourse and the particular ways by which its concepts are mobilised by actors may play a decisive role in shaping debate and its policy outcomes. We suggest that future research should focus more on the role of actors in strategically using particular forest-related concepts in concrete situations and to what effects. | 820.82KB | 01.06.2015 | Margarita Grudova | BESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS | |
 |
| 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 | |
|
| WP3 Comparative Study and Deep Cases
| 693.92KB | 01.10.2012 | Dieter Mortelmans | Presentations | |
|
 | Powerpoint Argument Mapping ISPRA
| 1.84MB | 29.04.2013 | Dieter Mortelmans | WP3 Comparative Study Protocol | |
|
 | Example Argument Map (Bielowieza)
(Detailed) Argument map based on the example of Rob B. in ISPRA. | 13.06KB | 29.04.2013 | Dieter Mortelmans | WP3 Comparative Study Protocol | |
|
 | Example Argument MAP (Bielowieza, doc format)
| 69.88KB | 29.04.2013 | Dieter Mortelmans | WP3 Comparative Study Protocol | |
|
| Protocol WP3 Comparative Study
| 1.96MB | 29.04.2013 | Dieter Mortelmans | PROTOCOLS | |
See all files in tree view
|
|
Document Library