HomeDocument Library

        

  Document Library - Sorted Ascending by Provider

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »
Title ↓ ↑Size ↓ ↑Date ↓ ↑Provider ↓ ↑Folder ↓ ↑
MS WordBESAFE_project_Special_issue_proposal_final
 42.29KB13.02.2015Margarita GrudovaBESAFE SPECIAL ISSUE 
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 
PDFWhat 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.		 820.82KB01.06.2015Margarita GrudovaBESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS 
PDFMapping 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.		 619.88KB12.08.2015Margarita GrudovaBESAFE acknowledged and related SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS 
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 
ImageBESAFE-BIOMOT group photo
This is a group photo of the participants in the BIOMOT-BESAFE joint meeting		 2.05MB26.02.2013Margarita GrudovaManchester meeting Feb 2013 
ImageBESAFE working process
This picture is taken in the meeting room, in Manchester		 2.11MB26.02.2013Margarita GrudovaManchester meeting Feb 2013 
MS PowerPointCase study template Bugter
 307.85KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS WordBESAFE Protocol on evaluating the effectiveness of arguments
BESAFE Protocol on evaluating the effectiveness of arguments
Eeva Primmer, Pekka Jokinen, Malgorzata Blicharska
(7 May 2013 -First version March 2012 – Please feel welcome to comment. Address all comments to: eeva.primmer@ymparisto.fi; Pekka.jokinen@uef.fi; Malgorzata.Blicharska@slu.se)
 57.94KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaWP2_DOCUMENTATION 
MS ExcelCase study template excel file
 21.87KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointWP1 argument classification
 401.73KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS WordGuidance use template
 57.85KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS Word Protocol WP3 Comparative Study
 1.96MB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaWP3 Comparative Study Protocol 
MS PowerPoint Nature 2000 test case Joachim
 297KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPoint WP4 protocol in Andalusia Marina
 5.43MB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaWP4_DOCUMENTATION 
MS PowerPointcase study expectation Primmer
 394.5KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointQ method Termansen
 284.73KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointFocus groups Ann
 120.22KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointInterviews Pekka
 113.91KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS WordDocument selection and analysis
 177.5KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
PDFDiscourse analysis Ulrich
 3.31MB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPoint Protocols need from CS perspective
 485.24KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS WordFinal report and minutes
 68.75KB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointArgument analysis Rob Bugter
 4.1MB10.05.2013Margarita GrudovaISPRA April 2013 
MS PowerPointINTRO
by Rob Bugter		 1.52MB19.05.2013Margarita GrudovaFIRST STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP 

See all files in tree view 


 
   © 2026 BESAFE. All rights reserved. Created and maintained by Pensoft