Framing scale in participatory biodiversity management may contribute to more sustainable solutions

Conservation Letters

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 333-340

  Young, Juliette C ^a   Jordan, Andrew ^b   Searle, Kate R ^a   Butler, Adam ^c   Simmons, Peter ^b   Watt, Allan D ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^c BIOMATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Comanagement; Cross scale interactions; Human environment systems; Natura 2000; Public participation; Scale; Scotland; Special Area of Conservation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885461799     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1755263X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/conl.12012     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adger, W.N., Brown, K. & Tompkins, E.L. (2005). The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecol. Soc. 10, 9.
2. Apostolopoulou, E. & Paloniemi, R. (2012). Frames of scale challenges in Finnish and Greek biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Soc. 17, 9.
3. Armitage D.R., Plummer, R. Berkes, F. et al. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 95-102.
4. Beierle, T.C. & Konisky, D.M. (2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environ. Plan. C 19, 515-527.
5. Berkes, F (2006). From community-based management to complex systems: the scale issue and marine commons. Ecol. Soc. 11, 45.
6. Borowski, I., Le Bourhis, J P. Pahl-Wostl, C. & Barraque, B (2008). Spatial misfit in participatory river basin management: effects on social learning, a comparative analysis of German and French case studies. Ecol. Soc. 13, 22.
7. Buizer, M., Arts, B. & Kok, K. (2011). Governance, scale and the environment: the importance of recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary areas. Ecol. Soc. 16, 21.
8. Butler, J.R.A., Middlemas, S.J., McKelvey, S.A. et al. (2008). The Moray Firth Seal Management Plan: an adaptive framework for balancing the conservation of seals, salmon, fisheries and wildlife tourism in the UK. Aquat. Conserv. 18, 1025-1038.
9. Carlsson, L. & Berkes F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J. Environ. Manage. 75, 65-76.
10. Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F. et al. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 11, 8.
11. Christensen, R.H.B. (2011). Analysis of ordinal data with cumulative link models - estimation with the R-package 'ordinal'. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clm_intro.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2012.
12. Cumming, G.S., Cumming, D.H.M. & Redman, C.L. (2006). Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 11, 14.
13. European Commission. (2000). Managing Natura 2000 sites, the provisions of article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/CEE. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/art6/provision_of_art6_en.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2012.
14. Folke, C., Pritchard, L. Jr., Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Svedin, U. (2007). The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 12, 30.
15. Gray, B. (2003). Framing of environmental disputes. Pages 11-34 in R.J. Lewicki, B. Gray, M. Elliott, editors. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts. Island Press, Washington, DC.
16. Harrison, C. & Burgess, J. (2000). Valuing nature in context: the contribution of common-good approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 9, 1115-1130.
17. JNCC. 2009. UK SAC site list: River Bladnoch site details. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0030249. Accessed 23 August 2010.
18. Kok, K. & Veldkamp, T.A. (2011). Scale and governance: conceptual considerations and practical implications. Ecol. Soc. 16, 23.
19. Lebel, L., Garden, P. & Imamura, M. (2005). The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecol. Soc. 10, 18.
20. Lee, K.N. (1993). Greed, scale mismatch, and learning. Ecol. Appl. 4, 560-564.
21. Lewis-Beck, M.S., Bryman, A. & Liao, T.F. (2004). The Sage encyclopaedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, London.
22. Meadowcroft, J. (2002). Politics and scale: some implications for environmental governance. Landscape Urban Plan. 61, 169-179.
23. Mohan, G. (2001). Beyond participation: strategies for deeper empowerment. Pages 153-167 in B. Cooke, U. Kothari ., editors. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books, London.
24. Newig, J. & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 197-214.
25. Norusis, M. (2011). IBM SPSS statistics 19 advanced statistical procedures companion. Pearson Education, US.
26. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., Schultz, L. (2006). Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere reserve, Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 12, 28.
27. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems. Science 325, 419-422.
28. Padt, F.J.G. & Westerink, J. (2012). Addressing scale in open space preservation: learning from the Hague region in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie. Published online May 9, 2012.
29. Parkins, J.R. & Mitchell, R.E. (2005). Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18, 529-540.
30. QSR International. (2010). NVivo 9 QSR International, Melbourne, Australia.
31. Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A. et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021.
32. R Development Core Team. (2011). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.31.
33. Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 25, 3-29.
34. Richards, C., Sherlock K. & Carter, C. (2004). Practical approaches to participation. SERP policy brief no.1. Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen.
35. Rockloff, S.F. & Moore S.A. (2006). Assessing representation at different scales of decision making: rethinking local is better. Policy Stud. J. 34, 649-670.
36. Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A. & van Lieshout, M. (2010). Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive management. Ecol. Soc. 15, 29.
37. Van Lieshout, M., Dewulf, A., Aarts, N. & Termeer, C. (2011). Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a "mega farm" in a small Dutch village. Ecol. Soc. 16, 38.
38. Williams, P.M. (2012). Collaboration in public policy and practice: perspectives on boundary spanners. Policy Press, Bristol.
39. Young, J.C., Butler, J.R.A., Jordan, A. & Watt, A.D. (2012). Less government intervention in biodiversity management: risks and opportunities. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 1095-1100.
40. Young, J.C., Jordan, A., Searle, K. et al. (2013). Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol. Conserv. 158, 359-370.
41. Young, J. & Marzano, M. (2012). Embodied interdisciplinarity: what is the role of polymaths in environmental research? Environ. Conserv. 37, 373-375.
42. Young, O. (2006). Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecol. Soc. 11, 27.