Does expertise matter? An in-depth understanding of people's structure of thoughts on nature and its management implications

Biological Conservation

Volumn 168, Issue , 2013, Pages 184-191

  Buijs, Arjen E ^a   Elands, Birgit H M ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Citizens; Experts; Lay people; Mental models; Social representations

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; NATURE-SOCIETY RELATIONS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 84887330941     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.020     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bang M., Medin D.L., Atran S. Inaugural article: cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. PNAS 2007, 104:13868-13874.
2. Bauer L., Nation I.S.P. Word families. International Journal of Lexicography 1993, 1-27.
3. Beunen R., Van Assche K., Duineveld M. Performing failure in conservation policy: the implementation of European Union directives in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:280-288.
4. Brechin S.R., Wilshusen P.R., Fortwangler C.L., West P.C. Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources 2002, 15:41-64.
5. Buijs A., Lawrence A. Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts. Forest Policy and Economics 2013, 33:104-111.
6. Buijs A.E., Elands B.H.M., Langers F. No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 91:113-123.
7. Buijs A.E., Arts B.J.M., Elands B.H.M., Lengkeek J. Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 2011, 42:329-342.
8. Buijs A., Hovardas T., Figari H., Castro P., Devine-Wright P., Fischer A., Mouro C., Selge S. Understanding people's ideas on natural resource management: research on social representations of nature. Society and Natural Resources 2012, 25:1167-1181.
9. Buijs A.E. Lay people's images of nature: frameworks of values, beliefs and value orientations. Society and Natural Resources 2009, 22:417-432.
10. Cass N., Walker G. Emotion and rationality: the characterisation and evaluation of opposition to renewable energy projects. Emotion, Space and Society 2009, 2:62-69.
11. CBS Demografische kerncijfers per gemeente 2007, CBS, Voorburg, p. 51.
12. Daugstad K., Svarstad H., Vistad O.I. A case of conflicts in conservation: two trenches or a three-dimensional complexity?. Landscape Research 2006, 31:1-19.
13. De Vries S., Roos-Klein Lankhorst J.R., Buijs A.E. Mapping the attractiveness of the Dutch countryside: a GIS-based landscape appreciation model. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 2007, 81:43-58.
14. Engelen E., Keulartz J., Leistra G. European nature conservation policy making; from substance to procedural sources of legitimacy. Legitimacy in European Nature Conservation Policy: Case Studies in Multilevel Governance 2008, Springer, Dordrecht. J. Keulartz, G. Leistra (Eds.).
15. Figari H., Skogen K. Social representations of the wolf. Acta Sociologica 2011, 54:317-332.
16. Fischer A., Van der Wal R. Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird - the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biological Conservation 2007, 135:256-267.
17. Fischer A., Young J.C. Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation 2007, 136:271-282.
18. Fischer A., Bednar-Friedl B., Langers F., Dobrovodská M., Geamana N., Skogen K., Dumortier M. Universal criteria for species conservation priorities? Findings from a survey of public views across Europe. Biological Conservation 2011, 144:998-1007.
19. Fleiss J.L. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions 1981, John Wiley, New York.
20. Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C., Fry G. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22:959-972.
21. Haartsen T., Groote P., Huigen P.P.P. Measuring age differentials in representations of rurality in The Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies 2003, 19:245-252.
22. Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., Black W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis 1998, Prentice-Hall International, London, (etc.). fifth ed.
23. Hovardas T., Stamou G.P. Structural and narrative reconstruction of representations of "environment", "nature", and "ecotourism". Society & Natural Resources 2006, 19:225-237.
24. Hunter L.M., Brehm J. Qualitative insight into public knowledge of, and concern with, biodiversity. Human Ecology 2003, 31:309-320.
25. Hunziker M., Felber P., Gehring K., Buchecker M., Bauer N., Kienast F. Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups: results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mountain Research and Development 2008, 28:140-147.
26. Johansson M., Henningsson M. Social-psychological factors in public support for local biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources 2011, 24:717-733.
27. Keulartz J. European nature conservation and restoration policy - problems and perspectives. Restoration Ecology 2009, 17:446-450.
28. Knegtering E., Hendrickx L., Van Der Windt H.J., Schoot Uiterkamp A.J.M. Effects of species' characteristics on nongovernmental organizations' attitudes toward species conservation policy. Environment and Behavior 2002, 34:378-400.
29. Legendre P., Legendre L. Numerical Ecology 1998, Elsevier Science & Technology, Oxford. second ed.
30. Moscovici S. Social Representations. Explorations in Social Psychology 2000, Polity Press, Cambridge.
31. Mulligan M. Re-enchanting conservation work: reflections on the Australian experience. Environmental Values 2001, 10:19-33.
32. Rauschmayer F., van den Hove S., Koetz T. Participation in EU biodiversity governance: how far beyond rhetoric?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2009, 27:42-58.
33. Reed M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 2008, 141:2417-2431.
34. Satterfield T. Emotional agency and contentious practice: activist disputes in old-growth forests. Ethos 2004, 32:233-252.
35. Selge S., Fischer A., van der Wal R. Public and professional views on invasive non-native species - a qualitative social scientific investigation. Biological Conservation 2011, 144:3089-3097.
36. Stenmark M. The relevance of environmental ethical theories for policy making. Environmental Ethics 2002, 24:135-148.
37. Stoll-Kleemann S. Reconciling opposition to protected areas management in Europe: the German experience. Environment 2001, 43:32-44.
38. Stone-Jovicich S.S., Lynam T., Leitch A., Jones N.A. Using consensus analysis to assess mental models about water use and management in the Crocodile River catchment, South Africa. Ecology and Society 2011, 16.
39. Ulrich R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Behavior and the Natural Environment 1983, 85-125. Plenum Press, New York. I. Altman, J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.).
40. Van Koppen C.S.A. Echte natuur: een sociaaltheoretisch onderzoek naar natuurwaardering en natuurbescherming in de moderne samenleving 2002, Wageningen University, Wageningen, 264 p.
41. Vining J., Tyler E. Values, emotions and desired outcomes reflected in public responses to forest management plans. Human Ecology Review 1999, 6:21-34.