reconsidering the effectiveness of scientific tools for negotiating local solutions to conflicts between recreation and conservation with stakeholders
Clicks: 301
ID: 232500
2011
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
301 views
47 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #69 of 308 articles by views in ieee access
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 308 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The conflict between the conservation of biodiversity and recreation activities in the European landscape is intensifying. Managers of large nature areas are confronted with increasing numbers of visitors and decreasing biodiversity values. To accommodate the visitors while simultaneously protecting the biodiversity values they need to make changes in the landscape. Current legislation, a lack of knowledge on the recreation-biodiversity relationship, and the diverging point of view of stakeholders make it difficult to find consensual solutions. New approaches such as adaptive management and boundary management can help managers and stakeholders in the process of decision making. In these approaches the role of scientists has changed, as has the use of their tools. Using two research projects in Europe we explore how scientific tools are used in this new context. We argue that such tools (1) should be built on the interactions between recreation and biodiversity functions, (2) can be used interactively to encourage stakeholders to engage in a learning process, (3) allow local knowledge and data to be incorporated into them, and (4) generate output in the form of a map showing where the conflict areas and opportunities are located. These four key features will help managers to improve communication between themselves, stakeholders, and scientists, increase consensus between stakeholders on how the conflict should be perceived, explore solutions, and generate new knowledge. For future research we suggest investigating how adaptive management and boundary management can be used in a stepwise learning strategy and how uncertainties in the tools affect the learning process.
| Reference Key |
pouwels2011ecologyreconsidering
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Rogier Pouwels;Paul Opdam;René Jochem |
| Journal | ieee access |
| Year | 2011 |
| DOI |
10.5751/ES-04191-160417
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.