Forest Landscape Restoration Decision-Making and Conflict Management: Applying Discourse-Based Approaches

Emborg, Jens; Walker, Gregg B.; Daniels, Steven E.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5326-6_7

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Communities are made up of individuals with multiple values and conflicting interpretations/expectations, so resource managers often encounter challenges [28,29]. In the context of national parks, inclusive and participatory practices are often hindered by competing expectations and differing interests [30].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Conflicting Relationship between U.S. National Parks and Host Communities: Understanding a Community’s Diverging Perspectives

이

Matarrita‐Cascante

et al. 2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing importance of participatory and collaborative approaches in resource management has resulted in an increased emphasis on identifying the complex relationships between natural national parks and neighboring rural communities. Given the limited number of studies dealing with parks beyond rural areas, our exploratory case study examines how conflict stemming from diverse community stakeholders’ perspectives and values in regard to the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park influences their involvement and attitudes toward park management. Thirty-two interviews were conducted and analyzed using a content-analysis methodology. Guided by the Progress Triangle conflict management framework, each stakeholder’s views, interests, and aspirations associated with the missions were organized according to the framework’s three dimensions: Substance, procedure, and relationship. The study findings discussed how stakeholders’ varying perspectives regarding cultural resources influenced their interactions with urban historical national parks and their attitudes toward park management. Furthermore, how stakeholders can reconcile their differences through a collaborative approach for better park management was discussed.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Conflicting Relationship between U.S. National Parks and Host Communities: Understanding a Community’s Diverging Perspectives

이

Matarrita‐Cascante

et al. 2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results regarding “views on” and “experiences with” the involvement process indicated that the process was perceived as cooperation. Indeed, “cooperation” of the sort formulated in conflict resolution theory includes as key elements effective communication, helpfulness, positive attitudes, and trustworthiness (Emborg et al ). A possible obstacle to this is lack of skills in planning participatory processes (Brown et al ; Reed et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

Gamborg

Morsing

Raulund‐Rasmussen

2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological restoration involves a dual uncertainty or disagreement, one connected to changes in the environment and in human expertises, and another related to changes in views of acceptability over time and underlying value disagreements. While the former often is attended to under the notion of adaptive management, the latter is less often considered. The aim of this article is to investigate how a continuous involvement process can facilitate adjustments of ecological restoration, taking into account the values of all parties involved. Using a combination of a survey distributed to stakeholders in the involvement process and content analysis of the minutes from the series of meetings of the involvement process, the concerns and views of stakeholders, and the kinds of adjustment, which took place, were identified. Stakeholders were generally positive about being involved but expressed various concerns about the restoration approach itself, especially the open‐endedness, and about specific interventions. Three types of adjustment were identified: (1) project managers adjusted activities based on stakeholders' raised concerns and values; (2) stakeholders modified views in response to project managers as the restoration project proceeded; and (3) shifts in views took place within the stakeholder group based on exchanges with other stakeholders involved in the project. Mutual benefits and a higher level of mutual understanding were reached through the approach we call “adjustive ecological restoration.” This approach depends on the ability to work with stakeholders, willingness to adjust, high levels of trust, and the leveling of expectations at the beginning of the process.

show abstract

“…Although this can still be seen today in some lightly populated areas such as the boreal forest, in most places there are too many roads and too much suppression activity to allow for truly natural fire regimes (Covington & Moore, 1994;Phillips, Waldrop, Brose, & Wang, 2012;Veblen, Kitzberger, & Donnegan, 2000). Defining the boundaries between the stages on the degradation gradient is a subjective, social process (Emborg, Walker, & Daniels, 2012) that relies on an individual's valuing of the condition of the forest; the level of degradation is in the eye of the beholder. A host of environmental stressors and disturbances affect forest ecosystems, including biotic (e.g., exotic and native insects and diseases and invasive plants and animals) and abiotic (e.g., drought, fire, mass movement, hurricanes, tornadoes, and ice storms).…”

Section: S165mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A narrow definition of restoration (as only ecological restoration) excludes, however, much of what is being done in practice (Stanturf & Madsen, 2005;Stanturf, Madsen, & Lamb, 2012) and neglects the conservation importance of earlier successional stages (Donato, Campbell, & Franklin, 2012;Swanson et al, 2010). Nevertheless, an overly broad definition can lead to an "anything goes" version of restoration; although this is likely unacceptable, what is acceptable is a social decision (Brinson, 2000;Emborg et al, 2012).…”

Section: S165mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest Restoration Paradigms

Stanturf

Palik

Williams

et al. 2014

Journal of Sustainable Forestry

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest Landscape Restoration Decision-Making and Conflict Management: Applying Discourse-Based Approaches

Cited by 13 publications

References 14 publications

Examining the Conflicting Relationship between U.S. National Parks and Host Communities: Understanding a Community’s Diverging Perspectives

Examining the Conflicting Relationship between U.S. National Parks and Host Communities: Understanding a Community’s Diverging Perspectives

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

Forest Restoration Paradigms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About