The Norwegian reform of protected area management: a grand experiment with delegation of authority?

Fauchald, Ole Kristian; Gulbrandsen, Lars H.

doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.660910

Cited by 27 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such bridging organization often exists at the intersection of science and politics (Armitage et al 2011), and nature conservation in Norway can be seen in such a light. Conservation at the national level is a policy field dominated by biologists (Falleth and Hovik 2009), while at the local level, politicians representing the relevant municipalities dominate the field (Bay-Larsen 2012, Fauchald and Gulbrandsen 2012). Until the creation of the NPBs with the PACs and WCs, local stakeholders did not have a decision-making or governance role to play at any scale.…”

Section: Methods and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This change means that stakeholders for the first time in almost 50 years (since the first NP was established) are invited to participate in decision-making related to the use of the large tracts of land for pasturing, hunting, fishing, hiking, and tourism that now are included in the protected areas. Thus, the fact that management decisions now are made by land users' own elected politicians suggests that local needs are increasingly taken into account (Fauchald and Gulbrandsen 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Pastoralists' Participation in the Management of National Parks in Northern Norway Contribute to Adaptive Governance?

Risvoll¹,

Fedreheim²,

Sandberg³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Norwegian protected areas have historically been managed by central, expertise bureaucracy; however, a governance change in 2010 decentralized and delegated the right to manage protected areas to locally elected politicians and elected Sámi representatives in newly established National Park Boards. We explore how this new governance change affects adaptive capacity within the reindeer industry, as the reindeer herders are now participating with other users in decision-making processes related to large tracts of protected areas in which they have pasture access. Aspects within adaptive capacity and resilience thinking are useful as complementary dimensions to a social-ecological system framework (Ostrom 2007) in exploring the dynamics of complex adaptive social-ecological systems. The National Park Board provides a novel example of adaptive governance that can foster resilient livelihoods for various groups of actors that depend on protected areas. Data for this paper were gathered primarily through observation in National Park Board meetings, focus groups, and qualitative interviews with reindeer herders and other key stakeholders. We have identified certain aspects of the national park governance that may serve as sources of resilience and adaptive capacity for the natural system and pastoral people that rely on using these areas. The regional National Park Board is as such a critical mechanism that provides an action arena for participation and conflict resolution. However, desired outcomes such as coproduction of knowledge, social learning, and increased adaptive capacity within reindeer husbandry have not been actualized at this time.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Pastoralists' Participation in the Management of National Parks in Northern Norway Contribute to Adaptive Governance?

Risvoll¹,

Fedreheim²,

Sandberg³

et al. 2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2009, community-based conservation was implemented for large protected areas, and the decision-making authority over clusters of national parks, protected landscapes, and nature reserves were transferred from the county governor to more Page 6 of 38 than 40 local management boards represented mainly by locally elected politicians (Fauchald & Gulbrandsen, 2012). In northern areas with Sami land rights, the Sami Council was guaranteed early involvement in the establishment of protected areas and a place on the local boards.…”

Section: Protected Area Management and Governance In Norwaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-cultural values and management preferences in protected areas of Norway and Poland

Brown

Hausner

Grodzińska‐Jurczak

et al. 2015

Journal for Nature Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas provide important ecosystem services globally but few studies have examined how cultural differences influence the distribution of cultural ecosystem values and management preferences. We used internet-based public participation GIS (PPGIS) in the countries of Norway and Poland to identify ecosystem values and management preferences in protected areas held by regional residents and site users. We found significant differences in the type and quantity of ecosystem values with Norwegians mapping more values relating to use of resources (e.g., hunting/fishing, gathering) and Polish respondents mapping more environmental values such as scenery, biological diversity, and water quality. With respect to management preferences, Norwegians identified more preferences for resource utilization while Polish respondents identified more preferences for conservation. Norwegian respondents were more satisfied with protected area management and local participation which can be explained by historical, legal, and cultural differences between the two countries. For Norway, biodiversity conservation in protected areas will continue to be guided by sustainable use of protected areas, rather than strict nature protection, with management favoring local board control and active public participation. For Poland, change in protected area management to enhance biodiversity conservation is less certain, driven by national environmental values that conflict with local values and preferences, continuing distrust in government, and low levels of civic participation. Differential efficacy in PPGIS methods-Norway with greater participation from household sampling and Poland with greater response using social media-suggest different strategies will be required for effective public engagement in protected area planning and management.

show abstract

“…This duality may work as a mechanism to solve conflicts between central and local level and strengthen the legitimacy of nature protection. Critics of this model fear that local user interests will be favored over national goals and protection values (Fauchald and Gulbrandsen 2012;Skogen 2013). This paper focuses on the role of local and regional politicians in protected area boards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To close this conflict the government launched a reform in 2010 that introduced local management of national parks and other large protected areas in Norway. Protected area boards, comprising mayors or other prominent representatives of local and regional councils, and where relevant representative from the Sami Parliament, are delegated extended powers (Fauchald and Gulbrandsen 2012;St. prp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing local interests and national conservation obligations in nature protection. The case of local management boards in Norway

Hovik

Hongslo

2016

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Norwegian reform of protected area management: a grand experiment with delegation of authority?

Cited by 27 publications

References 17 publications

Does Pastoralists' Participation in the Management of National Parks in Northern Norway Contribute to Adaptive Governance?

Does Pastoralists' Participation in the Management of National Parks in Northern Norway Contribute to Adaptive Governance?

Cross-cultural values and management preferences in protected areas of Norway and Poland

Balancing local interests and national conservation obligations in nature protection. The case of local management boards in Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About