3 results
19 - Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library Group in California, USA
- from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts
-
- By R. J. Gutiéerrez, University of Minnesota, Antony S. Cheng, Colorado State University, Dennis R. Becker, University of Minnesota, Scott Cashen, California, David Ganz, United States Aid for International Development, John Gunn, Spatial Informatics Group, Michael Liquori, Soundwatershed, Amy Merrill, Stillwater Sciences, D. S. Saah, Spatial Informatics Group, William Price, Pinchot Institute for Conservation
- Edited by Stephen M. Redpath, University of Aberdeen, R. J. Gutiérrez, University of Minnesota, Kevin A. Wood, Bournemouth University, Juliette C. Young, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
-
- Book:
- Conflicts in Conservation
- Published online:
- 05 May 2015
- Print publication:
- 07 May 2015, pp 271-286
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Nearly 258 million ha (28%) of the United States is publicly owned land that is managed by federal government agencies. For example, the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) manages over 77 million ha of national forests and grasslands for the benefit of the American public. Given its legal directive to manage multiple uses, it is not surprising that conflicts arise among stakeholders over how this land should be used (Lansky, 1992). The USFS has much discretion in how land is managed, yet must often balance conflicting values of public use and benefit (Nie, 2004). As national priorities, social preferences and public awareness of national forest goods, services and values have changed over time, USFS managers have faced increased pressure to balance consumptive uses with the need for environmental protection. Competing stakeholder demands coupled with increased environmental risks (wildfires, tree diseases and insect epidemics) have resulted in an escalating conservation conflict that is manifested in administrative appeals, lawsuits and a growing distrust of the agency.
Over time, the USFS has embraced new directions and management paradigms to reduce conflict. Some of these have been ecosystem management, adaptive management and now collaborative management (e.g. Holling, 1978; Maser, 1988; Franklin, 1992; Boyce and Haney, 1997; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000; Brown et al., 2004). These approaches reflect changing societal values, political pressures and new scientific information.
A persistent conflict has been the logging of trees in national forests and related impacts on forest ecosystems (Lansky, 1992). The USFS’ timber sale programme has supported jobs and community stability through economic development. Logging has also been a mechanism to reduce the risk of wildfire by reducing tree density (fuel for fires) and vertical stand diversity (‘ladder’ fuels; North et al., 2009). However, logging can also negatively affect forest integrity, watershed quality, wildlife, aesthetic and spiritual values of forests (Satterfield, 2002; North et al., 2009).
1 - An introduction to conservation conflicts
- from Part I - Introduction to conservation and conflict
-
- By Stephen M. Redpath, University of Aberdeen, R. J. Gutiéerrez, University of Minnesota, Kevin A. Wood, Bournemouth University, Roger Sidaway, Independent Facilitator, Edinburgh, Scotland, Juliette C. Young, NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
- Edited by Stephen M. Redpath, University of Aberdeen, R. J. Gutiérrez, University of Minnesota, Kevin A. Wood, Bournemouth University, Juliette C. Young, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
-
- Book:
- Conflicts in Conservation
- Published online:
- 05 May 2015
- Print publication:
- 07 May 2015, pp 3-18
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The conservation of biodiversity is an increasingly challenging endeavour. Current pressures from a growing human population have led to concerns of a sixth mass extinction event, bringing mounting pressure to find effective ways of conserving biodiversity (Barnosky et al., 2011). However, our ability to meet this challenge is affected by the fact that not everyone supports conservation objectives. People naturally have different interests and priorities, some of which may be diametrically opposed to conservation objectives. In some cases, these differences lead to damaging and costly conflicts that we see emerging across the world and which present major challenges to modern conservation (MacDonald and Service, 2007).
At a cursory glance, the conflicts that surface around conservation often appear to be about impact: the impact of carnivores on livestock; the impact of wind farms on birds; or the impact of protected areas on livelihoods. Consequently, a common approach to these problems has been to build robust science and develop an evidence base to understand these impacts and find ways of reducing them, often through technical solutions. This approach, however, rarely works for the simple reason that many of these conflicts are about much more than impact. So even if we can develop the science to quantify impacts and show how they can be reduced, the conflicts can stubbornly persist. Indeed, beneath the surface of any of the conflicts discussed in this book is a complex layering of diverse issues related to different world views, issues of trust, power imbalances or latent historical issues – issues that lie well outside the sphere of the natural sciences. So, if we really want to understand and tackle these thorny problems, we need insights from other disciplines as well as from the practitioners specialising in resolving conflicts.
The growing recognition of the complexity within conflicts has led many authors to suggest more cross-disciplinary approaches, especially through better integration of ecological and social science (Manfredo and Dayer, 2004; Sillero-Zubiri et al., 2007; Treves, 2009; Dickman, 2010; White and Ward, 2010).
20 - Finding a way out of conservation conflicts
- from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts
-
- By Stephen M. Redpath, University of Aberdeen, R. J. Gutiéerrez, University of Minnesota, Kevin A. Wood, Bournemouth University, Juliette C. Young, Centre for Ecology
- Edited by Stephen M. Redpath, University of Aberdeen, R. J. Gutiérrez, University of Minnesota, Kevin A. Wood, Bournemouth University, Juliette C. Young, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
-
- Book:
- Conflicts in Conservation
- Published online:
- 05 May 2015
- Print publication:
- 07 May 2015, pp 287-303
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The world is undergoing rapid change from increasing human pressure. The scale and intensity of this change are deeply worrying from a conservation perspective. For example, we see severe threats to species, habitat and ecosystems from poaching (Maisels et al., 2013), the illegal use of poison (Ogada, 2014), overharvesting (Pinsky and Palumbi, 2014) and agricultural expansion (Laurance et al., 2014). In this book we have focused on how those who represent conservation arguments (conservationists) can respond to these types of challenges. These conservation conflicts arise because one side is passionate about the need to conserve biological diversity, whether for moral, intrinsic or anthropocentric reasons, and the other side may be more focused on different objectives related to human livelihoods and well-being. That is not to say that those arguing for human livelihoods do not recognise the need to conserve biodiversity, and vice versa, but each side may question the relative importance of the arguments, or the specific objectives, or the methods used to achieve those objectives. What is clear is that conservationists are antagonists in these conflicts, and this realisation is important because in order to navigate a path out of destructive conflict, conservationists will need to recognise their role in these issues, address the roots of the problem and be clear about their objectives and about how they engage with the other parties (Redpath et al., 2014).
Throughout the book, we have presented a range of richly complex and multilayered examples. Each has its own idiosyncrasies, but together they expose general principles and highlight what is needed to map and manage conservation conflicts. In this final chapter we build on these perspectives and draw out the principles and steps towards collaborative conflict management. While we recognise that conflicts may be a force for good (Coser, 1956), the conflicts presented here are more often damaging and costly both to humans and biodiversity.