Abstract
The way in which research-based knowledge is used, interpreted and communicated by different actors can influence the dynamics of conservation conflicts. The conflict that occurs between grouse shooting interests and the conservation of birds of prey in Scotland is notoriously complex, involving multiple actors at multiple levels, and shaped by the values and world views of these actors. This paper explores how research-based knowledge is used in the debate by six key organisations, and looks to understand the drivers that may influence knowledge use and interpretation in this, and other, cases of conservation conflict. Research was used to both legitimise and reinforce certain world views, and to support associated political actions that would cause these to become reality. Actors offered divergent interpretations of the same piece of research, emphasising different findings and outcomes. Research-based knowledge was thus employed by actors to support or counter the 'status quo’, and challenge other claims that clashed with their own values. Although the intention of such knowledge use is unclear, the selective reconstruction of research by actors could stem from, and reiterate, divergent value systems. This may pose significant challenges to conflict mitigation efforts; whilst some may look to research-based knowledge as the bringer of truth, its interpretation by different actors may exacerbate existing rifts between stakeholders; promoting polarisation of views. Mitigation strategies should be sensitive to this, and aim to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of the knowledge transfer process.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1065-1075 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Journal of Environmental Management |
| Volume | 231 |
| Early online date | 13 Nov 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2019 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Conflict mitigation
- Conservation conflicts
- Environmental management
- Knowledge use
- Land use
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Environmental Engineering
- Waste Management and Disposal
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
Cite this
Who knows best? Understanding the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts. / Hodgson, Isla D. (Corresponding Author); Redpath, Steve M.; Fischer, Anke; Young, Juliette.
In: Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 231, 01.02.2019, p. 1065-1075.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Who knows best? Understanding the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts
AU - Hodgson, Isla D.
AU - Redpath, Steve M.
AU - Fischer, Anke
AU - Young, Juliette
N1 - The authors are grateful to the Macaulay Development Trust (RG12845-10) and the University of Aberdeen (CF10166-93), for funding this research. We would also like to thank Rene van der Waal and three anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the earlier versions of this manuscript.
PY - 2019/2/1
Y1 - 2019/2/1
N2 - The way in which research-based knowledge is used, interpreted and communicated by different actors can influence the dynamics of conservation conflicts. The conflict that occurs between grouse shooting interests and the conservation of birds of prey in Scotland is notoriously complex, involving multiple actors at multiple levels, and shaped by the values and world views of these actors. This paper explores how research-based knowledge is used in the debate by six key organisations, and looks to understand the drivers that may influence knowledge use and interpretation in this, and other, cases of conservation conflict. Research was used to both legitimise and reinforce certain world views, and to support associated political actions that would cause these to become reality. Actors offered divergent interpretations of the same piece of research, emphasising different findings and outcomes. Research-based knowledge was thus employed by actors to support or counter the 'status quo’, and challenge other claims that clashed with their own values. Although the intention of such knowledge use is unclear, the selective reconstruction of research by actors could stem from, and reiterate, divergent value systems. This may pose significant challenges to conflict mitigation efforts; whilst some may look to research-based knowledge as the bringer of truth, its interpretation by different actors may exacerbate existing rifts between stakeholders; promoting polarisation of views. Mitigation strategies should be sensitive to this, and aim to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of the knowledge transfer process.
AB - The way in which research-based knowledge is used, interpreted and communicated by different actors can influence the dynamics of conservation conflicts. The conflict that occurs between grouse shooting interests and the conservation of birds of prey in Scotland is notoriously complex, involving multiple actors at multiple levels, and shaped by the values and world views of these actors. This paper explores how research-based knowledge is used in the debate by six key organisations, and looks to understand the drivers that may influence knowledge use and interpretation in this, and other, cases of conservation conflict. Research was used to both legitimise and reinforce certain world views, and to support associated political actions that would cause these to become reality. Actors offered divergent interpretations of the same piece of research, emphasising different findings and outcomes. Research-based knowledge was thus employed by actors to support or counter the 'status quo’, and challenge other claims that clashed with their own values. Although the intention of such knowledge use is unclear, the selective reconstruction of research by actors could stem from, and reiterate, divergent value systems. This may pose significant challenges to conflict mitigation efforts; whilst some may look to research-based knowledge as the bringer of truth, its interpretation by different actors may exacerbate existing rifts between stakeholders; promoting polarisation of views. Mitigation strategies should be sensitive to this, and aim to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of the knowledge transfer process.
KW - Conflict mitigation
KW - Conservation conflicts
KW - Environmental management
KW - Knowledge use
KW - Land use
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057196217&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.023
DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.023
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85057196217
VL - 231
SP - 1065
EP - 1075
JO - Journal of Environmental Management
JF - Journal of Environmental Management
SN - 0301-4797
ER -