Abstract
AbstractMany nature conservation projects fail primarily not because of a lack of knowledge about upcoming threats or viable conservation concepts but rather because of the inability to transfer knowledge into the creation of effective measures. Therefore, an increase in information exchange and collaboration between theory- and practice-oriented conservation actors, as well as between conservation actors, land user groups, and authorities may enhance the effectiveness of conservation goals. By considering the interactions between conservation stakeholders as social networks, social network analysis (SNA) can help identify structural optimization potential in these networks. The present study combines SNA and stakeholder analysis (SA) to assess the interactions between 34 conservation stakeholders in the major city and district of Osnabrück in northwestern Germany and offers insights into cost/benefit optimizations of these stakeholder interactions. Data were acquired using a pile sort technique and guideline-based expert interviews. The SA, based on knowledge mapping and SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis, identified individual stakeholder’s complementary properties, indicating which among them would most benefit from mutual information exchange and collaboration. The SNA revealed discrepancies in information exchange and collaboration between theory- and practice-focused stakeholders. Conflicts were found predominantly between conservation associations, authorities and land user groups. Ecological research, funding, land-use conflicts, and distribution of conservation knowledge were identified as fields with high potential for increased information exchange and collaboration. Interviews also showed that the stakeholders themselves see many opportunities for increased networking in the region. The results are discussed in relation to the existing literature on nature conservation networks and used to recommend optimization measures for the studied network. Finally, the conclusion reflects upon the developed approach’s implications and possibilities for conservation stakeholders and planners in general.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pollution,Ecology,Global and Planetary Change
Reference84 articles.
1. Amberscript BV (2020) Amberscript. Berlin, Germany
2. Andonova LB (2006) Structure and influence of international assessments: lessons from Central and Eastern Europe. In: Clark WC, Mitchell RB, Clark WC, Cash DW, Dickson NM (eds) Global environmental assessments: information and influence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USA; London, United Kingdom, p. 151–172
3. Applehans W, Globe A, Laugero G (1998) Managing knowledge. Longman Publishing Co, London, United Kingdom
4. Balmford A, Cowling RM (2006) Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conserv Biol 20(3):692–695
5. Bazzoli GJ, Alexander JA, Conrad DA, Shortell SM, Sofaer S, Zukoski AP (2003) Collaborative initiatives: where the rubber meets the road in community partnerships. Med Care Res Rev 60(4):63–94
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献