The urbanization of wildlife management: Social science, conflict, and decision making
References (32)
Grounded interpretive research: an investigation of physician socialization
- et al.
Regarding Animals
(1996) - et al.
The Environmental Impact Statement vs. the Real World
The Public Interest
(1977) The fish and wildlife job on the National Forests: a century of game and fish conservation, habitat protection, and ecosystem management
(1998)Beyond the hundredth meeting: a field guide to collaborative conservation on the West's public lands
(1999)Creating and using knowledge for species and ecosystem conservation: science, organizations, and policy
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine
(1993)- et al.
Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach
(2001) Community participation in ecosystem management
Ecology Law Quarterly
(1997)Science should come before politics
The Forestry Source
(2000)Beyond command and control
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference
(1997)
Action as a text: Gadamer's hermeneutics and the social scientific analysis of action
Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior
Synthesis of the Critique of Land Management Planning
Reconciling science and politics in Forest Service decision making: new tools for public administrators
American Review of Public Administration
Local communities and the management of public forests
Ecology Law Quarterly
Has Participatory Democracy Killed Forest Planning?
Journal of Forestry
Cited by (61)
Predicting human-wildlife interaction in urban environments through agent-based models
2023, Landscape and Urban PlanningNuisance or benefit? A study of deer-altered park landscapes in Japan
2021, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningBuilding on common ground to address biodiversity conflicts and foster collaboration in environmental management
2018, Journal of Environmental ManagementCitation Excerpt :In the case of citizen or community based collaboration, a wider range of individuals may need to be interviewed to determine the issues at stake and the levels of common ground. However, the common ground approach described here does not advocate full consensus among all participants, which might have negative consequences (see Patterson et al., 2003). We propose instead that broadening the context by considering variability in response between individuals and a wider range of issues of interest to them will support the identification of potential processes to manage biodiversity conflicts.
Conservation in the face of ambivalent public perceptions – The case of peatlands as ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’
2017, Biological ConservationCitation Excerpt :Conflicts around biodiversity and ecosystem services are primarily conflicts amongst humans (White et al. 2009). While these conflicts can be rooted in trade-offs between different groups and ecosystem services they are often also conflicts about values, and need to be understood as part of wider conflicts in society (Fischer and Marshall 2010; Patterson et al. 2003). Such an understanding can help to predict how messages provided by scientists are likely to be perceived and interpreted, and what conflicts may arise from this (Nisbet and Scheufele 2009).
Is urbanization eco-friendly? An energy and land use cross-country analysis
2017, Energy Policy