![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],the concept of power, sustainability and satisfaction]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
Dr. Anna Evely ECCB 2009. Getting to a long-term sustainable conservation strategy: what part does individual power have to play?
- 1. Getting to a long-term sustainable conservation strategy: what part does individual power have to play? September 01 – 05, 2009 A. Evely 1 , M. Pinard 1 , X. Lambin 1 , I. Fazey 2 1. Institute of Biological Sciences, Aberdeen University, 2. School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews
- 9. context
- 12. findings: interviews category Example statement consultative We are just two people, even when we’ve got our 10 grey squirrel control officers in place, it’s a vast area. They can’t cover it… co-operative it’s (conservation is) not something you know, that professionals take care of and you don't, its you and yours and that’s what it’s all about… advisory everybody gives something different to the group everybody has got different strengths and all of those strengths are really important.
- 15. what are the most important aspects of participation to volunteers?
- 16. were participants as involved in decision making as they wanted? Graph shows (m) ± SE , p =0.01 Satisfied Non committal Unsatisfied Difference between reality and expectation
- 17. Graph shows (m) ± SE , p =0.001 Satisfied Non committal Unsatisfied Difference between reality and expectation did participants have as much understanding of project strategy as they wanted?
- 18. Graph shows (m) ± SE , p <0.001 Satisfied Non committal Unsatisfied Difference between reality and expectation were participants provided with as much information as they wanted?
- 19. in conclusion... Three key messages: 1 . power significantly influences satisfaction 2 . where expectations are not met satisfaction falls 3 . delivering what is important
- 20. Some specific recommendations... 1 . ensure participants understand project strategy so they can place themselves and their knowledge within this 2 . provide regular information to participants: most requested was a newsletter with successes and failures, events, meetings etc, provided every 3-6mths 3 . When involving participants in decision making local area decisions are most important as participants want to ensure local concerns are taken into account
- 21. questions? Anna Evely [email_address] University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability Thanks to Supervisors : Michelle Pinard, Ioan Fazey, Xavier Lambin Statistical support : Alex Douglas Participating Projects : Cairngorms Water Vole Project, NE Scotland Water Vole project, Whitchurch Water Vole Project, BASC Green Shoots, Highland Red Squirrel Project, Dundee Red Squirrel Project, Red Squirrels South Scotland, Northern England Red Squirrel Group
- 22. Backup slides
- 23. Response rate Type of Project Project Name No. Questionnaires sent out No. ( %) Questionnaires returned Water Vole North East Water Vole Conservation (NEWV) 17 14 (82%) Water Vole Cairngorms Water Vole Conservation (CWVC) 75 40 (53%) Water Vole Whitchurch Water Vole Conservation* (WCWV) 20 15 (75%) Water Vole British Association for Shooting for Conservation Water Vole Project (BASC) 100 16 (16%) Red Squirrel Red Squirrels South Scotland (RSSS) 264 128 (48%) Red Squirrel Northern England Red Squirrel Group* (RSNE) 150 67 (45%) Red Squirrel Dundee Red Squirrels (DRS) 18 15 (83%) Red Squirrel Highland Red Squirrels (HRS) 28 25 (89%)
- 24. Differences between projects - gender Graph shows % , X 2 (df = 4, N = 318) = 41.3, p <0.001
- 25. Differences between projects - occupation Graph shows % , X 2 (df =10, N = 318) = 50.0, p <0.001
- 26. Differences between projects – period of residence Graph shows % , X 2 (df = 8, N = 318) = 16.2, p <0.01
Editor's Notes
- Before I start I thought it would be useful to give my motivation for this research and why I believe the concept of power, satisfaction and sustainability are interlinked. The ability to manage ecosystems is requires a range of knowledge from lay to expert. Managing ecosystems effectively is an information intensive endeavor requiring an understanding of both social and ecological systems and the way in which they interact. As a result it is practically impossible for a small number of people to possess the depth and breadth of knowledge required to manage ecosystems effectively. Instead, in order to draw upon the dispersed information available we require a range of individuals and organizations that span society at multiple scales. Therefore, the knowledge to manage ecosystems effectively requires a participatory approach. Participation as a process is said to build the capacity of a system to be able to cope with change and remain sustainable. However, this is not possible unless participants have the power to effectively contribute to a process, and remain happy or satisfied with their involvement.
- Here, is a view over Breamar in Scotland, where some of my research took place
- Within this landscape there are species of conservation value, for example red squirrel and watervole, some of the UK’s most endangered mammals.
- These species are under threat from non-native species, such as the grey squirrel (which impact on reds) and the american mink (which impact on water voles among other native fauna).
- We also have other species of interest in this area.
- And of course the other aliens – people which act as a potential resource to assist us in conservation. In essence what we have here is a social-ecological system, which is interlinked, interconnected and co-evolving, and through a participatory approach we take into account the human dimension of this system.
- Co-management is one system that has emerged to incorporate people different types of knowledge into the management of ecosystems. Despite claims made on the value of participatory approach to conservation it is still unclear when and how participation should take place and what the role of participants should be. This can range from simply being provided with information to steering the entire process. The typology of co-management reflects this range and expresses in relation to increased institution or community control. I will focus in this presentation on three types of involvement. In consultation the vies of participants are obtained – for example where best to monitor for native species such as water vole, but the majority of decision are made externally by paid managers, here the participants have a functional role, i.e. they are in place to provide the large scale manpower required to achieve project objectives. Co-operation is characterized by both parties working together in decision making where power and responsibility are jointly shared. At the advisory stage the local community begins to have greater control in decision making, often steering the entire process and they may be in a position to advise institutes. As we move along the continuum participants have increasing power in decision making.
- The research took place in the UK, and involved 8 projects, across scotland, england and wales. We included four red squirrel projects and four water vole projects. The projects are similar in that they have an element of non native species control requiring sustained action over time to control numbers. They all involve non paid participants and the projects ranged from those run by the community to those run by paid managers.
- Our research approach involved the collection of both qualitative data, by interview with co-ordinators and quantitative data, by questionnaires to non paid participants. We first interviewed co-ordinators to establish the type of co-management the project was, then collaborated with them to produce a questionnaire which would be of mutual benefit both to their project and for this research. Questionnaires were then sent to all non-paid participants asking questions relating to satisfaction and participation, and we used some of this data to confirm categories developed by interview.
- Interviews were carried out with the co-ordinators of the eight projects and lasted between 45min and two hours, Interviewees were asked the following questions…. Which allowed us to classify the type of co-management of the project, as either consultative where participants had less say in management and provided the large scale man power required, co-operative where there was evidence of shared power in decision making, or advisory where non paid participants made all the decisions. So, to illustrate these categories I am now going to play a brief excerpt from 3 interviews.
- The statements shown here are representative of those made by projects placed within each category, each clip follows on from one another with a brief pause in between. We start with consultative…. So once projects were classified we sent out questionnaires to non-paid participants to evaluate the influence of power in decision making on satisfaction.