Conflicts between Biodiversity Conservation and Human Activities in the Central and Eastern European Countries

Young, Juliette; Richards, Caspian; Fischer, Anke; Halada, L.; Kull, Tiiu; Kuzniar, A.; Tartes, Urmas; Uzunov, Yordan; Watt, Allan D.

doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[545:cbbcah]2.0.co;2

Cited by 93 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Young et al's (2013) study of the establishment of protected areas raises questions about the positive outcomes of stakeholder involvement for biodiversity conservation. The management and monitoring of conflicts between various stakeholders in biodiversity conservation and human activities has also been studied from a political and economic perspective (Young et al 2007). …”

Section: Stakeholder Involvement and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The protection of ecosystems clearly raises ethical concerns for various stakeholders (e.g., the local population, environmental associations, and fisher and hunter organizations) whose interests should be taken into account as far as possible (Kapoor 2001;Brechin et al 2002;Orts and Stredler 2002). Collaborating with these stakeholders can improve the social legitimacy of biodiversity management, facilitate knowledge-sharing, and avoid conflicts with local populations (Pistorius and Reinecke 2013;Young et al 2007). Such collaboration also tends to be part of a larger movement in which biodiversity issues are not only the responsibility of governments or specialized organizations, but rather are managed through a multi-stakeholder process (Reed et al 2009;Brechin et al 2002;Pistorius and Reinecke 2013).…”

Section: Stakeholder Involvement and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the literature on environmental management has shown the importance of taking the interests and expectations of stakeholders into account (Hart and Sharma 2004;Buysse and Verbeke 2003;Cragg and Greenbaum 2002), very few studies have focused on the concrete involvement of stakeholders in biodiversity management. The few studies that do exist have focused primarily on the processes of inter-organizational collaboration that support the development of conservation initiatives (Cardskadden and Lober 1998;Salafsky et al 2001;Mahanty and Russel 2002;Westley and Vredenburg 1997), possible outcomes of these processes (Young et al 2007), the management of conflicts on biodiversity issues between various stakeholders (Young et al 2007), and the avenues for future research on business, ecosystems and biodiversity (Winn and Pogutz 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Boiral¹,

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing pressures to conserve biodiversity-particularly for industries based on the exploitation of natural resources-have reinforced the need to implement specific measures in this area. Corporate commitment to preserving biodiversity is increasingly scrutinized by stakeholders and now represents an important aspect of business ethics. Although stakeholder involvement is often essential to the management of biodiversity, very few studies in the literature have focused on the details of this involvement. The objective of this paper is to analyze how mining and forestry companies can manage biodiversity issues through stakeholder involvement based on a content analysis of 430 sustainability reports using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework. The paper elucidates the reasons for such involvement, the nature of stakeholders involved, and the types of measures employed to manage biodiversity. Stakeholders' motives for becoming involved revolve around four main issues: complexity and knowledge management; self-regulation and relationships with public authorities; legitimacy and social responsiveness; and commercial and strategic objectives. The stakeholders involved in biodiversity initiatives are essentially non-governmental organizations, experts and universities, public authorities, and coalitions of companies. In the end, the initiatives identified can be grouped into three categories: management practices, socio-political actions, and research and conservation measures. The paper provides various examples of these initiatives and shows how they can be implemented in collaboration with different stakeholders depending on the company's objectives. The contributions the study makes to the literature on biodiversity management and the managerial implications of the study are analyzed in the discussion section.

show abstract

Section: Stakeholder Involvement and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stakeholder Involvement and Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Boiral¹,

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This indicates that administrative indicators of the scale of wildlife problems, such as registers of compensation claims or compensation payments, cannot replace independent monitoring of conflicts and conflict management processes at fisheries. Monitoring activities should cover interactions between the parties of the wildlife-fisheries conflict and not just one aspect of the conflict (also see Young et al 2007;Henle et al 2008). Sound wildlife censuses and monitoring of damage inflicted at fisheries should be accompanied by monitoring of damage perceptions and of prevention measures taken, documenting the extent of lethal control operations.…”

Section: Damage Prevention and Wildlife Persecutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, information feedback between the aquaculture industry and scientific research on wildlife-related concerns is poor in most CEE countries (cf. Young et al 2007). Research on damage to aquacultural interests has typically been limited in scope to a single species inflicting spectacular harm (Kloskowski 1999;Adámek et al 2003;Opačak et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human–wildlife conflicts at pond fisheries in eastern Poland: perceptions and management of wildlife damage

Kloskowski¹

2010

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife occurring at aquacultural sites can ignite conflicts over resources managed by humans. A telephone survey concerning nuisance wildlife occurrence, perceptions of inflicted damage, and use of preventive measures at pond fisheries was conducted in 2003-2004 in eastern Poland. Significant economic losses to wildlife were reported by 80% of the respondents, with 41% claiming severe losses to more than one species. Serious damage was attributed primarily to otters Lutra lutra (56% of farms), cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo (26%), grey herons Ardea cinerea (23%), and beavers Castor fiber (21%). Two alien species, mink Neovison vison and muskrat Ondatra zibethicus, were widespread, but rarely blamed for causing substantial harm. Lethal controls were the most popular means of damage reduction and were more likely to be deployed at fish farms reporting significant losses. Cormorants, shot at half of the farms visited, were the most widely persecuted. Both otters and beavers were culled, notwithstanding their protection status and compensation payments available for beaver damage to ponds. The survey indicated poor cooperation between conservation authorities and fish farmers in managing wildlife concerns. Monitoring conflict interactions, i.e., wildlife occurrence and alleged damage at fish farms vs damage management processes, is an essential step toward conflict alleviation. Considering the wide range of species interacting with fisheries, adoption of more flexible policies to address the conflicts than a singlespecies conservation approach is recommended.

show abstract

Gaps in the protection of European lakes

Tsavdaridou

Moustaka‐Gouni

Katsiapi

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas represent the main tool for halting the continuing loss of biological diversity. The number and extent of protected areas is gradually increasing, but this expansion does not always ensure the efficient protection of key species, habitats, and ecosystem functioning. Today, the Natura 2000 network encompasses more than 27 000 sites, representing the cornerstone of conservation strategies throughout Europe. About one‐fifth of the terrestrial surface of the European Union (EU) is now covered by the Natura 2000 network; yet, knowledge remains limited about its efficiency to encompass inland water ecosystems sufficiently. This study aimed to determine the extent to which the Natura 2000 network covers 5132 European lakes that host fish species and freshwater lake habitat types of conservation interest. A key question investigated was whether the protection coverage of the water bodies reflects the coverage of the terrestrial areas surrounding the lakes. Geographical, socio‐economic, and political parameters were considered as potential descriptors of the observed patterns. The results demonstrated that although most of these sensitive ecosystems have high protection coverage at water body level, Natura 2000 largely ignores their surroundings. At the catchment level, lower conservation coverage was detected, raising concerns about whether the network offers sufficient protection to wetland species, habitats, and ecosystem functioning against numerous threats operating in the terrestrial areas surrounding water bodies. The results also identified different patterns of coverage in different EU Member States, which might reflect a lack of common practices regarding the implementation of key EU directives. This study highlighted the necessity of redefining conservation planning towards a systematic, integrated approach. The spatial properties of the landscape and the distribution of potential pressures should be considered at the catchment level of water bodies, as these pressures alter the functionality and services of inland water ecosystems.

show abstract

Conflicts between Biodiversity Conservation and Human Activities in the Central and Eastern European Countries

Cited by 93 publications

References 22 publications

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives?

Human–wildlife conflicts at pond fisheries in eastern Poland: perceptions and management of wildlife damage

Gaps in the protection of European lakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About