Knowledge production and environmental conflict: managing systematic reviews and maps for constructive outcomes

Abstract

Systematic reviews and maps in the environmental field are often carried out in contexts of contestation between different knowledge holders and users, placing demands on the review team to constructively relate to different interests and perspectives. The aim of this short commentary is to place systematic reviews and maps into a broader perspective of conflict management related to knowledge production, including the role of facilitated stakeholder involvement. We introduce a brief framework that identifies four dimensions that are relevant for choosing among different approaches to knowledge production in conflict situations: type of conflict, view of knowledge, model of stakeholder involvement, and measure of quality. We also provide some suggestions on how such a framework can be applied in connection with planning for systematic reviews and maps. Options include managing conflicts through facilitated stakeholder involvement within the review itself as well as a thorough assessment of what specifically the method can contribute in relationship to other approaches to knowledge production for environmental management.

Exploring the future of fishery conflict through narrative scenarios

“…62,63 Such low-intensity, non-escalatory conflict can be productive by raising awareness, pushing forward public debate, incubating social justice movements, breaking down path dependencies, generating new norms and institutional structures, and contributing to stronger cooperation. 57,64,65 It is therefore worth considering whether the most volatile regions could in fact be arenas for transformation. For instance, fishery conflicts in the 1960s and 1970s led to the establishment of exclusive economic zones, proving that conflict can be transformative and lead to stronger institutions for fishery management.…”

Wisdom of affect? Emotion, environment, and the future of resource extraction

“…On the contrary, it is a very common consequence of the ever-increasing impact of longdistance resource extracting interventions on landscapes and ecosystems across the world. In the Arctic, this critique of EIAs with suggested indigenous-led knowledge gathering processes now forms an important backdrop of mining debates (Larsen & Nilsson, 2017;Larsen, Raitio, Stinnerbom, & Wik-Karlsson, 2017;Lawrence & Larsen, 2017).…”

What evidence exists for the impact of Baltic Sea ecosystems on human health and well-being? A systematic map protocol

“…From the outset, we have taken a transdisciplinary approach, with plans to involve stakeholders at the different phases of the review process [13,22,23]. The aim is to gain insight into the policy relevance of emerging risks and benefits to public health from ecosystem services supplied by the Baltic Sea and how decision-makers could be supported in developing appropriate evidence-based policies.…”