Trust and Skepticism in Dynamic Tension: Concepts and Empirical Refinements From Research on the Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak in Alberta, Canada

Parkins, John R.; McFarlane, Bonita L.

doi:10.22459/her.21.01.2015.06

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Shindler et al 2009, Vaske et al 2007). Our findings, however, are more in line with work conducted by Parkins and McFarlane (2015) which suggests that trust does not always predict satisfaction with agency management. They write, "… we are cautious about overdrawing a connection between social trust and satisfaction when it comes to judging public perceptions of resource management activities" (Parkins and McFarlane 2015, pg.149).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Facilitation, Coordination, and Trust in Landscape-Level Forest Restoration

Coleman

Stern

Widmer

2017

Journal of Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Facilitation, Coordination, and Trust in Landscape-Level Forest Restoration

Coleman

Stern

Widmer

2017

Journal of Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some scholars argue that a degree of scepticism, that is, distrust or mistrust, might encourage meaningful public engagement (Lenard, 2008; Parkins and McFarlane, 2015; Warren, 1999). If citizens uncritically trust institutions, they may forgo opportunities to get involved because they assume that the institutions share their interests and will act accordingly (Warren, 1999, 2009) Alternatively, high levels of trust mixed with some scepticism may motivate people to get involved in decision-making processes (Parkins and McFarlane, 2015). Warren (2009) suggests that democratic institutions should organize meaningful public engagement in domains where there is contention and possibly mistrust, rather than try to engage citizens in every decision.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Faith in Democracy: Deliberative Events, Political Trust and Efficacy

Boulianne

2018

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments have turned to public deliberation as a way to engage citizens in governance with the goal of rebuilding faith in government institutions and authority as well as to provide quality inputs into governance. This article offers a systematic analysis of the literature on the effects of deliberative events on participants’ political efficacy and trust. The systematic review contextualizes the results from a 6-day deliberative event. This case study is distinctive in highlighting the long-term impacts on participants’ political trust and efficacy as key outcomes of the deliberative process unfold, that is, City Council receives then responds to the participants’ recommendations report. Using four-wave panel data spanning 2.5 years and three public opinion polls (control groups), the study demonstrates that participants in deliberative events are more efficacious and trusting prior to and after the deliberative event. Despite the case study’s evidence and the systematic review of existing literature, questions remain about whether enhanced opportunities for citizen engagement in governance can ameliorate low levels of political trust and efficacy observed in Western democracies.

show abstract

“…Still other scholars argue that trust is a bidimensional construct. For example, Parkins [ 21 , 22 ] uses Poortinga & Pidgeon’s [ 11 ] typology of trust, which identifies “general trust” (incorporating competence, care, fairness, and openness) and “skepticism” (involving issues of credibility, bias, and vested interest).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distrust within protected area and natural resource management: A systematic review protocol

Erickson

Biedenweg

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust is a key variable for successful natural resource management and is commonly the focus of conceptual and methodological development. Distrust, on the other hand, is frequently cited as an obstacle to management, but appears to be rarely defined, conceptually underdeveloped, and inconsistently examined. This systematic review protocol (OSF preregistration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GKUAW) was developed to answer two primary questions in relation to protected area and natural resource management: 1) How is distrust conceptualized, and 2) What methods are used to gather evidence of distrust? The aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of how distrust is theoretically developed and what questions are used to uncover distrust. Also, it will summarize findings on what leads to and results from distrust. Four academic and eight gray literature databases will be searched using Boolean keyword searches. Articles eligible for inclusion are those that present original research, gather and present evidence of distrust, and focus on protected areas and/or natural resource management. The review will result in a narrative synthesis that summarizes approaches to distrust within protected area and natural resource management.

show abstract

Trust and Skepticism in Dynamic Tension: Concepts and Empirical Refinements From Research on the Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak in Alberta, Canada

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 8 publications

References 34 publications

Facilitation, Coordination, and Trust in Landscape-Level Forest Restoration

Facilitation, Coordination, and Trust in Landscape-Level Forest Restoration

Building Faith in Democracy: Deliberative Events, Political Trust and Efficacy

Distrust within protected area and natural resource management: A systematic review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About