“Us versus them” mentalities in co‐managing a Natura 2000 forest: Narratives, identities, and a culture of conflict

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Larissa Koch
{"title":"“Us versus them” mentalities in co‐managing a Natura 2000 forest: Narratives, identities, and a culture of conflict","authors":"Larissa Koch","doi":"10.1002/eet.2102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multistakeholder co‐management is no blueprint for smooth and accepted environmental policy implementation. Parallel processes of cooperation and conflict rather shape co‐managing processes, which is the focus of this article. Combining the analysis of narratives, identities, and relational structure through means of social network analysis builds the conceptual and methodological foundation for this case study to explore a perpetual conflict between actors involved in co‐designing the management plans for a local Natura 2000 forest. Two opposing narratives are identified as competing over power and competency in discussions about the management plans for the Natura 2000 forest. Negative characterization frames and antagonizing with the other side fuels an “us versus them” mentality among the actors in the co‐management process and over time, a culture of conflict has become institutionalized. Interactions between the actors from the case study seemingly build on a complex, iterative pattern of disputes that is barely breakable and reversible into cooperative attitudes. Surprisingly, this culture of conflict does not resonate with the relational structure between actors in the case study as descriptive social network analysis shows. This case represents an intriguing puzzle pointing to an incongruence between relational and discursive mechanisms underlying cooperation‐conflict dynamics in multistakeholder co‐management, which is relevant for future examinations of cooperation and conflict in social network analyses. The results are discussed in light of power dynamics and concluded with an outlook to conflict research.","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"105 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Policy and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2102","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multistakeholder co‐management is no blueprint for smooth and accepted environmental policy implementation. Parallel processes of cooperation and conflict rather shape co‐managing processes, which is the focus of this article. Combining the analysis of narratives, identities, and relational structure through means of social network analysis builds the conceptual and methodological foundation for this case study to explore a perpetual conflict between actors involved in co‐designing the management plans for a local Natura 2000 forest. Two opposing narratives are identified as competing over power and competency in discussions about the management plans for the Natura 2000 forest. Negative characterization frames and antagonizing with the other side fuels an “us versus them” mentality among the actors in the co‐management process and over time, a culture of conflict has become institutionalized. Interactions between the actors from the case study seemingly build on a complex, iterative pattern of disputes that is barely breakable and reversible into cooperative attitudes. Surprisingly, this culture of conflict does not resonate with the relational structure between actors in the case study as descriptive social network analysis shows. This case represents an intriguing puzzle pointing to an incongruence between relational and discursive mechanisms underlying cooperation‐conflict dynamics in multistakeholder co‐management, which is relevant for future examinations of cooperation and conflict in social network analyses. The results are discussed in light of power dynamics and concluded with an outlook to conflict research.
共同管理 Natura 2000 森林中的 "我们与他们 "心态:叙事、身份和冲突文化
多方利益相关者的共同管理并不是顺利实施环境政策并获得认可的蓝图。合作与冲突并行的过程反而会形成共同管理过程,这也是本文的重点。通过社会网络分析,结合对叙事、身份和关系结构的分析,为本案例研究奠定了概念和方法论基础,以探讨参与共同设计当地 Natura 2000 森林管理计划的参与者之间的长期冲突。在有关 Natura 2000 森林管理计划的讨论中,发现了两种对立的叙述方式,它们在权力和能力方面相互竞争。负面的定性框架和与另一方的对立助长了共同管理过程中参与者的 "我们与他们 "心态,随着时间的推移,冲突文化已经制度化。案例研究中的参与者之间的互动似乎建立在一种复杂、反复的争端模式之上,这种模式几乎无法打破,也无法逆转为合作态度。令人惊讶的是,正如描述性社会网络分析所显示的那样,这种冲突文化并没有与案例研究中参与者之间的关系结构产生共鸣。本案例是一个耐人寻味的谜题,它揭示了多方利益相关者共同管理中合作与冲突动态背后的关系机制与话语机制之间的不协调,这与未来在社会网络分析中对合作与冲突的研究息息相关。研究结果将从权力动态的角度进行讨论,最后对冲突研究进行展望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Policy and Governance
Environmental Policy and Governance ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Environmental Policy and Governance is an international, inter-disciplinary journal affiliated with the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE). The journal seeks to advance interdisciplinary environmental research and its use to support novel solutions in environmental policy and governance. The journal publishes innovative, high quality articles which examine, or are relevant to, the environmental policies that are introduced by governments or the diverse forms of environmental governance that emerge in markets and civil society. The journal includes papers that examine how different forms of policy and governance emerge and exert influence at scales ranging from local to global and in diverse developmental and environmental contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信