Conflicts in Conservation: Conservation conflict transformation: the missing link in conservation
Conflicts in Conservation: Conservation conflict transformation: the missing link in conservation
复制标题
保护中的冲突：保护冲突转化：保护中缺失的环节
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Brian Mcquinn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Madden;Brian Mcquinn
保护冲突对世界各地的许多野生动物物种构成越来越大的威胁（Madden，2004年; Michalski等人，2006年）。正如我们在本书前面所看到的，保护冲突往往是潜在社会冲突的代表，包括群体认可、赋权、身份和地位的斗争（Coate and Rosati，1988; Burton，1990; Satterfield，2002; Madden，2004; Dickman，2010; Madden and McQuinn，2014）。这种复杂性削弱了不同利益攸关方寻找有利于人类和野生动物的共同点的接受能力。因此，保护目标受到不利影响（Madden，2004年; Redpath等人，2013年）。此外，保护主义者缺乏明确的能力来改变这些社会冲突，进一步损害了保护的更广泛的目标，并限制了他们在实质性问题上找到解决方案和承诺的能力。即使利益相关者的参与得到承认、建议或进行（例如Treves等人，2009; Barlow等人，2010年，Redpath等人，二〇一三年;方框9），这种善意的努力往往不能解决所有潜在的社会和心理冲突，也不能为积极的变革创造必要的社会条件。例如，如果将利益攸关方聚集在一起解决野生动物影响或保护解决方案的行为也不能提供一个充分的过程，以真正改善个人之间的关系，建立信任并尽早赋予人们权力，增加利益攸关方之间的公平和包容性决策，即使是关于实质性问题的合意决定最终也可能被关键利益攸关方拒绝。在我们的工作中，我们采用了一种从建设和平的一个小生境中进行保护的方法：冲突转化。在其核心，CT概念化目前的争端作为机会，建设性地改变潜在的关系，决策过程和社会制度，可以作为可持续保护行动的基础（Lederach等人，2007; Madden和McQuinn，2014）。从这个意义上说，CT取向将冲突视为人类互动的自然、潜在的建设性和创造性的一部分。因此，冲突的转化意味着，目标不一定是结束冲突，而是利用其潮起潮落，作为在特定背景下维持动态解决问题的手段（多伊奇，1973; Lederach，2003）。
Conservation conflicts are an increasing threat to many species of wildlife around the world (Madden, 2004; Michalski et al ., 2006). As we have seen earlier in this book, conservation conflicts often serve as proxies for underlying social conflicts, including struggles over group recognition, empowerment, identity and status (Coate and Rosati, 1988; Burton, 1990; Satterfield, 2002; Madden, 2004; Dickman, 2010; Madden and McQuinn, 2014). Such complexity undermines the receptivity of diverse stakeholders to find common ground that would benefit both people and wildlife. As a result, conservation goals are adversely impacted (Madden, 2004; Redpath et al ., 2013). Moreover, conservationists’ lack of explicit capacity to transform these social conflicts further compromises the broader goals of conservation and limits their ability to find resolution and commitment on the substantive issues. Even where stakeholder engagement is acknowledged, recommended or conducted (e.g. Treves et al ., 2009; Barlow et al ., 2010, Redpath et al ., 2013; Box 9), such well-meaning efforts often do not address the full suite of underlying social and psychological conflicts at play, nor do they create the necessary social conditions for positive, transformative change. For instance, if the act of bringing stakeholders together to address wildlife impacts or conservation solutions does not also provide a sufficient process for genuinely improving relationships among individuals, building trust and empowering people early, increasing equitable and inclusive decision-making among stakeholders, even palatable decisions on substantive issues may ultimately be rejected by key stakeholders. In our work we have adapted an approach to conservation from a niche within peace-building: conflict transformation (CT). At its core, CT conceptualises current disputes as opportunities to constructively change the underlying relationships, decision-making processes and social systems that can serve as a foundation for sustainable conservation action (Lederach et al ., 2007; Madden and McQuinn, 2014). In this sense, a CT orientation recognises conflict as a natural, and potentially constructive and creative, part of human interaction. Hence, the transformation of conflict implies that the goal is not necessarily to end conflict, but to harness its ebb and flow as a means to sustain dynamic problem-solving within a given context (Deutsch, 1973; Lederach, 2003).