• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Testing stakeholder engagement in ecological risk analysis: A case study of genetically modified maize and South African biodiversity.
【24h】

Testing stakeholder engagement in ecological risk analysis: A case study of genetically modified maize and South African biodiversity.

机译：测试利益相关者参与生态风险分析：转基因玉米和南非生物多样性的案例研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Ecological risk analyses (ERA) are traditionally conducted by a narrow range of biological scientists with limited stakeholder involvement. Different knowledge types and epistemologies necessary for understanding how stressors move through complex socio-ecological systems are generally excluded, as well as broader societal concerns of interested or affected parties. Calls for stakeholder engagement in ERA aim to address such deficiencies, but little real-world evidence exists on: (1) how to design participatory ERAs, (2) how ERA results change with inclusion of diverse participants, and (3) how to facilitate social learning fundamental to such collaborative endeavors. Social learning occurs when people engage with each other and share diverse perspectives and experiences to develop a common framework of understanding and foundation for collective action. Such learning is critical for efficacious participatory ERAs because participants must engage with different disciplines, epistemologies and worldviews to understand socio-ecological systems in which risks manifest, how the risk situation occurred, and then develop joint support for specific risk governance actions. I tested a participatory ERA process specifically designed to engender social learning through open communication, constructive conflict and extended engagement, in two workshops analyzing potential impacts of genetically modified (GM) maize on South African biodiversity. Workshop 1 involved four biologists, who were then joined by 18 diverse participants in Workshop 2, and I compared the ERA process and results between the two. Workshop 2 participants generated a larger and more comprehensive set of hazards and a more in-depth understanding of the agro-ecological system, creating a robust information base for the final risk assessment. Social learning occurred, as participants engaged with new information and diverse perspectives, began thinking systemically and modified their risk perceptions of GM maize. Participants did not, however, develop a shared understanding of the ERA process or highest priority risks to biodiversity. These results suggest that it is possible to implement participatory ERAs that generate useful risk-relevant information, and carefully designed participatory processes can produce social learning about other stakeholders, complex socio-ecological systems, and the topic of risk in short time periods. However, longer engagement is needed to build a shared understanding of the risk situation and possible solutions. Such learning-focused participatory ERAs should help transform risk governance from an unreflective approach (e.g., using risk assessments conducted by a small set of experts focusing on the stressor's most obvious attributes) to a reflexive approach, which not only aims to widen the scope of impacts evaluated but also considers how societal values and norms influence the conception and handling of risk.
机译：传统上，生态风险分析（ERA）由利益相关者参与有限的少数生物学科学家进行。通常排除理解应激源如何通过复杂的社会生态系统所必需的不同知识类型和认识论，以及有关或受影响的团体所关注的更广泛的社会问题。呼吁利益相关者参与ERA的目的是解决此类缺陷，但在以下方面鲜有实际证据：（1）如何设计参与性ERA，（2）ERA结果如何随着不同参与者的参与而变化，以及（3）如何促进社会学习是这种合作努力的基础。当人们彼此交流并分享不同的观点和经验以建立共同的理解框架和集体行动的基础时，就会发生社会学习。这种学习对于有效的参与式ERA至关重要，因为参与者必须参与不同的学科，认识论和世界观，以了解风险表现出的社会生态系统，风险状况如何发生，然后为特定的风险治理措施提供联合支持。在两个研讨会上，我分析了转基因玉米对南非生物多样性的潜在影响，我测试了一个参与性ERA流程，该流程旨在通过公开交流，建设性冲突和长期参与来促进社会学习。研讨会1包括四位生物学家，然后由研讨会2的18位不同参与者参加。我比较了两者之间的ERA过程和结果。讲习班2的参与者产生了更大范围和更全面的危害，并对农业生态系统有了更深入的了解，为最终的风险评估奠定了坚实的信息基础。随着参与者使用新信息和不同观点参与社会学习，他们开始系统地思考并改变了他们对转基因玉米的风险认识。但是，参加者并未对ERA流程或生物多样性的最高优先级风险形成共识。这些结果表明，可以实施生成有用的与风险相关的信息的参与式ERA，并且精心设计的参与式流程可以在短时间内产生关于其他利益相关者，复杂的社会生态系统以及风险主题的社会知识。但是，需要更长的时间来建立对风险状况和可能解决方案的共识。这种以学习为重点的参与式ERA，应有助于将风险治理从非反思性方法（例如，使用由少数专注于压力源最明显属性的专家进行的风险评估）转变为反思性方法，其目的不仅在于扩大风险范围。影响评估，但也考虑社会价值观和规范如何影响风险的概念和处理。

著录项

  • 作者

    Dana, Genya Vera.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Minnesota.;

  • 授予单位 University of Minnesota.;
  • 学科 Sociology Theory and Methods.;Environmental Management.;Biology Conservation.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 173 p.
  • 总页数 173
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号