Department of Sciences and Bioengenieering Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Faculty of Biology, Systems Ecology and Resource Management, Biology Department, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; Biology Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
J Environ Manage. 2023 Sep 1;341:117937. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117937. Epub 2023 May 5.
Conflicts of interest often undermine conservation initiatives against biodiversity decline. Effective decision-making requires a deeper understanding of the positions, criteria, concerns, and perspectives of stakeholders. However, managing so many perspectives can be difficult, and if not done well, conflicts arise which make it difficult to achieve conservation goals. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that identifying areas of consensus is a good starting point to generate more effective debates and address complex issues. To do this, we investigate the diversity of perspectives regarding biodiversity conservation schemes among stakeholders in the studied ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam. Using Q-methodology, a semi-quantitative technique that enables us to systematically study the subjective views of stakeholders involved in a topic, we identified and organized a range of shared perspectives into three groups, known as factors. A total of 20 participants sorted 45 statements according to their perceptions and objectives, from -4 'most disagreeable' to 4 'most agreeable'. Then, respondents explained their rankings in a post-sorting interview. Next, the data was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis was conducted in two parts: (i) Dividing respondents into groups based on similar perspectives and (ii) coupling distinguishing statements with one of the factors characteristic of that viewpoint. Finally, in a qualitative analysis, we used the distinguishing statements and insights from interviews to create narratives and titles for the three factors: (1) Ports are key for our economic wealth, hence port development should continue, (2) Nature first, and (3) Multi-actor governance. Our findings confirm consensuses in three areas: policy, land use, and mitigation tactics. Interestingly, all narratives unanimously agreed on the importance of regulating port development and land use changes via legislation and environmental impact assessments. However, they debated the rigidity of legislation and whether offsetting port expansion (and associated land and resource use claims) should take place locally or internationally. We also found that decision-making mostly followed a human-centered perspective, where economic values were more relevant than intrinsic ones. These insights can serve as a baseline for stakeholders to form coalitions around areas of consensus to depolarize debates and avoid decision-making gridlocks.
利益冲突常常破坏针对生物多样性减少的保护倡议。有效的决策需要更深入地了解利益相关者的立场、标准、关切和观点。然而，管理如此多的观点可能很困难，如果处理不当，就会出现冲突，从而难以实现保护目标。本研究的目的是证明，确定共识领域是产生更有效辩论和解决复杂问题的良好起点。为此，我们研究了安特卫普和鹿特丹港口的利益相关者对生物多样性保护计划的多样性观点。使用 Q 方法学，这是一种半定量技术，使我们能够系统地研究参与主题的利益相关者的主观观点，我们确定并将一系列共同观点组织成三个因素。共有 20 名参与者根据他们的感知和目标，对 45 个陈述进行了排序，从-4“最不同意”到 4“最同意”。然后，受访者在排序后访谈中解释了他们的排名。接下来，数据进行了定量和定性分析。定量分析分为两部分：（i）根据相似的观点将受访者分为小组，（ii）将有区别的陈述与代表该观点的一个因素联系起来。最后，在定性分析中，我们使用有区别的陈述和访谈见解，为三个因素创建叙述和标题：（1）港口是我们经济财富的关键，因此应该继续发展港口，（2）自然第一，（3）多行为体治理。我们的研究结果在三个领域确认了共识：政策、土地利用和缓解策略。有趣的是，所有的叙述都一致认为，通过立法和环境影响评估来监管港口发展和土地利用变化非常重要。然而，他们争论了立法的僵化性，以及是否应该在当地或国际上进行港口扩张（和相关的土地和资源使用要求）的补偿。我们还发现，决策主要遵循以人为中心的观点，其中经济价值比内在价值更相关。这些见解可以作为利益相关者在共识领域形成联盟的基础，以消除辩论中的两极分化并避免决策僵局。
