Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conflicts over conservation are often regarded as dichotomies of diametrical opposites. When national parks are established in Norway, two stereotypes can be sketched: (1) the ecocentric position valuing ‘pure, authentic nature’, relying on the national government as the only acceptable decision and management level; and (2) a more anthropocentric position valuing cultural landscape elements and certain traditional and future uses of the area, favouring local management. A conflict over restoring a firing range to a state of ‘authentic nature’ for future designation as a national park is examined. The case has raised comprehensive local debate. It is asked whether the relevant actors should be seen as situated in the stereotypes, or whether a more complex three-dimensional picture would provide a better interpretation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daugstad et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: