Empowerment - istota czynnika ludzkiego w ochronie przyrody

• Autorzy: Strzelecka M. , Grodzinska-Jurczak M. , Pietrzyk-Kaszynska A.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Empowerment - human dimension in nature conservation

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

PL

Społeczne aspekty ochrony przyrody są tematem wciąż stosunkowo rzadko podejmowanym w badaniach nad zarządzaniem środowiskiem naturalnym. Także w praktyce, udział społeczności lokalnych w zarządzaniu przyrodą lokalną jest zjawiskiem względnie nowym. W krajach Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej (CEE), w tym w Polsce, dopiero niedawne przemiany społeczno-ekonomiczne doprowadziły do wzrostu poziomu świadomości różnych grup interesariuszy co do konieczności integracji społecznych i przyrodniczych aspektów rozwoju lokalnego. W niniejszej pracy przeprowadzono rozważania nad zasadnością angażowania społeczności lokalnych w działania na rzecz przyrody i środowiska naturalnego w Polsce

EN

Both practitioners and scholars have neglected the social aspects of nature conservation. The recent socioeconomic transition in Central and Eastern Europe has led to increasing awareness of the necessity to integrate the needs of communities into the management of natural environments. The authors argue that in Poland the growing awareness of the connection between local communities and the nature conservation needs to be followed by more community participation in the management of natural environments. By highlighting the human element in nature conservation and the concept of empowerment, the article discusses the validity of using participatory approaches to biodiversity management in CEE and in Poland

Słowa kluczowe

PL

ochrona przyrody; aspekty spoleczne; partycypacja spoleczna; spolecznosc lokalna; procesy decyzyjne

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 69
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: s.86-95,rys.,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Strzelecka M.

• College of Merchandising, Hospitality and Tourism, University of North Texas, Denton, USA

autor

Grodzinska-Jurczak M.

• Instytut Nauk o Środowisku, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, ul.Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków

autor

Pietrzyk-Kaszynska A.

• Instytut Nauk o Środowisku, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, ul.Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków

Bibliografia

• Agrawal A. 2001. The regulatory community: Decentralization and the environment in the Van Panchayats (Forest Councils) of Kumaon. Mount. Res. Dev. 21 (3): 208-211.
• Agrawal A., Ostrom E. 2001. Collective action, property rights and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Pol. Soc. 29 (4): 485-514.
• Alcamo J. (red.) 1992. Coping with Crisis in Eastern Europe’s Environment. Parthenon, New York.
• Alphandery P., Fortier A. 2001. Can a Territorial Policy be Based on Science Alone? The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France. Sociologia Ruralis 41(3): 311-328.
• Barr N.A. (red.) 1994. Labor Markets and Social Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Bell S., Marzano M„ Cent J., Kobierska H., Podjed D., Vandzinskaite D., Reinert H., Armaitiene A., Grodzinska-Jurczak M., Muršič R. 2008. What counts? Volunteers and their organizations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodiv. Conserv.: 17: 3443-3454.
• Björkell S. 2007. Resistance to Top-Down Conservation Policy and the Search for New Participatory Models. The Case of Bergö-Malax’ Outer Archipelago in Finland. W: Keulartz J., Leistra G. (red.). Legitimacy in European Nature Conservation Policy. Case Studies in Multilevel Governance. Springer, Wageningen.
• Brennan M.A. 2007. The development of community in the west of Ireland: A return to Killala twenty years on. Community Dev. J. 42 (3): 330-374.
• Brennan M.A., Flint C., Luloff A.E. 2009. Bringing together local culture and rural development: Findings from Ireland, Pennsylvania, and Alaska. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (1): 97-112.
• Bridger J.C., Brennan M.A., Luloff A.E. 2010. The Interactional Approach to Community. W: Robinson J., Green G. (red.). New Perspectives in Community Development. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
• Carter F.W., Turnock D. (red). 1993. Environmental Problems in Eastern Europe. Routledge, London.
• Cent J., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Nowak N. 2010. Ocena efektów małopolskiego programu konsultacji społecznych wokół obszarów Natura 2000. Chrońmy Przyr. Ojcz. 66 (4): 251-260.
• Cent J., Kobierska FL, Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Bell S. 2007. Who is responsible for Natura 2000 in Poland? - a potential role of NGOs in establishing the programme, Int. J. Environ, and Sustainable Development (IJESD) 6 (4): 422-435.
• Charbonneau S. 1997. Natura 2000: uneopportunite de dialogues a saisir. Natures Sci. Soc. 5: 63-65.
• Chavis D., Wandersman A. 1990. Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. Am. J. Community Psychol. 18 (1): 55-81.
• Chmielewski T.J. 2007. Nature conservation management: from idea to practical results. European Commission 6th Framework Program: ALTER-Net. PWZN Print 6. Lublin-Łódź -Helsinki- Aarhus: 1-26.
• Cole S. 2006. Information and Empowerment: The Keys to Achieving Sustainable Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 14 (6): 629-644.
• Columbus F. (red.) 1998. Central and Eastern Europe in Transition. Nova Science Publishers, New York.
• Dimitrakopoulos P.G., Memtsas D., Troumbis A.Y. 2004. Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Species Areas of Conservation strategy: the case of Crete. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13: 199-207.
• Dyrektywa 1979. Dyrektywa 79/409/EWG z dnia 2 kwietnia 1979 roku w sprawie ochrony dzikich ptaków.
• Dyrektywa 1992. Dyrektywa Rady 92/43/EWG z dnia 21 maja 1992 roku w sprawie ochrony siedlisk naturalnych oraz dzikiej fauny i flory.
• Dyrektywa 2003. Dyrektywa 2003/4/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 28 stycznia 2003 roku w sprawie publicznego dostępu do informacji dotyczących środowiska.
• Fawcett S.B., Paine-Andrews A., Francisco V.T., Schultz J.A., Richter K.P., Lewis R.K., Williams E.L., Harris K.J., Berkley J.Y., Fisher J.L., Lopez C.M. 1995. Using empowerment theory in collaborative partnership for community health and development. Am. J. Community Psychol. 23 (5): 677-697.
• Fisher R.J. 1995. Collaborative management of forests for conservation and development. Issues in forest conservation Gland. IUCN and WWF, Switzerland.
• Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Cent J. 2010. Udział społeczny szansą dla realizacji programu Natura 2000 w Polsce. Chrońmy Przyr. Ojcz. 66 (5): 341-352.
• Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Cent J. 201 la. Can public participation increase nature conservation effectiveness? Innovation: The Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 24 (3): 307-314.
• Grodzińska-Jurczak M., Cent J. 201 lb. Expansion of Nature Conservation Areas: Problems with Natura 2000 Implementation in Poland? Environ. Manag. 47: 11-27.
• Gros D., Steinherr A. 1995. Winds of Change: Economic Transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Longman, Harlow.
• Harwood J. 2000. Risk assessment and decision analysis in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 95: 219-226.
• Hiedenpää J. 2002. European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Kavia, SW-Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning 61: 113-123.
• Jendrośka J., Bar M. 2008. Wspólnotowe prawo ochrony środowiska i jego implementacja w Polsce trzy lata po akcesji. Centrum Prawa Ekologicznego, Wrocław.
• Jermaczek A., Pawlaczyk P. 2004. Natura 2000 - narzędzie ochrony przyrody. Planowanie ochrony obszarów Natura 2000. WWF Polska, Warszawa.
• Juergensmeyer J„ Kulesza M., Gmurzynska E. 1990. Environmental Protection in Post-Socialist Eastern Europe: The Polish Example. Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 14: 831-848.
• Kaufman H. 1959. Toward and interactional conception of community. Soc. Forces 38 (1): 8-17.
• Kellert S.R., Mehta J.N., Ebbin S.A., Lichtenfeld L.L. 2000. Community natural resource management: promises, rhetoric and reality. Soc. Nat. Resour. 13: 705-715.
• Kieffer C.H. 1984. Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prev. Hum. Serv. 3: 9-36.
• Klarer J., Moldan B. (red.). 1997. The Environmental Challenge for Central European Economies in Transition. Wiley, New York.
• Kluvánková-Oravská T, Chobotová V., Banaszek I. 2009. From Government to Governance for Biodiversity: The Perspective of Central and Eastern European Transition Countries. Env. Plan. Gov. 19: 186-196.
• Kroeker C.J. 1995. Individual, Organizational, and Societal Empowerment: A study of the Process in a Nicaraguan Agricultural Cooperative. Am. J. Community Psychol. 23 (5): 749-764.
• Kronenberg J., Bergier T. (red.) 2010. Wyzwania Zrównoważonego Rozwoju w Polsce. Fundacja Sendzimira, Kraków.
• Krott M. 2000. Voicing Interests and Concerns: NATURA 2000: An ecological network in conflict with people. Forest Pol. Econ. 1: 357-366.
• Lawrence A. 2008. Experiences with participatory conservation in post-socialist Europe. Int. J. Biodiv. Sci. Manag. 4: 179-186.
• Lee S., Roth W.M. 2006. Community-level controversy over a natural resource: toward a more democratic science in society. Soc. Nat. Resour. 19: 429-445.
• Li W.J. 2006. Community decision-making participation in development. Ann. Tour. Res. 33 (1): 132-143.
• Luloff A.E. 1998. What makes a place a community? Paper presented at the Fifth Sir John Quick Bendigo Lecture. La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia.
• Luloff A.E., Bridger J. 2003. Community Agency and Local Development. W: Brown D., Swanson L. (red.). Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA: 203-213
• Makomaska-Juchiewicz M., Tworek S. 2003. Ekologiczna sieć Natura 2000. Problem czy szansa? Inst. Ochr. Przyr. PAN, Kraków.
• Manfredo M.J., Vaske J.J., Decker D.J. 1995. Human dimensions of wildlife: Basic concepts. W: Knight R„ Gutzwiller K. (red.). Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington: 17-32.
• Mannigel E. 2008. Integrating parks and people: How does participation work in protected area management? Soc. Nat. Resour. 21: 498-511.
• Mascia M.B. 2003. Conservation and the Social Science. Conserv. Biol. 17 (3): 649-650.
• Miller R.L., Campbell R. 2006. Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. Am. J. Evaluation 27 (9): 296-319.
• NIK (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli) 2008. Informacja o wynikach kontroli wdrażania ochrony na obszarach Natura 2000 [http://www.nik.gov. pl/kontrole/wyniki-kontroli-nik/kontrole,1664. html].
• Oana B. 2006. Natura 2000 network an opportunity for rural space sustainable development. Buletin USAMV-CV 62:179-183.
• Oldfield J., Tickle A. 2002. Editorial: environmental policy in a wider Europe. Eur. Environ. 12: 61-63.
• Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Paloniemi R., Tikka P.M. 2008. Ecological and social aspects of biodiversity conservation on private lands. Environ. Sci. Pol. 11: 336-346.
• Parkins J.R., Mitchell R.E. 2005. Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turn in natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Res. 18 (6): 529-540.
• Pavlinek R, Pickles J. 2004. Environmental pasts/ environmental futures in Post-Socialist Europe. Environmental Politics 13: 237-265.
• Perkins D.D. 1995. Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social intervention and policy. Am. J. Community Psychol. 23: 765-794.
• Pratchett L., Durose C., Lowndes V., Smith G„ Stoker G., Wales C. 2009. Empowering communities to influence local decision-making: A systematic review of the evidence. Department for Communities and Local Government [http:// www.communities.gov.uk/documents/local- government/pdf/1241955]; dost^p: 1.02. 2012 r.
• Pratchett L., Durose C., Lowndes V., Smith G., Stoker G., Wales C. 2009. Empowering communities to influence local decision-making: A systematic review of the evidence. Department for Communities and Local Government. Retrieved from [http://www.communities.gov.uk/docu- ments/localgovernment/pdf/1241955].
• Rappaport J. 1984. Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issues. Prev. Hum. Serv. 3: 1-7.
• Redpath S.M., Arroyo B.E., Leckie F.M., Bacon P, Byfield N., Gutierrez R.J., Thirgoog S.J. 2002. Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human-wildlife conflict: araptor-grousecase study. Conserv. Biol. 18: 350-359.
• Ring I. 2008. Compensating Municipalities for Protected Areas Fiscal Transfers for Biodiversity Conservation in Saxony, Germany. GAIA 17 (SI): 143-151.
• Ring I., Drechsler M., van Teeffelen A.J.A., Irawan S., Venter O. 2010. Biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation: what role can economic instruments play? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2: 50-58.
• Sandford G. 1999. Parliamentary control and the constitutional definition of foreign policy making in democratic Poland. Europe-Asia Studies 51 (5): 769-797.
• Santos R., Ring I., Antunes P., Clemente P. 2010. Fiscal transfers for biodiversity conservation: the Portuguese Local Finances Law. UFZ-Diskussionspapiere 11.
• Scrieciu Ş.S, Stringer LC. 2008. The Transformation of Post-Communist Societies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: an Economic and Ecological Sustainability Perspective. Eur. Environ. 18: 168-185.
• Steve F. 2001. Poland and the international system: external influences on democratic consolidation. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 34 (3): 339-352.
• Sundseth K. 2004. Life-Nature-Communicating with Stakeholders and the generic public. Best practice examples for NATURA 2000. Life-Focus, Luxembourg: 2-43,48-65.
• Theodori G. 2005. Community and community development in resource-based areas: Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective. Soc. Nat. Res. 18 (7): 661-669.
• Trzeciak M. 2005. Projektowane regulacje prawne Polska 2 [http://przyroda.polska.pl/wartosci/ czego_nam_zazdroszcza / index.htm].
• Unnerstall H. 2006. ‘Sustainable development’ as a criterion for the interpretation of Article 6 of the habitats directive. Eur. Environ. 16: 73-88.
• Vari A., Tamas P. (red). 1993. Environment and Democratic Transition. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
• Visser M„ Morana J., Regana E., Gormallya M., Skef- fington M.S. 2007. The Irish agri-environment: How turlough users and non-users view converging EU agendas of Natura 2000 and CAP. Land Use Policy 24 (2): 362-373.
• Weber N., Christophersen T. 2002. The influence of non-governmental organizations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process. Forest Pol. Econ. 4: 1-12.
• Wilkinson K.P. 1970. The community as a social field. Soc. Forces 48 (3): 9-17.
• Wilkinson K.P. 1991. Community in rural America.
• Young I.M. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Zimmerman M.A. 1990. Taking aim on empower- ment research: On the distinction between individual and psychological conceptions. Am. J. Community Psychol. 18 (1): 169-177.
• Zimmerman M.A. 1995. Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. Am. J. Community Psychol. 23 (5): 581-599.
• Zimmerman M.A., Rappaport J. 1988. Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. Am. J. Community Psychol. 16 (5): 725-750.
• ZGW RP 2011. Związek Gmin Wiejskich Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Subwencja ekologiczna [http:// www.gminyrp.pl/?slang=pl&art=l&m=78{p =2&id=626]; dostęp: 2.02.2012 r.
• http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/strona/natura-2000-w-polsce; dostęp: 16.10.2012 r.