Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Experts and resource users split over solutions...

Electronic data

  • Manuscript_Accepted_forDeposit_1_

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in World Development. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in World Development, 146, 2021 DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105594

    Accepted author manuscript, 744 KB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 16/06/23

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published
Close
Article number105594
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>31/10/2021
<mark>Journal</mark>World Development
Volume146
Number of pages11
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date16/06/21
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

We provide empirical evidence that supports a commonly-held assumption: that experts’ appraisals of policy options are often very distinct from those of resource users most affected by those policy choices. We analyse perspectives about 40 policy options to address peatland fires in Indonesia, using a Q methodology approach to rank the options according to perceived effectiveness. Peatland fires in Indonesia are a long-standing and complex social-ecological challenge, where unsolved disagreements about policy options have profound implications for environmental governance, resulting in fires recurring and causing significant CO2 emissions and transboundary haze that affects the health of millions. We collected data from 219 respondents, covering twelve stakeholder categories, including small and large landholders, industrial farmers, scientists, local leaders and government officials. We identified the most representative response from each stakeholder category, and used hierarchical cluster analysis to explore the closeness/distance in perspectives among categories. The results show a particularly noticeable distinction between two broad groups, which we labelled as experts and resource users. Experts tend to prefer solutions that are centralised and largely transformative, whereas resource users favour more localised measures that are more compatible with business-as-usual. We discuss possible reasons for these differences, and their implications for environmental governance, including for how scientists engage in policy.

Bibliographic note

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in World Development. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in World Development, 146, 2021 DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105594