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

    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

Standard

Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires. / Phelps, J.; Zabala, A.; Daeli, W. et al.
In: World Development, Vol. 146, 105594, 31.10.2021.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Phelps, J, Zabala, A, Daeli, W & Carmenta, R 2021, 'Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires', World Development, vol. 146, 105594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105594

APA

Phelps, J., Zabala, A., Daeli, W., & Carmenta, R. (2021). Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires. World Development, 146, Article 105594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105594

Vancouver

Phelps J, Zabala A, Daeli W, Carmenta R. Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires. World Development. 2021 Oct 31;146:105594. Epub 2021 Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105594

Author

Phelps, J. ; Zabala, A. ; Daeli, W. et al. / Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires. In: World Development. 2021 ; Vol. 146.

Bibtex

@article{c068a9c22cf9477789a22ddc04415877,
title = "Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires",
abstract = "We provide empirical evidence that supports a commonly-held assumption: that experts{\textquoteright} 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. ",
keywords = "Governance, Indonesia, Perceptions, Perspectives, Policy, Q methodology, Southeast Asia, Wildfires",
author = "J. Phelps and A. Zabala and W. Daeli and R. Carmenta",
note = "This is the author{\textquoteright}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",
year = "2021",
month = oct,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105594",
language = "English",
volume = "146",
journal = "World Development",
issn = "0305-750X",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires

AU - Phelps, J.

AU - Zabala, A.

AU - Daeli, W.

AU - Carmenta, R.

N1 - 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

PY - 2021/10/31

Y1 - 2021/10/31

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Governance

KW - Indonesia

KW - Perceptions

KW - Perspectives

KW - Policy

KW - Q methodology

KW - Southeast Asia

KW - Wildfires

U2 - 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105594

DO - 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105594

M3 - Journal article

VL - 146

JO - World Development

JF - World Development

SN - 0305-750X

M1 - 105594

ER -