MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199435493 · doi:10.48336/1v5w-sz37

Global conservation ideas & local reactions: the case of a new proposed national park in the Făgăraș Mountains, Romania

2022· dissertation· en· W3199435493 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Louise Aastrup

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkLocal governmentPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Community-based conservationGeographyLocal communityPublic administrationEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental protection is never a controversy-free endeavor. Conflicts arise over land ownership, use, and access. With the fall of Communism (1947- 1989) Romania experienced drastic changes in property rights, land tenures, environmental policy, and management. In the intervening decades, Romania transitioned to a market economy and accessioned to the EU in 2007. Since then a private foundation, Foundation Conservation Carpathia (FCC), has put forward a proposal to establish the Făgăraș Mountains National Park in Central Romania. Although the national park is yet to be established, FCC has, since 2009, been purchasing land for private protection with the intention of returning these landholdings to the state once a national park has been established. This raises questions around how people come to think of conservation in certain ways, how different actors understand and frame new conservation initiatives, how lived experiences and histories are shaping conservation perceptions, and what conservation perceptions can reveal about social equity concerns and how can these inform conservation planning. To answer these questions, I employed mixed methods consisting of qualitative data collection (interviews, participant observation, document analysis) and quantitative data collection (a questionnaire). I conducted 56 semi-structured interviews with environmental non-governmental organizations, government officials, local decision-makers, and local community members with various levels of involvement in the proposed national park. I distributed the questionnaire (n = 644) among local community members in 10 different municipalities. Throughout this dissertation, I show the fruitfulness of using mixed methods to investigate local conservation perceptions. In this dissertation, l argue that a critical social science perspective can improve conservation planning and deepen our understanding on the humanenvironment interactions as they pertain to conservation. Local perceptions of the park proposal are not only complex, they are also contradictory, shaped by local experiences and histories, public concerns and anticipations for the future. Chapter Two examines how different actors employ conservation narratives to push different political agendas. Political ecologists have paid extensive attention to protected areas, especially in relation to power, rights, and marginalized peoples. This dissertation draws on political ecology to examine conservation narratives in the context of post-Communism and neoliberalization in Romania. Three chief narratives can be observed pertaining to tourism, restrictions, and deforestation. These narratives are embedded in the history and socio-economic context of the area, but also reveal the agendas of different actors regarding landscape values. Assessing these narratives, this research reveals how actors position themselves and the points of contention among the different actors in the brewing conflict that the national park represents. In the third chapter, I investigate how social memory forms and informs local perceptions of conservation. I investigate the role of historical context, local experiences, and social memories in shaping local perceptions of the proposed park. I argue that conservation initiatives should be attentive to, and respectful of, the historical and cultural contexts in which they occur as these will be key in understanding local experiences, livelihoods, and concerns related to the park and eventually successful conservation. In particular, exploring and documenting local experiences and social memories of past and present events deepen our understanding of local realities. Finally, I illustrate how perceptions research can guide equitable conservation planning (Chapter Four). The ways in which protected areas impact local communities are complex and contextual. In this chapter I investigate local perceptions of the proposed national park to understand the implications of local perceptions for equitable management by comparing two geographical areas in the Făgăraș Mountains: one area, comprised of communities adjacent to an already existing privately protected area (n = 217) in the Făgăraș Mountains, and the other area integrating communities in the Făgăraș Mountains (n = 427) but not adjacent to the privately protected area. I show that contextual factors inform people’s perception of the park proposal and that locals in the privately protected areas are slightly more positive that a national park will bring benefits than are locals further away from the privately protected area. Locals in both areas perceived a number of restrictions, especially regarding livelihoods. Understanding local perceptions of proposed protected areas can inform equitable management, as perceptions can reveal spatial differences in anticipated distribution of benefits, contextual factors that affect trust in management, and barriers for procedural equity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Same topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207