IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i13p7049-d580466.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Desirable Effects from Disturbance Ecology—A Paradox within Conservation Management

Author

Listed:
  • Åsa Davidsson

    (Centre for Societal Risk Research, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
    Centre of Natural Hazards and Disaster Science, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
    Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden)

  • Magnus Johansson

    (Centre for Societal Risk Research, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
    Centre of Natural Hazards and Disaster Science, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
    Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden)

  • Carl Bonander

    (Centre for Societal Risk Research, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
    School of Public Health & Community Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden)

Abstract

The importance of natural disturbances for biodiversity is well-documented in the disturbance ecology literature. Natural disturbances such as fire, wind, and flooding strongly influence ecosystems by creating short and long-term ecological processes. Conservation management of protected areas should consider the importance of natural disturbances since natural shifts in ecosystems are, in a long-term perspective, necessary to maintain high biodiversity. The purpose of this study is to explore how and if natural disturbances are incorporated in the management of Swedish national parks and to identify possible examples of barriers for this incorporation. The design of the study is a multiple comparative case study based on a document study and completed with qualitative interviews. The cases consist of propositions and management plans for 15 Swedish national parks established between 1962 and 2018. The document analysis generated four main categories: historic/future and positive/negative perceptions of natural disturbances. The results indicate that there are positive perceptions concerning the inclusion of disturbance ecology in the management of national parks. However, there are also obstacles and challenges around natural disturbances within Swedish national parks. These obstacles are, in some cases, explained by practical implications such as the closeness to surrounding societies and in others explained by paradoxes such as visitors’ perceptions of national parks and the wilderness.

Suggested Citation

  • Åsa Davidsson & Magnus Johansson & Carl Bonander, 2021. "Desirable Effects from Disturbance Ecology—A Paradox within Conservation Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7049-:d:580466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7049/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7049/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lazdinis, Marius & Angelstam, Per, 2005. "Functionality of riparian forest ecotones in the context of former Soviet Union and Swedish forest management histories," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 321-332, March.
    2. Koen Arts & Anke Fischer & René Van der Wal, 2012. "The Promise of Wilderness Between Paradise and Hell: A Cultural-Historical Exploration of a Dutch National Park," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 239-256.
    3. Ralf Buckley & Paula Brough & Leah Hague & Alienor Chauvenet & Chris Fleming & Elisha Roche & Ernesta Sofija & Neil Harris, 2019. "Author Correction: Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-1, December.
    4. Carl Österlin & Peter Schlyter & Ingrid Stjernquist, 2020. "Different Worldviews as Impediments to Integrated Nature and Cultural Heritage Conservation Management: Experiences from Protected Areas in Northern Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Ralf Buckley & Paula Brough & Leah Hague & Alienor Chauvenet & Chris Fleming & Elisha Roche & Ernesta Sofija & Neil Harris, 2019. "Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deirdre Dragovich & Sunil Bajpai, 2022. "Managing Tourism and Environment—Trail Erosion, Thresholds of Potential Concern and Limits of Acceptable Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Ralf C. Buckley, 2022. "Sensory and Emotional Components in Tourist Memories of Wildlife Encounters: Intense, Detailed, and Long-Lasting Recollections of Individual Incidents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-12, April.
    3. Zoe M Volenec & Joel O Abraham & Alexander D Becker & Andy P Dobson, 2021. "Public parks and the pandemic: How park usage has been affected by COVID-19 policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Li, Chuanyao & Wang, Junren, 2024. "Using an age-grouped Gaussian-based two-step floating catchment area method (AG2SFCA) to measure walking accessibility to urban parks: With an explicit focus on elderly," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    5. Astell-Burt, Thomas & Navakatikyan, Michael & Eckermann, Simon & Hackett, Maree & Feng, Xiaoqi, 2022. "Is urban green space associated with lower mental healthcare expenditure?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    6. Wu, Na & Tian, Qingsong & Cui, Mengying & He, Mingwei, 2023. "A delicacy evaluation method for park walkability considering multidimensional quality heterogeneity," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Pei Lin & Lili Chen & Zeshun Luo, 2022. "Analysis of Tourism Experience in Haizhu National Wetland Park Based on Web Text," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Koen Arts & Maiara Thaisa Oliveira Rabelo & Daniela Maimoni De Figueiredo & Georgina Maffey & Antonio Augusto Rossotto Ioris & Pierre Girard, 2018. "Online and Offline Representations of Biocultural Diversity: A Political Ecology Perspective on Nature-Based Tourism and Indigenous Communities in the Brazilian Pantanal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    9. repec:sae:envval:v:23:y:2014:i:4:p:443-464 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Tibor Princz-Jakovics & Márton Szemenyei, 2024. "Development of an e-governance system to support cooperative environmental policy actions," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 763-778, December.
    11. Antonia Sohns & Gordon M. Hickey & Jasper R. de Vries & Owen Temby, 2021. "Methodological Challenges in Studying Trust in Natural Resources Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    12. Nordberg, Mats, 2007. "Ukraine reforms in forestry 1990-2000," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 713-729, February.
    13. Ingegärd Eliasson & Susanne Fredholm & Igor Knez & Eva Gustavsson, 2022. "The Need to Articulate Historic and Cultural Dimensions of Landscapes in Sustainable Environmental Planning—A Swedish Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, October.
    14. repec:sae:envval:v:26:y:2017:i:1:p:31-51 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Elaine F. Celestino & Leandro F. Celestino & Jhony F. M. da Silva & Elaine A. L. Kashiwaqui & Maristela C. Makrakis & Sergio Makrakis, 2019. "Environmental Assessment in Neotropical Watersheds: A Multi-Factorial Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Guidotti, Vinicius & Ferraz, Silvio Frosini de Barros & Pinto, Luis Fernando Guedes & Sparovek, Gerd & Taniwaki, Ricardo H. & Garcia, Lara Gabrielle & Brancalion, Pedro H.S., 2020. "Changes in Brazil’s Forest Code can erode the potential of riparian buffers to supply watershed services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7049-:d:580466. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.