Page 83 - A bird’s-eye view of recreation - Rogier Pouwels

Effectiveness of scientific tools in decision making processes
distinguish between parts of the relationship that are objective, e.g., the measured distances birds fly when disturbed by a visitor, and those that are subjective, e.g., the species chosen as a conservation target (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009). The tools need to have “the right control knobs,” which are compatible with the type of management action that managers can take.
Second, scientific tools must be able to support the engagement of stakeholders in a process of learning about the system and how recreation and biodiversity are interrelated (Margerum 2002). The tools need to be helpful in moderating the participation of stakeholders in the process in an interactive way, so that scientists, stakeholders, and managers can learn from one another. The participation of all actors in shared meetings will help actors on opposing sides to understand the relationship between recreation and biodiversity functions and how this relationship is related to each other's values (Lamers et al. 2010).
Third, the tools must be accepted as credible and legitimate in the local context (Cash
et al. 2003) by both managers and stakeholder groups. Therefore the tools should be
able to incorporate local knowledge and to be adjusted to improve their match with
local conditions. Local knowledge could fill in knowledge gaps in the tool, and by experimenting with them local users may learn to discover the structure of the tools and
the underlying assumptions, and thereby become able to judge the appropriateness of 5 the tools for their case and their interests.
Fourth, tools should guide toward solutions by providing room to maneuver between possibilities and constraints (Horlick-Jones and Sime 2004). The tools should support the negotiating actors in finding a new design that solves the problem, takes full advantage of the opportunities of the area, and is socially acceptable. The tools should be capable of generating local maps showing these opportunities and conflicts.
We summarize these demands as the following four key features:
1. The tool is built on the relationship between recreation and biodiversity
functions;
2. The tool can be used in an interactive way in a learning process to clarify
the conflict;
3. The tool can be made context-specific with local data and knowledge;
4. The tool is based on spatially explicit relationships and its output is a
map showing where measures can be taken.
81