Legitimacy and Wildlife Disease: Should Chronic Wasting Disease be Managed without Government?

Christopher Serenari, Elena C. Rubino
{"title":"Legitimacy and Wildlife Disease: Should Chronic Wasting Disease be Managed without Government?","authors":"Christopher Serenari, Elena C. Rubino","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2023.2217614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Natural resource institutions have embraced a deliberative turn to improve how they solve management problems and promote peacebuilding with and among stakeholders. However, actors who would rather not help decide, understand, evaluate, or implement decisions, or, at least not be dictated to in that regard, pose challenges to democratic governance arrangements. Such an inclination can be prevalent among landowner segments and befuddle efforts to safeguard state trust resources such as wildlife. Specifically, landowners’ decision to self-govern can be problematic for wildlife disease management because voluntarism is critical to curbing the negative effects of disease. Researchers suggest that different types of legitimacy play an important role in explaining obedience, interest, or realized engagement or collaboration. We studied which types of legitimacy drive Texas landowners living in the midst of the deadly and highly infectious chronic wasting disease (CWD) to disengage with state-led disease governance that aims to protect deer, elk, and moose populations. Our survey of 481 landowners revealed that a pathway towards landowner willingness to engage CWD management in Texas requires top-down and bottom-up alignment with conceptions of ideological and consequential legitimacy. Given the results of our study, an evolution in contemporary CWD governance would require elements of both socially constructed instrumentally- and value-rational norms (i.e., CWD management in the right way and for the right reasons) to carve a space for political legitimacy at different levels, with aims of rendering voluntarism to benefit the common good culturally normative.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2023.2217614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Natural resource institutions have embraced a deliberative turn to improve how they solve management problems and promote peacebuilding with and among stakeholders. However, actors who would rather not help decide, understand, evaluate, or implement decisions, or, at least not be dictated to in that regard, pose challenges to democratic governance arrangements. Such an inclination can be prevalent among landowner segments and befuddle efforts to safeguard state trust resources such as wildlife. Specifically, landowners’ decision to self-govern can be problematic for wildlife disease management because voluntarism is critical to curbing the negative effects of disease. Researchers suggest that different types of legitimacy play an important role in explaining obedience, interest, or realized engagement or collaboration. We studied which types of legitimacy drive Texas landowners living in the midst of the deadly and highly infectious chronic wasting disease (CWD) to disengage with state-led disease governance that aims to protect deer, elk, and moose populations. Our survey of 481 landowners revealed that a pathway towards landowner willingness to engage CWD management in Texas requires top-down and bottom-up alignment with conceptions of ideological and consequential legitimacy. Given the results of our study, an evolution in contemporary CWD governance would require elements of both socially constructed instrumentally- and value-rational norms (i.e., CWD management in the right way and for the right reasons) to carve a space for political legitimacy at different levels, with aims of rendering voluntarism to benefit the common good culturally normative.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
合法性与野生动物疾病:慢性消耗性疾病是否应该在没有政府的情况下进行管理?
自然资源机构已经接受了一个审慎的转变,以改善他们如何解决管理问题,促进与利益相关者之间的和平建设。然而,不愿帮助决策、理解、评估或执行决策的行为者,或者至少不愿在这方面听命于人的行为者,对民主治理安排构成了挑战。这种倾向可能在土地所有者群体中普遍存在,并扰乱保护野生动物等国家信托资源的努力。具体而言,土地所有者的自治决定可能会给野生动物疾病管理带来问题,因为自愿主义对于遏制疾病的负面影响至关重要。研究人员认为,不同类型的合法性在解释服从、兴趣或实现的参与或合作方面发挥着重要作用。我们研究了哪些类型的合法性驱使生活在致命和高度传染性慢性消耗性疾病(CWD)中的德克萨斯州土地所有者脱离旨在保护鹿,麋鹿和驼鹿种群的国家主导的疾病治理。我们对481名土地所有者的调查显示,在德克萨斯州,要想让土地所有者愿意参与CWD管理,需要自上而下和自下而上地与意识形态和后果合法性的概念保持一致。鉴于我们的研究结果,当代CWD治理的演变将需要社会建构的工具和价值理性规范(即,以正确的方式和正确的理由进行CWD管理)的元素,以在不同层面上为政治合法性开辟空间,目的是使自愿主义有利于共同利益的文化规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
期刊最新文献
Lost in Translation? Why Outdated Notions of Normativity in International Law Explain Germany’s Failure to Give Effect to the Ramsar Convention of 1971 Wild Things: Animal Rights in EU Conservation Law Addressing Illegal Transnational Trade of Totoaba and Its Role in the Possible Extinction of the Vaquita Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1