Expanding Problem Frames to Understand Human-wildlife Conflicts in Urban-proximate Parks
Keywords:messy problem, suburban wildlife, problem framing
AbstractLandscape change that accompanies urbanization is leading to increased frequency and intensity of human-wildlife interactions. Many urban-proximate National Park Service (NPS) units are experiencing encroachment from development. This context presents increasingly complex wildlife management challenges for parks and recreation administrators and managers. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have been a major concern for over two decades in urban-proximate NPS units in the northeastern U.S., where biological studies have documented deer density, movement, and impact on park resources. Typically, NPS managers frame deer issues as population-management problems. The extent to which vegetation damage by deer affects the integrity of the unit’s resource protection goals and objectives determines whether deer population levels in parks are acceptable or unacceptable, and to what extent. Deer that use urban-proximate parks also use habitats in surrounding communities and cause impacts to local community residents. Little research has assessed the scope of resident stakeholder understanding of the deer-management system for urban-proximate parks administered by the NPS. This study utilized semi-structured interviews with residents of communities near two parks to describe the potential breadth of complex deer issues and contributing factors (i.e., the management system). At both study sites, interviewees revealed the management system as a multilevel system of factors that contributed to perceived deer problems: (I) anthropogenic activities were seen to result in (II) broad ecological effects, causing (III) events or interactions between deer and people or resources, some of which lead to (IV) habituation of deer to anthropogenic activities, amplifying (V) perception of specific impacts experienced by stakeholders. A conceptual model was developed to visually depict the perceived relationship between the different system components. The NPS management frame and the dominant discourses at each park then were mapped onto the conceptual model to illustrate how differences in framing can contribute to suburban wildlife controversies. At both parks, the dominant discourse differed from the NPS management frame, illustrating that suburban deer issues are more than just complex; they are “messy.” Messy problems, while fundamentally complex, do not have a single problem formulation. Conceptual models like the one described in this study may be used as a starting point for future discourse-based stakeholder engagement processes to facilitate mutual learning between stakeholders and managers that expands perspectives beyond conventional problem frames to create sustainable solutions.
Sagamore Publishing LLC (hereinafter the “Copyright Owner”)
Journal Publishing Copyright Agreement for Authors
PLEASE REVIEW OUR POLICIES AND THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT, AND INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS BY CHECKING THE ‘AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS COPYRIGHT NOTICE’ CHECKBOX BELOW.
I understand that by submitting an article to Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, I am granting the copyright to the article submitted for consideration for publication in Journal of Park and Recreation Administration to the Copyright Owner. If after consideration of the Editor of the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, the article is not accepted for publication, all copyright covered under this agreement will be automatically returned to the Author(s).
THE PUBLISHING AGREEMENT
Assignment of Copyright
I hereby assign to the Copyright Owner the copyright in the manuscript I am submitting in this online procedure and any tables, illustrations or other material submitted for publication as part of the manuscript in all forms and media (whether now known or later developed), throughout the world, in all languages, for the full term of copyright, effective when the article is accepted for publication.
Reversion of Rights
Articles may sometimes be accepted for publication but later be rejected in the publication process, even in some cases after public posting in “Articles in Press” form, in which case all rights will revert to the Author.
Retention of Rights for Scholarly Purposes
I understand that I retain or am hereby granted the Retained Rights. The Retained Rights include the right to use the Preprint, Accepted Manuscript, and the Published Journal Article for Personal Use and Internal Institutional Use.
All journal material is under a 12 month embargo. Authors who would like to have their articles available as open access should contact Sagamore-Venture for further information.
In the case of the Accepted Manuscript and the Published Journal Article, the Retained Rights exclude Commercial Use, other than use by the author in a subsequent compilation of the author’s works or to extend the Article to book length form or re-use by the author of portions or excerpts in other works.
Published Journal Article: the author may share a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI.
- The Article I have submitted to the journal for review is original, has been written by the stated author(s) and has not been published elsewhere.
- The Article was not submitted for review to another journal while under review by this journal and will not be submitted to any other journal.
- The Article contains no libelous or other unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that violate any personal or proprietary rights of any other person or entity.
- I have obtained written permission from copyright owners for any excerpts from copyrighted works that are included and have credited the sources in the Article.
- If the Article was prepared jointly with other authors, I have informed the co-author(s) of the terms of this Journal Publishing Agreement and that I am signing on their behalf as their agent, and I am authorized to do so.