Title |
Legal Framework for Biosphere Reserves as Learning Sites for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Analysis of Ukraine and Sweden
|
---|---|
Published in |
Ambio, March 2013
|
DOI | 10.1007/s13280-012-0373-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Marine Elbakidze, Thomas Hahn, Volker Mauerhofer, Per Angelstam, Robert Axelsson |
Abstract |
The Biosphere Reserve (BR) concept aims at encouraging sustainable development (SD) towards sustainability on the ground by promoting three core functions: conservation, development, and logistic support. Sweden and Ukraine exemplify the diverse governance contexts that BRs need to cope with. We assessed how the BR concept and its core functions are captured in national legislations. The results show that the core functions are in different ways reflected in legal documents in both countries. While in Ukraine the BR concept is incorporated into legislation, in Sweden the concept is used as a soft law. In Ukraine managers desired stronger legal enforcement, while in Sweden managers avoided emphasis on legislation when collaborating with local stakeholders. Hence, BR implementation have adapted to different political cultures by development of diverse approaches. We conclude that a stronger legal support might not be needed for BRs, rather SD needs to be recognized as an integrated place-based process at multiple levels. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Israel | 1 | 1% |
Mexico | 1 | 1% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 77 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 21 | 26% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
Student > Master | 13 | 16% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 4% |
Other | 9 | 11% |
Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Environmental Science | 27 | 34% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 19% |
Social Sciences | 10 | 13% |
Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 8% |
Unknown | 18 | 23% |