Search

Highlights • Comparative research of soil erosion perceptions of farmers and local leaders. • Over 75% of all stakeholders see soil erosion as a big problem. • Irresponsible farmers are seen as the most important cause by all stakeholders. • Growing appropriate crops is most preferred activity to mitigate the problem. • Farmers tend to have more productivist views on agriculture than local leaders. Abstract Soil erosion by water is the most common cause of land degradation and traditionally coincides with agricultural production. This paper presents the results of a sociological case study comparing the perceptions of soil erosion of stakeholder groups from southern Moravia, an intensive agricultural and erosion-prone region in the Czech Republic. The research documents and analyses perceptions of erosion, perceived causes, and attitudes towards possible corrective measures. Altogether, 216 stakeholders consisting of farmers and local leaders (mostly mayors and vice-mayors) took part in a questionnaire survey between the years of 2012–2015. The results show that the stakeholders as whole are in general aware of the seriousness of the problem and see irresponsible farmers, lack of organic fertilizers and climate change as the major causes. Overall most preferred erosion mitigation measures were the growing of appropriate crops and the splitting of large fields into smaller ones. The views of farmers and local leaders are compared and discussed within the framework of the changing roles of rural areas. A productivist paradigm and corresponding modulation of erosion is significantly more prevalent among farmers, although not the dominant viewpoint in this group. The socio-economic context of soil erosion and recent trends in Czech soil conservation policies are discussed and it is argued that the local stakeholders are supportive of pro-environmental measures despite a lack of effort on the governmental and legislation level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: From 1990 to 1996, the National Park Service and residents living near the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in south-central Missouri clashed over the federal agency’s intention to remove 25–30 wild horses from the protected area. The struggle was carried out in various legal and legislative arenas, the media, and in community protests and meetings. The dispute ended only with Congressional approval of the 1996 Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act, which included an amendment ordering an end to any removal efforts. This article focuses on the contested social constructions of the horses themselves. To government scientists and managers, the animals represented a feral and exotic species with no legitimate place in agency-mandated ecosystem management and restoration scenarios. To many local members of the Missouri Wild Horse League, which contested the removal, the horses had critical historical and cultural importance as icons of regional identity, history and personal experience, and as core symbols of communities increasingly politically and economically marginalized. Local disputes with environmental groups and agencies concerned with Ozark ecosystem preservation and restoration have become more pronounced and numerous over the past two decades. This article approaches citizen opposition to environmental agendas not as an anti-environmental movement, but as a contemporary effort of marginalized groups to identify sources of economic, political, and social loss, and symbols of local identity and power. The wild horse issue reveals wider structural divides, and thus speaks to the question of which social groups shall have the power to impose their visions of the landscape and political economy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]