000			02090naa a2200205uu 4500
001			9101315503437
003			OSt
005			20190211165716.0
008			091013s2009 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aMATTSON, David J. _938034
245	1	0	_aHuman-provided waters for desert wildlife : _bwhat is the problem?
260			_aNetherlands : _bSprings, _cMay 2009
520	3		_aConflict persists in southwestern deserts of the United States over management of human-constructed devices to provide wildlife with water. We appraised decision processes in this case relative to the goal of human dignity and by the standards of civility and common interest outcomes. Our analysis suggested that conflict was scientized, rooted in worldviews, and aggravated by use of inflammatory symbols such as “wilderness” and “bighorn sheep.” Contested problem definitions, framed as matters of science, advanced factional interests largely by allocating the burden of proof and failing to disclose private concerns about well-being, affection, respect, skill and power. Decision processes were shaped by precepts of scientific management, and thus largely failed to foster civility, common ground, and a focus on common interests, and instead tended to exacerbate deprivations of dignity and respect. If the status quo continues, we foresee further erosion of human dignity because there are likely to be increases in system stressors, such as climate change and human population growth. The prognosis would be more hopeful if alternatives were adopted that entailed authoritative, equitable, and collaborative public decision-making processes that took into consideration national-level common interests such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
590			_aWildlife water developments - Southwest - Discourse - Problem orientation - Decision process
700	1		_aCHAMBERS, Nina _938035
773	0	8	_tPolicy Sciences _g42, 2, p. 113-135 _dNetherlands : Springs, May 2009 _xISSN 00322687 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20091013 _b1550^b _cDaiane
998			_a20091021 _b1532^b _cCarolina
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c30375 _d30375
041			_aeng