Envisioning “new forests” on abandoned farmland in Russia: A discourse analysis of a controversy

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103871
{"title":"Envisioning “new forests” on abandoned farmland in Russia: A discourse analysis of a controversy","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Trees have been growing on millions of hectares of abandoned farmland in Russia for decades but have only recently become an issue of political and public controversy. This controversy was sparked by a campaign promoting the legalisation and management of these hitherto informal forests and promising multiple socio-economic and ecological benefits by developing what we call “new forests”. Emphasising dormant potential and claiming win-win solutions meant a fundamental discursive shift away from abandoned farmland’s negative framing. We conducted a political discourse analysis of media coverage, campaigns, and legislation around “new forests” from 2013 through 2022. Our approach draws on an analysis of practical argumentation and a Science and Technology Studies (STS)-inspired issue-oriented perspective. We found that the controversy on the future use of this land was one of conflicting visions rather than actual land-use conflicts. Three camps developed, advocating private new forests, state-controlled forestry, and agricultural recultivation. We discuss how the new forest controversy reflects broader rationalities, and tensions between agriculture, forestry, carbon sequestration, and forest conservation that remain relevant even though circumstances for policies of farmland reuse in Russia have changed fundamentally since 2022.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002053/pdfft?md5=49668b3b90936cd94eae4ed5f9b41bba&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124002053-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trees have been growing on millions of hectares of abandoned farmland in Russia for decades but have only recently become an issue of political and public controversy. This controversy was sparked by a campaign promoting the legalisation and management of these hitherto informal forests and promising multiple socio-economic and ecological benefits by developing what we call “new forests”. Emphasising dormant potential and claiming win-win solutions meant a fundamental discursive shift away from abandoned farmland’s negative framing. We conducted a political discourse analysis of media coverage, campaigns, and legislation around “new forests” from 2013 through 2022. Our approach draws on an analysis of practical argumentation and a Science and Technology Studies (STS)-inspired issue-oriented perspective. We found that the controversy on the future use of this land was one of conflicting visions rather than actual land-use conflicts. Three camps developed, advocating private new forests, state-controlled forestry, and agricultural recultivation. We discuss how the new forest controversy reflects broader rationalities, and tensions between agriculture, forestry, carbon sequestration, and forest conservation that remain relevant even though circumstances for policies of farmland reuse in Russia have changed fundamentally since 2022.

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
俄罗斯废弃农田上的 "新森林 "设想:对争议的话语分析
几十年来,树木一直生长在俄罗斯数百万公顷的废弃农田上,但直到最近才成为一个引起政治和公众争议的问题。这场争论是由一场运动引发的,这场运动促进了这些迄今为止非正式森林的合法化和管理,并承诺通过开发我们所说的 "新森林 "来实现多种社会经济和生态效益。强调沉睡的潜力并宣称双赢的解决方案意味着从根本上改变了对废弃农田的负面描述。我们对 2013 年至 2022 年期间围绕 "新森林 "的媒体报道、活动和立法进行了政治话语分析。我们的方法借鉴了实际论证分析和科技研究(STS)启发的问题导向视角。我们发现,关于这片土地未来用途的争议是愿景之间的冲突,而非实际的土地使用冲突。形成了三个阵营,分别主张私人新森林、国家控制的林业和农业复垦。我们讨论了新森林之争如何反映了更广泛的合理性,以及农业、林业、碳固存和森林保护之间的紧张关系,尽管俄罗斯农田再利用政策的环境自 2022 年以来发生了根本性变化,但这些问题依然存在。
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
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Attending to the unattended: Why and how do local governments plan for access and functional needs in climate risk reduction? Beyond Academia: A case for reviews of gray literature for science-policy processes and applied research Of heroes and villains – How coalitions shape their narratives and what the public conservation debate is actually about? Enhancing meaningful Indigenous leadership and collaboration in international environmental governance forums
×
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