Pub Date : 2022-10-16DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2125583
K. Malmborg, I. Wallin, V. Brukas, T. Do, Isak Lodin, T. Neset, A. Norström, N. Powell, K. Tonderski
ABSTRACT Addressing sustainability challenges in landscape management requires processes for co-producing usable knowledge together with those who will use that knowledge. Participatory futures methods are powerful tools for attaining such knowledge. The applications of such methods are diverse and understanding the intricacies of the knowledge co-production process is important to further develop these research practices. To improve participatory futures methods and contribute to systematic and critical reflections on methodology, we present a comparative analysis of four research projects that applied participatory futures methods in the same study area. Conducted between 2011 and 2020, these projects aimed to co-produce knowledge about the future provision of ecosystem services in the Helge å catchment area in southern Sweden. For structuring the post-hoc, self-reflexive analysis, we developed a framework dividing the knowledge co-production process into three dimensions: settings, synthesis and diffusion. We based the analysis on documentation from the projects, a two-step questionnaire to each research team, a workshop with co-authors and interviews with key participants. The comparison highlights steps in project decision-making, explicit and implicit assumptions in our respective approaches and how these assumptions informed process design in the projects. Our detailed description of the four knowledge co-production processes points to the importance of flexibility in research design, but also the necessity for researchers and other participants to adapt as the process unfolds.
{"title":"Knowledge co-production in the Helge å catchment: a comparative analysis","authors":"K. Malmborg, I. Wallin, V. Brukas, T. Do, Isak Lodin, T. Neset, A. Norström, N. Powell, K. Tonderski","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2125583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2125583","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Addressing sustainability challenges in landscape management requires processes for co-producing usable knowledge together with those who will use that knowledge. Participatory futures methods are powerful tools for attaining such knowledge. The applications of such methods are diverse and understanding the intricacies of the knowledge co-production process is important to further develop these research practices. To improve participatory futures methods and contribute to systematic and critical reflections on methodology, we present a comparative analysis of four research projects that applied participatory futures methods in the same study area. Conducted between 2011 and 2020, these projects aimed to co-produce knowledge about the future provision of ecosystem services in the Helge å catchment area in southern Sweden. For structuring the post-hoc, self-reflexive analysis, we developed a framework dividing the knowledge co-production process into three dimensions: settings, synthesis and diffusion. We based the analysis on documentation from the projects, a two-step questionnaire to each research team, a workshop with co-authors and interviews with key participants. The comparison highlights steps in project decision-making, explicit and implicit assumptions in our respective approaches and how these assumptions informed process design in the projects. Our detailed description of the four knowledge co-production processes points to the importance of flexibility in research design, but also the necessity for researchers and other participants to adapt as the process unfolds.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"565 - 582"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44314260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2121762
A. Shrestha, S. Karki, U. Koju, T. Maraseni, A. P. Gautam, Timothy Cadman, S. Baral
ABSTRACT This paper investigates the views of multi-stakeholders on the governance quality of existing forest management strategies for red panda (Ailurus fulgens) protection in Nepal, focusing on forest governance in general, red panda conservation programmes and natural habitat protection in particular. The study deployed two surveys in August and September 2020. The first survey was conducted online for the stakeholders with internet access; for those without, it was conducted over the phone. While the results reveal almost similar perspectives among the stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of the red panda management approaches, they differ significantly between the online survey and telephonic survey, in terms of the relative scores given to these initiatives. In depth, follow-up interviews revealed that marginalised groups had little access to income generation from conservation activities and few capacity-building opportunities. These findings indicate that while management strategies for red panda conservation were generally considered effective by online survey participants which are generally more privileged, this is less effective for marginalised people. Local people, who are typically resource-poor and reliant on the forest, continue to endure inequitable resource distribution and benefit sharing. Consequently, greater attention should be paid to balancing the conservation needs and basic needs of forest-dependent communities through capacity building, income generation and alternative sources of livelihood.
{"title":"Stakeholder perspectives on the effectiveness of governance in red panda conservation programmes in Nepal: a comparative analysis","authors":"A. Shrestha, S. Karki, U. Koju, T. Maraseni, A. P. Gautam, Timothy Cadman, S. Baral","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2121762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2121762","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper investigates the views of multi-stakeholders on the governance quality of existing forest management strategies for red panda (Ailurus fulgens) protection in Nepal, focusing on forest governance in general, red panda conservation programmes and natural habitat protection in particular. The study deployed two surveys in August and September 2020. The first survey was conducted online for the stakeholders with internet access; for those without, it was conducted over the phone. While the results reveal almost similar perspectives among the stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of the red panda management approaches, they differ significantly between the online survey and telephonic survey, in terms of the relative scores given to these initiatives. In depth, follow-up interviews revealed that marginalised groups had little access to income generation from conservation activities and few capacity-building opportunities. These findings indicate that while management strategies for red panda conservation were generally considered effective by online survey participants which are generally more privileged, this is less effective for marginalised people. Local people, who are typically resource-poor and reliant on the forest, continue to endure inequitable resource distribution and benefit sharing. Consequently, greater attention should be paid to balancing the conservation needs and basic needs of forest-dependent communities through capacity building, income generation and alternative sources of livelihood.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"547 - 564"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43015434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-22DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2107079
M. Bhatta, K. Zander, S. Garnett
ABSTRACT The habitats of Nepal’s endangered red pandas provide ecosystem goods and services to surrounding human communities. Here, to help reduce pressure on the panda, we quantified the current use of the most important ecosystem goods and services obtained in and around a protected area in western Nepal, trends over the last 20 years, and factors driving those trends. Our results show that more ecosystem goods and services were sourced by communities living outside the protected area than inside except for fodder and bedding for animals, recreational activities and ecotourism. Incomes inside the protected area were higher than outside. Of the seven main services investigated (i) use of medicinal plants had increased but their availability had declined; (ii) bamboo use remained steady but less was available; (iii) there were no perceived trends in firewood use or availability; (iv) there was less transhumant pastoralism to upland pastures but pasture availability had declined; (v) less fodder and bedding for animals was collected inside the park than outside, but the availability was unchanged; (vi) use of sacred religious sites had declined inside but not outside the park; (vii) the reverse was true for recreational tourism. Direct drivers of change in ecosystem service provision included changes in weather patterns and fluctuations in the market for goods; indirect drivers were institutional governance and regulation, population growth, literacy, poverty, and infrastructure development. Policies that ensure sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services from panda habitats could improve local livelihoods, reduce natural resource degradation and help conserve the panda.
{"title":"Trends in ecosystem goods and services obtained from red panda habitats in north-western Nepal","authors":"M. Bhatta, K. Zander, S. Garnett","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2107079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2107079","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The habitats of Nepal’s endangered red pandas provide ecosystem goods and services to surrounding human communities. Here, to help reduce pressure on the panda, we quantified the current use of the most important ecosystem goods and services obtained in and around a protected area in western Nepal, trends over the last 20 years, and factors driving those trends. Our results show that more ecosystem goods and services were sourced by communities living outside the protected area than inside except for fodder and bedding for animals, recreational activities and ecotourism. Incomes inside the protected area were higher than outside. Of the seven main services investigated (i) use of medicinal plants had increased but their availability had declined; (ii) bamboo use remained steady but less was available; (iii) there were no perceived trends in firewood use or availability; (iv) there was less transhumant pastoralism to upland pastures but pasture availability had declined; (v) less fodder and bedding for animals was collected inside the park than outside, but the availability was unchanged; (vi) use of sacred religious sites had declined inside but not outside the park; (vii) the reverse was true for recreational tourism. Direct drivers of change in ecosystem service provision included changes in weather patterns and fluctuations in the market for goods; indirect drivers were institutional governance and regulation, population growth, literacy, poverty, and infrastructure development. Policies that ensure sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services from panda habitats could improve local livelihoods, reduce natural resource degradation and help conserve the panda.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"514 - 529"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41494662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-18DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2108498
Andra Ioana Horcea-Milcu, Sara Zaman, A. Filyushkina, M. D. López-Rodríguez, M. Cebrián‐Piqueras, C. Raymond
ABSTRACT Respecting connections between the diversity of values and forms of knowledge is essential to support a decision-making that fosters relationships between ecosystems and people. However, little theory has been developed for clarifying interactions between values and knowledge, and their relevance for environmental policy. We surfaced the overlooked relationship between values and knowledge by studying individual cognitive and emotional processes during a guided visioning exercise in the context of the multifunctional landscapes of Östergötland, Sweden. We investigated these cognitive processes using 30 semi-structured interviews and questionnaires organized around three types of relationships: vision ⇔ values, vision ⇔ knowledge, and especially values ⇔ knowledge. The analysis of the relationship between vision and values reveals that all types of values including core human values, relational, and intrinsic values are important in shaping the decision-making context in which landscape management visions arise. The relationship between vision and knowledge uncovers the mix of experiential and theoretical knowledge that informs the decision-making context. Interviews unfold three modalities in terms of how values and knowledge relate: i) linked and not necessarily connected (e.g. when individuals perceive a high conflict between their knowledge and their values leading to one construct silencing the other); ii) mutually reinforcing (e.g. when values and knowledge are seen as feeding into one another); and iii) intertwined (e.g. when individuals perceive that values and knowledge can co-exist). We discuss our findings in the context of their relevance for a collaborative decision-making process for balancing consensus and dissensus in multifunctional landscapes.
{"title":"The relationship between values and knowledge in visioning for landscape management: relevance for a collaborative approach","authors":"Andra Ioana Horcea-Milcu, Sara Zaman, A. Filyushkina, M. D. López-Rodríguez, M. Cebrián‐Piqueras, C. Raymond","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2108498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2108498","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Respecting connections between the diversity of values and forms of knowledge is essential to support a decision-making that fosters relationships between ecosystems and people. However, little theory has been developed for clarifying interactions between values and knowledge, and their relevance for environmental policy. We surfaced the overlooked relationship between values and knowledge by studying individual cognitive and emotional processes during a guided visioning exercise in the context of the multifunctional landscapes of Östergötland, Sweden. We investigated these cognitive processes using 30 semi-structured interviews and questionnaires organized around three types of relationships: vision ⇔ values, vision ⇔ knowledge, and especially values ⇔ knowledge. The analysis of the relationship between vision and values reveals that all types of values including core human values, relational, and intrinsic values are important in shaping the decision-making context in which landscape management visions arise. The relationship between vision and knowledge uncovers the mix of experiential and theoretical knowledge that informs the decision-making context. Interviews unfold three modalities in terms of how values and knowledge relate: i) linked and not necessarily connected (e.g. when individuals perceive a high conflict between their knowledge and their values leading to one construct silencing the other); ii) mutually reinforcing (e.g. when values and knowledge are seen as feeding into one another); and iii) intertwined (e.g. when individuals perceive that values and knowledge can co-exist). We discuss our findings in the context of their relevance for a collaborative decision-making process for balancing consensus and dissensus in multifunctional landscapes.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"498 - 513"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48183544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-14DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2108499
Carlos Andres Gallegos-Riofrío, E. Zent, Rachelle K. Gould
ABSTRACT The paper, ‘A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations’ presents a compelling summary of the incipient relational turn in sustainability science. That piece and the reply and response that follow put forth important arguments about what relational thinking is and how it can infuse sustainability science research. We are grateful for this conversation, but also recognize that crucial intellectual contributions from the Global South require further treatment. In response to West et al’.s invitation to conversation, we offer a summary of a diverse body of scholarship and practice that informs sustainability science in subtle but clear ways: Latin American contributions. We first summarize a set of Latin American theoretical contributions to relational thinking relevant to sustainability science. We then offer examples of how relational thinking infuses everyday life in many Latin American contexts. We close with reflections on the importance of Latin American thinking for sustainability science and transformations toward sustainability.
{"title":"The importance of Latin American scholarship-and-practice for the relational turn in sustainability science: a reply to West et al. (2020)","authors":"Carlos Andres Gallegos-Riofrío, E. Zent, Rachelle K. Gould","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2108499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2108499","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper, ‘A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations’ presents a compelling summary of the incipient relational turn in sustainability science. That piece and the reply and response that follow put forth important arguments about what relational thinking is and how it can infuse sustainability science research. We are grateful for this conversation, but also recognize that crucial intellectual contributions from the Global South require further treatment. In response to West et al’.s invitation to conversation, we offer a summary of a diverse body of scholarship and practice that informs sustainability science in subtle but clear ways: Latin American contributions. We first summarize a set of Latin American theoretical contributions to relational thinking relevant to sustainability science. We then offer examples of how relational thinking infuses everyday life in many Latin American contexts. We close with reflections on the importance of Latin American thinking for sustainability science and transformations toward sustainability.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"478 - 483"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43220718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-14DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2097478
R. Biggs, Hayley S. Clements, G. Cumming, G. Cundill, Alta de Vos, Maike Hamann, L. Luvuno, D. Roux, O. Selomane, R. Blanchard, J. Cockburn, L. Dziba, K. Esler, C. Fabricius, Rebecka Henriksson, K. Kotschy, R. Lindborg, V. Masterson, J. Nel, P. O’Farrell, C. Palmer, Laura Pereira, S. Pollard, Rika Preiser, R. Scholes, C. Shackleton, S. Shackleton, N. Sitas, J. Slingsby, M. Spierenburg, Maria Tengö, B. Reyers
ABSTRACT Social-ecological systems (SES) research has emerged as an important area of sustainability science, informing and supporting pressing issues of transformation towards more sustainable, just and equitable futures. To date, much SES research has been done in or from the Global North, where the challenges and contexts for supporting sustainability transformations are substantially different from the Global South. This paper synthesises emerging insights on SES dynamics that can inform actions and advance research to support sustainability transformations specifically in the southern African context. The paper draws on work linked to members of the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society (SAPECS), a leading SES research network in the region, synthesizing key insights with respect to the five core themes of SAPECS: (i) transdisciplinary and engaged research, (ii) ecosystem services and human well-being, (iii) governance institutions and management practices, (iv) spatial relationships and cross-scale connections, and (v) regime shifts, traps and transformations. For each theme, we focus on insights that are particularly novel, interesting or important in the southern African context, and reflect on key research gaps and emerging frontiers for SES research in the region going forward. Such place-based insights are important for understanding the variation in SES dynamics around the world, and are crucial for informing a context-sensitive global agenda to foster sustainability transformations at local to global scales.
{"title":"Social-ecological change: insights from the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society","authors":"R. Biggs, Hayley S. Clements, G. Cumming, G. Cundill, Alta de Vos, Maike Hamann, L. Luvuno, D. Roux, O. Selomane, R. Blanchard, J. Cockburn, L. Dziba, K. Esler, C. Fabricius, Rebecka Henriksson, K. Kotschy, R. Lindborg, V. Masterson, J. Nel, P. O’Farrell, C. Palmer, Laura Pereira, S. Pollard, Rika Preiser, R. Scholes, C. Shackleton, S. Shackleton, N. Sitas, J. Slingsby, M. Spierenburg, Maria Tengö, B. Reyers","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2097478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2097478","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Social-ecological systems (SES) research has emerged as an important area of sustainability science, informing and supporting pressing issues of transformation towards more sustainable, just and equitable futures. To date, much SES research has been done in or from the Global North, where the challenges and contexts for supporting sustainability transformations are substantially different from the Global South. This paper synthesises emerging insights on SES dynamics that can inform actions and advance research to support sustainability transformations specifically in the southern African context. The paper draws on work linked to members of the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society (SAPECS), a leading SES research network in the region, synthesizing key insights with respect to the five core themes of SAPECS: (i) transdisciplinary and engaged research, (ii) ecosystem services and human well-being, (iii) governance institutions and management practices, (iv) spatial relationships and cross-scale connections, and (v) regime shifts, traps and transformations. For each theme, we focus on insights that are particularly novel, interesting or important in the southern African context, and reflect on key research gaps and emerging frontiers for SES research in the region going forward. Such place-based insights are important for understanding the variation in SES dynamics around the world, and are crucial for informing a context-sensitive global agenda to foster sustainability transformations at local to global scales.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"447 - 468"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46505278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-11DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2107080
Alma Maria Moroder, M. Kernecker
ABSTRACT To successfully understand and shape biodiversity conservation in Alpine grasslands, it is crucial to understand how farmers’ relationship to biodiversity influences their goals and associated practices. We explored how farmers perceive and value biodiversity, how this is related to agricultural and land use practices, and how they view their roles in affecting it. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 farmers in the northern Italian Alps and with 6 experts in the fields of grassland management, agriculture, and environmental conservation in 2020. The farmers’ answers were analyzed using a mental model approach, relational thinking, and the literature on the ‘good farmer’. The experts’ responses were used to discuss and contextualize the farmer’s answers. We found that the farmers’ mental model of biodiversity is associated to different aspects of agricultural management practices and farmers’ roles in mountain agricultural landscapes. Instrumental values of biodiversity are negative and strongly perceived as such by farmers, while relational values associated with biodiversity are positive, but more weakly perceived. These differing perceptions and values seem to be associated with two roles that farmers have, as producers and landscape stewards, and how they value fodder quantity and quality. Most farmers don’t include considerations related to the conservation of biodiversity in their management decisions, and mostly do not envision any changes in biodiversity or management in the future. Effective biodiversity conservation in Alpine grasslands will therefore need to tap into these dual roles and the associated instrumental and relational values of biodiversity for a meaningful dialogue on conservation.
{"title":"Grassland farmers’ relationship with biodiversity: a case study from the northern Italian Alps","authors":"Alma Maria Moroder, M. Kernecker","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2107080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2107080","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To successfully understand and shape biodiversity conservation in Alpine grasslands, it is crucial to understand how farmers’ relationship to biodiversity influences their goals and associated practices. We explored how farmers perceive and value biodiversity, how this is related to agricultural and land use practices, and how they view their roles in affecting it. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 farmers in the northern Italian Alps and with 6 experts in the fields of grassland management, agriculture, and environmental conservation in 2020. The farmers’ answers were analyzed using a mental model approach, relational thinking, and the literature on the ‘good farmer’. The experts’ responses were used to discuss and contextualize the farmer’s answers. We found that the farmers’ mental model of biodiversity is associated to different aspects of agricultural management practices and farmers’ roles in mountain agricultural landscapes. Instrumental values of biodiversity are negative and strongly perceived as such by farmers, while relational values associated with biodiversity are positive, but more weakly perceived. These differing perceptions and values seem to be associated with two roles that farmers have, as producers and landscape stewards, and how they value fodder quantity and quality. Most farmers don’t include considerations related to the conservation of biodiversity in their management decisions, and mostly do not envision any changes in biodiversity or management in the future. Effective biodiversity conservation in Alpine grasslands will therefore need to tap into these dual roles and the associated instrumental and relational values of biodiversity for a meaningful dialogue on conservation.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"484 - 497"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44623565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-11DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2101531
N. Ardoin, Rachelle K. Gould, Deborah J. Wojcik, Noelle Wyman Roth, Matt Biggar
ABSTRACT Collaborative research approaches can promote social learning by curating a structure that facilitates inclusive dialogue and reflection. Within an epistemological frame that upholds notions of emergence rather than extraction, such modes can foster collective reflection in ways that contribute to reversing traditional notions of expertise. In this paper, we describe ‘Community Listening Sessions’, an approach drawing on focus group, learning circle, and participatory research literature. We developed Community Listening Sessions to study the interactional contexts of environmental learning – an inherently social, collective process. In our initial application, through 14 listening sessions hosted across the San Francisco Bay Area (California, USA), we engaged more than 100 community members in discussing how they learn about and take action related to the environment in their daily lives. We make recommendations for future use of Community Listening Sessions for collecting qualitative data in a participatory, equitable way in what can be challenging, high-social-cost discussions, yet those that are critical for addressing issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, socio-environmental justice, and others that are essential to the future of our species and planet.
{"title":"Community listening sessions: an approach for facilitating collective reflection on environmental learning and behavior in everyday life","authors":"N. Ardoin, Rachelle K. Gould, Deborah J. Wojcik, Noelle Wyman Roth, Matt Biggar","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2101531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2101531","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Collaborative research approaches can promote social learning by curating a structure that facilitates inclusive dialogue and reflection. Within an epistemological frame that upholds notions of emergence rather than extraction, such modes can foster collective reflection in ways that contribute to reversing traditional notions of expertise. In this paper, we describe ‘Community Listening Sessions’, an approach drawing on focus group, learning circle, and participatory research literature. We developed Community Listening Sessions to study the interactional contexts of environmental learning – an inherently social, collective process. In our initial application, through 14 listening sessions hosted across the San Francisco Bay Area (California, USA), we engaged more than 100 community members in discussing how they learn about and take action related to the environment in their daily lives. We make recommendations for future use of Community Listening Sessions for collecting qualitative data in a participatory, equitable way in what can be challenging, high-social-cost discussions, yet those that are critical for addressing issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, socio-environmental justice, and others that are essential to the future of our species and planet.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"469 - 477"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43393953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2097477
Juanita Aldana-Domínguez, I. Palomo, J. Arellana, Carrol Gómez de la Rosa
ABSTRACT Rapid urbanization trends and urban lifestyles challenge urban populations to recognize ecosystems’ contributions to their well-being, and urban planners to integrate nature at the core of urban development. This study assesses the relationships between ecosystems and people in the rapidly expanding Barranquilla Metropolitan Area (BMA) and extracts lessons for its planning as a BiodiverCity. Using 22 interviews and 400 face-to-face surveys we evaluated: 1) the perception of positive and negative contributions of specific types of ecosystems to human well-being (HWB); 2) the importance and vulnerability of multiple ecosystem services (ES) and disservices (EdS); and 3) the relationships between ES, EdS and relational values (RV), and the influence of socioeconomic factors in providing HWB, using a Structural Equation Model (SEM). Open-ended answers in the survey showed that rural and certain natural ecosystems, such as wetlands, mangroves and tropical dry forest were the least valued ecosystems and included some EdS. In contrast, urban and peri-urban ecosystems, namely the river, beaches, crops, urban green, and backyards, were the most valued. Overall, regulating ES were perceived as critical, as well as important and vulnerable. The results of the SEM model indicate that HWB is not only explained by socioeconomic factors such as income and education, but also by ES. We argue that the necessary sustainable socio-economic development of the BMA should be coupled with an urban planning that integrates ES and their contributions to HWB.
{"title":"Unpacking the complexity of nature´s contributions to human well-being: lessons to transform the Barranquilla Metropolitan Area into a BiodiverCity","authors":"Juanita Aldana-Domínguez, I. Palomo, J. Arellana, Carrol Gómez de la Rosa","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2097477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2097477","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Rapid urbanization trends and urban lifestyles challenge urban populations to recognize ecosystems’ contributions to their well-being, and urban planners to integrate nature at the core of urban development. This study assesses the relationships between ecosystems and people in the rapidly expanding Barranquilla Metropolitan Area (BMA) and extracts lessons for its planning as a BiodiverCity. Using 22 interviews and 400 face-to-face surveys we evaluated: 1) the perception of positive and negative contributions of specific types of ecosystems to human well-being (HWB); 2) the importance and vulnerability of multiple ecosystem services (ES) and disservices (EdS); and 3) the relationships between ES, EdS and relational values (RV), and the influence of socioeconomic factors in providing HWB, using a Structural Equation Model (SEM). Open-ended answers in the survey showed that rural and certain natural ecosystems, such as wetlands, mangroves and tropical dry forest were the least valued ecosystems and included some EdS. In contrast, urban and peri-urban ecosystems, namely the river, beaches, crops, urban green, and backyards, were the most valued. Overall, regulating ES were perceived as critical, as well as important and vulnerable. The results of the SEM model indicate that HWB is not only explained by socioeconomic factors such as income and education, but also by ES. We argue that the necessary sustainable socio-economic development of the BMA should be coupled with an urban planning that integrates ES and their contributions to HWB.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"430 - 446"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48282463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-06DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2086924
Amy L. Shurety, H. Bartelet, S. Chawla, Nicholas L. James, M. Lapointe, K. Zoeller, C. Chua, G. Cumming
ABSTRACT Under global environmental change, understanding the interactions between people and nature has become critical for human survival. Comparative research can identify trends within social-ecological systems providing key insights for both environmental and developmental research. Island systems, with clear land boundaries, have been proposed as ideal case studies for comparative research, but it is unclear to what extent their potential has been fulfilled. To summarize existing research and identify potential gaps and new directions, we reviewed comparative environmental and developmental research on Pacific Large Ocean States. A diversity of case study locations and research themes were addressed within the sample of reviewed studies. Within the reviewed literature climate change, energy infrastructure, trade and fisheries were key themes of environmental and developmental research compared between island systems. Research was biased towards wealthier Pacific Large Ocean States and those with a relatively higher degree of socio-economic development. Our review highlights the potential value of a stronger a priori inclusion of spatial scale and conceptual frameworks, such as spatial resilience, to facilitate generalization from case studies.
{"title":"Insights from twenty years of comparative research in Pacific Large Ocean States","authors":"Amy L. Shurety, H. Bartelet, S. Chawla, Nicholas L. James, M. Lapointe, K. Zoeller, C. Chua, G. Cumming","doi":"10.1080/26395916.2022.2086924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2086924","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Under global environmental change, understanding the interactions between people and nature has become critical for human survival. Comparative research can identify trends within social-ecological systems providing key insights for both environmental and developmental research. Island systems, with clear land boundaries, have been proposed as ideal case studies for comparative research, but it is unclear to what extent their potential has been fulfilled. To summarize existing research and identify potential gaps and new directions, we reviewed comparative environmental and developmental research on Pacific Large Ocean States. A diversity of case study locations and research themes were addressed within the sample of reviewed studies. Within the reviewed literature climate change, energy infrastructure, trade and fisheries were key themes of environmental and developmental research compared between island systems. Research was biased towards wealthier Pacific Large Ocean States and those with a relatively higher degree of socio-economic development. Our review highlights the potential value of a stronger a priori inclusion of spatial scale and conceptual frameworks, such as spatial resilience, to facilitate generalization from case studies.","PeriodicalId":37104,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystems and People","volume":"18 1","pages":"410 - 429"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3,"publicationDate":"2022-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41527136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：