公正的自然恢复:以多物种和多维正义为中心的土地管理框架

IF 5.2 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.103992
Theo Stanley, Mark Hirons, Jonathon Turnbull, Jamie Lorimer, Eric Mensah Kumeh, Caitlin Hafferty, Lea May Anderson, Constance L. McDermott
{"title":"公正的自然恢复:以多物种和多维正义为中心的土地管理框架","authors":"Theo Stanley,&nbsp;Mark Hirons,&nbsp;Jonathon Turnbull,&nbsp;Jamie Lorimer,&nbsp;Eric Mensah Kumeh,&nbsp;Caitlin Hafferty,&nbsp;Lea May Anderson,&nbsp;Constance L. McDermott","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.103992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A rising interest in nature recovery has expanded the focus of conservation beyond protected areas to encompass a range of terrestrial and marine areas, from forests, fields, and farms, to cities, coasts and oceans. These expansions create new practical and theoretical contestations regarding how, why, and for whom nature recovery projects should be pursued. Such contestations are particularly pronounced in Scotland, a country with a long history of struggles over land rights, widespread loss of natural habitats, and highly unequal land ownership patterns. This paper examines how different framings of justice, and different approaches to nature recovery, interact to either entrench or redress past and present injustices in a range of Scottish examples. We argue that multispecies conceptions of justice that eschew human-centric framings provide a normative basis for recovering nature, while multi-dimensional framings of justice as distributive, procedural and recognitional help specify a range of requirements for social change. Both frames highlight injustices in current trajectories and the need for alternative approaches to deliver a just transition in nature recovery. We outline a three-step process for further research on justice issues and for developing policy recommendations. This entails 1) historicising contexts, 2) considering both multispecies and multi-dimensional understandings of justice, and 3) uncovering alternative nature recovery strategies that might more explicitly foreground justice considerations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"164 ","pages":"Article 103992"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Just nature recovery: A framework for centring multispecies and multi-dimensional justice in land management\",\"authors\":\"Theo Stanley,&nbsp;Mark Hirons,&nbsp;Jonathon Turnbull,&nbsp;Jamie Lorimer,&nbsp;Eric Mensah Kumeh,&nbsp;Caitlin Hafferty,&nbsp;Lea May Anderson,&nbsp;Constance L. McDermott\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.103992\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>A rising interest in nature recovery has expanded the focus of conservation beyond protected areas to encompass a range of terrestrial and marine areas, from forests, fields, and farms, to cities, coasts and oceans. These expansions create new practical and theoretical contestations regarding how, why, and for whom nature recovery projects should be pursued. Such contestations are particularly pronounced in Scotland, a country with a long history of struggles over land rights, widespread loss of natural habitats, and highly unequal land ownership patterns. This paper examines how different framings of justice, and different approaches to nature recovery, interact to either entrench or redress past and present injustices in a range of Scottish examples. We argue that multispecies conceptions of justice that eschew human-centric framings provide a normative basis for recovering nature, while multi-dimensional framings of justice as distributive, procedural and recognitional help specify a range of requirements for social change. Both frames highlight injustices in current trajectories and the need for alternative approaches to deliver a just transition in nature recovery. We outline a three-step process for further research on justice issues and for developing policy recommendations. This entails 1) historicising contexts, 2) considering both multispecies and multi-dimensional understandings of justice, and 3) uncovering alternative nature recovery strategies that might more explicitly foreground justice considerations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"164 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103992\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125000085\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125000085","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对自然恢复日益增长的兴趣使保护的重点从保护区扩展到包括一系列陆地和海洋区域,从森林、田野和农场到城市、海岸和海洋。这些扩张引发了关于如何、为什么以及为谁开展自然恢复项目的新的实践和理论争论。这样的争论在苏格兰尤其明显,这个国家在土地权利方面有着悠久的斗争历史,自然栖息地的广泛丧失,土地所有权模式高度不平等。本文考察了不同的正义框架和不同的自然恢复方法如何相互作用,从而在一系列苏格兰例子中巩固或纠正过去和现在的不公正。我们认为,避免以人为中心框架的多物种正义概念为恢复自然提供了规范基础,而作为分配、程序和承认的多维正义框架有助于明确社会变革的一系列要求。这两个框架都强调了当前轨迹中的不公正,以及在自然恢复过程中实现公正过渡的替代方法的必要性。我们概述了进一步研究司法问题和制定政策建议的三步程序。这需要1)历史化背景,2)考虑对正义的多物种和多维理解,以及3)揭示可能更明确地突出正义考虑的其他自然恢复策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Just nature recovery: A framework for centring multispecies and multi-dimensional justice in land management
A rising interest in nature recovery has expanded the focus of conservation beyond protected areas to encompass a range of terrestrial and marine areas, from forests, fields, and farms, to cities, coasts and oceans. These expansions create new practical and theoretical contestations regarding how, why, and for whom nature recovery projects should be pursued. Such contestations are particularly pronounced in Scotland, a country with a long history of struggles over land rights, widespread loss of natural habitats, and highly unequal land ownership patterns. This paper examines how different framings of justice, and different approaches to nature recovery, interact to either entrench or redress past and present injustices in a range of Scottish examples. We argue that multispecies conceptions of justice that eschew human-centric framings provide a normative basis for recovering nature, while multi-dimensional framings of justice as distributive, procedural and recognitional help specify a range of requirements for social change. Both frames highlight injustices in current trajectories and the need for alternative approaches to deliver a just transition in nature recovery. We outline a three-step process for further research on justice issues and for developing policy recommendations. This entails 1) historicising contexts, 2) considering both multispecies and multi-dimensional understandings of justice, and 3) uncovering alternative nature recovery strategies that might more explicitly foreground justice considerations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Living labs from a governance perspective: An analysis of the way living labs transform the environmental governance system “Global significant trends and countermeasures pertaining to climate change adaptation: Translating ambition into action post-COP29” From opinion to action: Impact of social networks and information policy on private adaptation to floods Making global environmental assessments fit for future challenges Hydro-transparency and transboundary water governance: Addressing information deficits and asymmetries in the Euphrates-Tigris Basin
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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