没有在公园散步:在安哥拉饱受战争蹂躏的奥卡万戈的跨界合作

Q3 Social Sciences Environmental Practice Pub Date : 2017-01-02 DOI:10.1080/14660466.2017.1275658
Cristina Udelsmann Rodrigues, Vladimir Russo
{"title":"没有在公园散步:在安哥拉饱受战争蹂躏的奥卡万戈的跨界合作","authors":"Cristina Udelsmann Rodrigues, Vladimir Russo","doi":"10.1080/14660466.2017.1275658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Okavango region is currently part of a transboundary project extending to three neighboring countries—Angola, Namibia, and Botswana. This article discusses the unequal trajectory and present conditions for such cross-border cooperation, with a particular focus on Angola. Angola’s disadvantageous position is above all due to the lasting effects of war that adversely hindered the development of structures and resources to engage in such joint programs. The central argument is that the inequalities pose particular challenges to the country to accompany the pace of the neighboring countries. The article looks at the fragilities focusing on institutional resources, Angolan policy background, existing dedicated institutions, and human resources, as they are major concerns for post-war reconstruction. On the other hand, it poses questions regarding resilience effects on local level livelihoods and on the future environmental management of the Okavango. This article is based on a literature and documental review and on data from fieldwork where local communities have to rely more heavily on the available natural resources in absence of others.","PeriodicalId":45250,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No walk in the park: Transboundary cooperation in the Angolan war-torn Okavango\",\"authors\":\"Cristina Udelsmann Rodrigues, Vladimir Russo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14660466.2017.1275658\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The Okavango region is currently part of a transboundary project extending to three neighboring countries—Angola, Namibia, and Botswana. This article discusses the unequal trajectory and present conditions for such cross-border cooperation, with a particular focus on Angola. Angola’s disadvantageous position is above all due to the lasting effects of war that adversely hindered the development of structures and resources to engage in such joint programs. The central argument is that the inequalities pose particular challenges to the country to accompany the pace of the neighboring countries. The article looks at the fragilities focusing on institutional resources, Angolan policy background, existing dedicated institutions, and human resources, as they are major concerns for post-war reconstruction. On the other hand, it poses questions regarding resilience effects on local level livelihoods and on the future environmental management of the Okavango. This article is based on a literature and documental review and on data from fieldwork where local communities have to rely more heavily on the available natural resources in absence of others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2017.1275658\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2017.1275658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

奥卡万戈地区目前是一个跨界项目的一部分,该项目延伸到三个邻国——安哥拉、纳米比亚和博茨瓦纳。本文讨论了这种跨界合作的不平等轨迹和目前的条件,并特别着重于安哥拉。安哥拉的不利地位首先是由于战争的持久影响,它不利地阻碍了参与这种联合方案的结构和资源的发展。中心论点是,不平等对该国构成了特殊的挑战,以配合邻国的步伐。本文着眼于制度资源、安哥拉政策背景、现有专门机构和人力资源方面的脆弱性,因为它们是战后重建的主要关注点。另一方面,它对当地生计和奥卡万戈未来环境管理的复原力影响提出了问题。本文基于文献和文献综述以及实地调查的数据,在实地调查中,当地社区在缺乏其他资源的情况下不得不更多地依赖现有的自然资源。
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
No walk in the park: Transboundary cooperation in the Angolan war-torn Okavango
ABSTRACT The Okavango region is currently part of a transboundary project extending to three neighboring countries—Angola, Namibia, and Botswana. This article discusses the unequal trajectory and present conditions for such cross-border cooperation, with a particular focus on Angola. Angola’s disadvantageous position is above all due to the lasting effects of war that adversely hindered the development of structures and resources to engage in such joint programs. The central argument is that the inequalities pose particular challenges to the country to accompany the pace of the neighboring countries. The article looks at the fragilities focusing on institutional resources, Angolan policy background, existing dedicated institutions, and human resources, as they are major concerns for post-war reconstruction. On the other hand, it poses questions regarding resilience effects on local level livelihoods and on the future environmental management of the Okavango. This article is based on a literature and documental review and on data from fieldwork where local communities have to rely more heavily on the available natural resources in absence of others.
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 Practice
Environmental Practice ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Environmental Practice provides a multidisciplinary forum for authoritative discussion and analysis of issues of wide interest to the international community of environmental professionals, with the intent of developing innovative solutions to environmental problems for public policy implementation, professional practice, or both. Peer-reviewed original research papers, environmental reviews, and commentaries, along with news articles, book reviews, and points of view, link findings in science and technology with issues of public policy, health, environmental quality, law, political economy, management, and the appropriate standards for expertise. Published for the National Association of Environmental Professionals
期刊最新文献
Anthropological approaches for cultural resource conservation design and planning Cultural resources and landscape conservation design and planning Moving beyond the ecosystem in ecosystem health report cards Food Loss and Food Waste, Causes and Solutions Last issue of Environmental Practice
×
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