Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management

被引:5
作者
Allain, Sandrine [1 ]
Salliou, Nicolas [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Grenoble Alpes, Mt Ecosyst & Soc Lab LESSEM, INRAE, Grenoble, France
[2] Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Inst Spatial & Landscape Dev, Planning Landscape & Urban Syst PLUS, Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
Agroecological pest management; Quantitative water management; Social and technical incommensurability; Participatory modeling and simulation; Collective deliberation; MULTICRITERIA EVALUATION; PEST-CONTROL; PARTICIPATION; BIODIVERSITY; AMBIGUITY; INDICATORS; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGIES; STAKEHOLDERS; PREFERENCES;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107240
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Landscape management involves tackling both systemic and social complexity: the former due to multiple interacting entities, the latter due to incommensurable knowledge and value systems of stakeholders. Current practice in landscape management makes wide use of participatory methods, which helps increase the breadth of our understanding of sustainability problems, e.g. biodiversity loss, agricultural pest damages or water penury. However, this practice also often offers a flat, harmonized picture of the landscape, which precludes observing ambiguities and out-of-the-box arguments and ideas for overcoming problems. In this article, we analyzed two research settings that tended to surface and formalize incommensurability between stakeholders regarding the sustainable management of landscapes - one focused on quantitative water management, the other on agroecological pest control. The objective was to investigate if and to which extent these 'opening-up' exercises, based on a deliberative rationale, were beneficial to landscape sustainability. The results indicated that in both cases, participants strove to position their knowledge and values relative to others: this way, they delineated a negotiation and learning space to invest in, and enhanced the quality of their arguments, allowing new insights on the focus issues. These findings offer an operational counterpoint to the prevalence of 'closing-down' approaches in landscape approaches. In the general context of ecological crisis, these examples promote methodological options that offer space to disruptive narratives, as well as tools that allow a reflexive use of the scientific knowledge, models and indicators traditionally used in sustainability appraisals, without discarding them.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 103 条
  • [1] Bayesian networks in environmental modelling
    Aguilera, P. A.
    Fernandez, A.
    Fernandez, R.
    Rumi, R.
    Salmeron, A.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2011, 26 (12) : 1376 - 1388
  • [2] Linking deliberative evaluation with integrated assessment and modelling: A methodological framework and its application to agricultural water management
    Allain, Sandrine
    Plumecocq, Gael
    Leenhardt, Delphine
    [J]. FUTURES, 2020, 120
  • [3] Integrated assessment of four strategies for solving water imbalance in an agricultural landscape
    Allain, Sandrine
    Ndong, Gregory Obiang
    Lardy, Romain
    Leenhardt, Delphine
    [J]. AGRONOMY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2018, 38 (06)
  • [4] Anderson Judith L., 1998, Conservation Ecology, V2, pUnpaginated
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2012, J SUSTAIN DEV, DOI DOI 10.5539/JSD.V5N12P1
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2018, LAND USE POLICY, DOI [DOI 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.038, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.038]
  • [7] Ayer HW, 1997, J AGR RESOUR ECON, V22, P1
  • [8] An evolving simulation/gaming process to facilitate adaptive watershed management in northern mountainous Thailand
    Barnaud, Cecile
    Promburom, Tanya
    Trebuil, Guy
    Bousquet, Francois
    [J]. SIMULATION & GAMING, 2007, 38 (03) : 398 - 420
  • [9] Barreteau O, 2010, ECOL SOC, V15
  • [10] 'Opening up' geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change
    Bellamy, Rob
    Chilvers, Jason
    Vaughan, Naomi E.
    Lenton, Timothy M.
    [J]. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2013, 23 (05): : 926 - 937