Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A model of the science–practice–policy interface in participatory land-use planning: lessons from Laos

  • Landscape Ecology in Practice
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Any discipline which is concerned with rational intervention in human affairs […] must both establish theory and engage in practice. Theory and practice will exhibit a groundless relationship, each generating the other, with neither being prime. This mutual development of theory and practice calls for action research in real situations, research in which the researcher has to allow the situation to take him/her where it will, research whose focus is the change process itself rather than some hypothesis under test. (Checkland 1985)

Abstract

An essential task of participatory action-research is to help close the policy implementation gap that leads to large discrepancies between policy frameworks and local practices. Too often, official regulations, laws and decrees fail to translate into concrete action on the ground. Loose institutional linkages between research, extension and local communities are often blamed as the main culprits for this gap. In turn, many stakeholders call for enhanced participation as a way to bring together scientists, development practitioners and local communities in negotiating competing claims for natural resources and designing realistic pathways towards sustainable development. Despite such general consensus about the value of participation, the latter cannot be decreed nor imposed. Participation is an emerging quality of collective-action and social-learning processes. In this paper, the experience of participatory land-use planning conducted in Laos serves to illustrate a model of the science–practice–policy interface that was developed to facilitate the interactions between three groups of stakeholders, i.e. scientists, planners and villagers, in designing future landscapes. Emphasis was put on developing an approach that is generic and adaptive enough to be applied nationally while engaging local communities in context-sensitive negotiations. The set of tools and methods developed through action-research contributed to enhanced communication and participation from initial consultation and cooperation stages towards collective decision-making and action. Both the activity of landscape design and the resulting patterns can be improved by incorporating landscape science in strategic multi-stakeholder negotiations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Belcher BM, Roberts M (2012) Assessing participatory photography as a method to understand local perspectives on environment and development in northern Lao PDR. For Trees Livelihoods 21(3):145–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belcher B, Bastide F, Castella JC, Boissière M (2013) Development of a village-level livelihood monitoring tool: A case-study in Viengkham District, Lao PDR. Int For Rev 15(1):48–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Beunen R, Opdam P (2011) When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landsc Urban Plan 100:324–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boissière M, Bastide F, Basuki I, Pfund JL, Boucard A (2014) Can we make participatory NTFP monitoring work? Lessons learnt from the development of a multistakeholder system in Northern Laos. Biodivers Conserv 23:149–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgoin J (2012) Sharpening the understanding of socio-ecological landscapes in participatory land use planning: a case study in Lao PDR. Appl Geog 34:99–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgoin J, Castella JC (2011) “PLUP fiction”: landscape simulation for participatory land use planning in Northern Laos. Mt Res Dev 31(2):78–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgoin J, Castella JC, Pullar D, Lestrelin G, Bouahom B (2012) Toward a land zoning negotiation support platform: “tips and tricks” for participatory land use planning in Laos. Landsc Urban Plan 104:270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgoin J, Castella JC, Hett C, Lestrelin G, Heinimann A (2013) Engaging local communities in low emissions land use planning: a case study in Laos. Ecol Soc 18(2):9

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlile P (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Org Sci 13:442–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Castella JC, Bourgoin J, Cottet L, Drouillat M, Nanthavong K, Phatsalin S, Lestrelin G, Bouahom B, Thepphavanh M (2013a) Handbook on participatory land use planning. Methods and tools developed and tested in Viengkham District, Luang Prabang Province. NAFRI–IRD–CIFOR, Vientiane

    Google Scholar 

  • Castella JC, Lestrelin G, Hett C, Bourgoin J, Fitriana YR, Heinimann A, Pfund JL (2013b) Effects of landscape segregation on livelihood vulnerability: moving from extensive shifting cultivation to rotational agriculture and natural forests in northern Laos. Hum Ecol 41(1):63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1985) Achieving “desirable and feasible” change: an application of soft systems methodology. J Oper Res Soc 36:821–831

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108

    Google Scholar 

  • Colfer CJP, Pfund JL (eds) (2010) Collaborative governance of tropical landscapes. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Colfer CJP, Andriamampandry E, Asaha S, Lyimo E, Martini E, Pfund JL, Watts J (2011) Participatory action research for catalyzing adaptive management: Analysis of a “fits and starts” process. J Environ Sci Eng 5:28–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad E, Christie M, Fazey I (2011) Is research keeping up with changes in landscape policy? A review of the literature. J Environ Manag 92:2097–2108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducourtieux O, Laffort JR, Sacklokham S (2005) Land policy and farming practices in Laos. Dev Change 36(3):499–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faysse N (2006) Troubles on the way: an analysis of the challenges faced by multi-stakeholder platforms. Nat Res Forum 30:219–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazey I, Fazey JA, Fazey DMA (2005) Learning more effectively from experience. Ecol Soc 10(2):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost PGH (2008) Action research in landscape mosaics: approaches and methods. A report of and reflections on a workshop held in Lombok, Indonesia, 3–6 December 2007. CIFOR, Bogor. www.biodiversityplatform.cgiar.org. Accessed Feb 2014

  • Fujita Y, Phanvilay K (2008) Land and forest allocation in Lao People’s Democratic Republic: comparison of case studies from community-based natural resource management research. Soc Nat Res 21:120–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giller K, Leeuwis C, Andersson JA, Andriesse W, Brouwer A, Frost P, Hebinck P, Heitkönig I, van Ittersum MK, Koning N, Ruben R, Slingerland M, Udo H, Veldkamp T, van de Vijver C, van Wijk MT, Windmeijer P (2008) Competing claims on natural resources: what role for science? Ecol Soc 13(2):34

    Google Scholar 

  • GTZ (2004) Study on land allocation to individual households in rural areas of Lao PDR. Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Technische Zusammenarbeit, Vientiane

    Google Scholar 

  • Landscape Mosaics Project (2010) Building sustainable landscape management in the Lao PDR Biodiversity Platform Policy Brief, CIFOR, Bogor. www.biodiversityplatform.cgiar.org. Accessed Feb 2014

  • Lestrelin G (2010) Land degradation in the Lao PDR: discourses and policy. Land Use Policy 27:424–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lestrelin G, Bourgoin J, Bouahom B, Castella JC (2011) Measuring participation: case studies on village land use planning in northern Lao PDR. Appl Geog 31:950–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lestrelin G, Castella JC, Bourgoin J (2012) Territorializing sustainable development: the politics of land-use planning in the Lao PDR. J Contemp Asia 42(4):581–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MAF-NLMA (2009) Manual on participatory agriculture and forest land use planning at village and village cluster levels. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and National Land Management Authority, Vientiane

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine CA, Seabrook LM, Rhodes JR, Maron M, Smith C, Bowen ME, Butler SA, Powell O, Ryan JG, Fyfe CT, Adams-Hosking C, Smith A, Robertson O, Howes A, Cattarino L (2010) Can a problem-solving approach strengthen landscape ecology’s contribution to sustainable landscape planning? Landscape Ecol 25:1155–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft J (1997) Planning, democracy and the challenge of sustainable development. Int Polit Sci Rev 18(2):167–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss MR (2000) Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the “transformation of agricultural landscapes”. Landsc Ecol 15:303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neef A, Neubert D (2011) Stakeholder participation in agricultural research project: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making. Agric Hum Val 28(2):179–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P (2010) Learning science from practice. Landscape Ecol 25:821–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Nassauer JI, Wang Z, Albert C, Bentrup G, Castella JC, McAlpine C, Liu J, Sheppard S, Swaffield S (2013) Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecol 28(8):1439–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2012) Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Econ Theor 49(2):353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfund J-L, Watts J, Boissière M, Boucard A, Bullock R, Ekadinata A, Dewi S, Feintrenie L, Levang P, Rantala S, Sheil D, Sunderland T, Urech ZL (2011) Understanding and integrating local perceptions of trees and forests into incentives for sustainable landscape management. Environ Manag 48(2):334–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambaldi G (2010) Participatory three-dimensional modelling: guiding principles and applications, 2010th edn. CTA, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudel TK, Meyfroidt P (2014) Organizing anarchy: the food security–biodiversity–climate crisis and the genesis of rural land use planning in the developing world. Land Use Pol 36:239–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sancar FH (1993) An integrative approach to public participation and knowledge generation in design. Landsc Urban Plan 26:67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer J, Campbell B (2004) The science of sustainable development: local livelihoods and the global environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheil D et al (2002) Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscapes. Methods for a multidisciplinary landscape assessment. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberstein J, Maser C (2000) Land-use planning for sustainable development. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Star S, Griesemer J (1989) Institutional ecology “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert P, Barzman M, Billaud JP, Brives H, Hubert B, Ollivier G, Roche B (2007) The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environ Sci Pol 10(6):537–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teulier R, Hubert B (2004) The notion of “intermediary concepts” contributes to a better understanding of the generative dance between knowledge and knowing. In: 20th EGOS Conference, Lubljana, Slovenia, June 30–July 3

  • Tress B, Tress G, Fry G (2005) Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landsc Urban Plan 70:177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandergeest P (2003) Land to some tillers: development-induced displacement in Laos. Int Soc Sci 55(175):47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinck D (2009) De l’objet intermédiaire à l’objet frontière. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 3:51–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollenberg E, Campbell B, Dounias E, Gunarso P, Moeliono M, Sheil D (2008) Interactive landuse planning in Indonesian rain-forest landscapes: reconnecting plans to practice. Ecol Soc 14(1):35

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted by the National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI, Laos) within the framework of the Catch-Up Program (Comprehensive Analysis of the Trajectories of Changes) supported by the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD, France) and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR, Indonesia) and the Landscape Mosaics Project implemented in partnership with CIFOR and funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). The study was also supported by The Agrobiodiversity Initiative (TABI) funded by SDC, in Phonxay District and by the Upland Research and Capacity Development Program (URDP) funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) in Viengkham District of Luang Prabang Province. Extension activities in Viengkham District were developed in partnership with the project on “Food security for Women and Rural Poor in Viengkham District, Luang Prabang Province” coordinated by Agrisud International and funded by the European Commission (EuropeAid/127415/L/ACT/LA). PLUP implementation at larger scale was supported by the GIZ-funded Northern Uplands Integrated Rural Development Programme (NU-IRDP) and the EU-AFD funded GRET-SNV Bamboo Sector project. The authors thank all villagers, researchers and practitioners from government agencies who were involved in this collective venture. Positive comments and constructive by two anonymous reviewers were highly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), PO Box 5992, Vientiane, Lao PDR

    Jean-Christophe Castella, Jeremy Bourgoin & Guillaume Lestrelin

  2. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia

    Jean-Christophe Castella

  3. Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Montpellier, France

    Jean-Christophe Castella, Jeremy Bourgoin & Guillaume Lestrelin

  4. School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland (UQ), Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Jeremy Bourgoin

  5. National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), Agriculture and Forest Policy Research Centre, Vientiane, Lao PDR

    Bounthanom Bouahom

Authors
  1. Jean-Christophe Castella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Bourgoin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guillaume Lestrelin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bounthanom Bouahom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Christophe Castella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castella, JC., Bourgoin, J., Lestrelin, G. et al. A model of the science–practice–policy interface in participatory land-use planning: lessons from Laos. Landscape Ecol 29, 1095–1107 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0043-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0043-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation