Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 1095–1107 | Cite as

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

  • Jean-Christophe CastellaEmail author
  • Jeremy Bourgoin
  • Guillaume Lestrelin
  • Bounthanom Bouahom
Landscape Ecology in Practice

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.

Keywords

Land-use planning Participation Boundary objects Action-research Landscape governance Southeast Asia 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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):145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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):48–59Google Scholar
  3. Beunen R, Opdam P (2011) When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landsc Urban Plan 100:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 23:149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourgoin J (2012) Sharpening the understanding of socio-ecological landscapes in participatory land use planning: a case study in Lao PDR. Appl Geog 34:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourgoin J, Castella JC (2011) “PLUP fiction”: landscape simulation for participatory land use planning in Northern Laos. Mt Res Dev 31(2):78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 104:270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):9Google Scholar
  9. Carlile P (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Org Sci 13:442–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 100:8086–8091PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):8Google Scholar
  12. 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, VientianeGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Checkland P (1985) Achieving “desirable and feasible” change: an application of soft systems methodology. J Oper Res Soc 36:821–831Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Colfer CJP, Pfund JL (eds) (2010) Collaborative governance of tropical landscapes. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 5:28–43Google Scholar
  18. Conrad E, Christie M, Fazey I (2011) Is research keeping up with changes in landscape policy? A review of the literature. J Environ Manag 92:2097–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ducourtieux O, Laffort JR, Sacklokham S (2005) Land policy and farming practices in Laos. Dev Change 36(3):499–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faysse N (2006) Troubles on the way: an analysis of the challenges faced by multi-stakeholder platforms. Nat Res Forum 30:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fazey I, Fazey JA, Fazey DMA (2005) Learning more effectively from experience. Ecol Soc 10(2):4Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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 21:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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):34Google Scholar
  25. GTZ (2004) Study on land allocation to individual households in rural areas of Lao PDR. Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Technische Zusammenarbeit, VientianeGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Lestrelin G (2010) Land degradation in the Lao PDR: discourses and policy. Land Use Policy 27:424–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lestrelin G, Bourgoin J, Bouahom B, Castella JC (2011) Measuring participation: case studies on village land use planning in northern Lao PDR. Appl Geog 31:950–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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):581–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 317:1513–1516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, VientianeGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 25:1155–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meadowcroft J (1997) Planning, democracy and the challenge of sustainable development. Int Polit Sci Rev 18(2):167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moss MR (2000) Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the “transformation of agricultural landscapes”. Landsc Ecol 15:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neef A, Neubert D (2011) Stakeholder participation in agricultural research project: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making. Agric Hum Val 28(2):179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Opdam P (2010) Learning science from practice. Landscape Ecol 25:821–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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):1439–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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):353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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):334–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rambaldi G (2010) Participatory three-dimensional modelling: guiding principles and applications, 2010th edn. CTA, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  42. 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):r1Google Scholar
  43. 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 36:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sancar FH (1993) An integrative approach to public participation and knowledge generation in design. Landsc Urban Plan 26:67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sayer J, Campbell B (2004) The science of sustainable development: local livelihoods and the global environment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. 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, BogorGoogle Scholar
  47. Silberstein J, Maser C (2000) Land-use planning for sustainable development. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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):537–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 3Google Scholar
  51. Tress B, Tress G, Fry G (2005) Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landsc Urban Plan 70:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vandergeest P (2003) Land to some tillers: development-induced displacement in Laos. Int Soc Sci 55(175):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vinck D (2009) De l’objet intermédiaire à l’objet frontière. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 3:51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WCED (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. 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):35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Christophe Castella
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Jeremy Bourgoin
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Guillaume Lestrelin
    • 1
    • 3
  • Bounthanom Bouahom
    • 5
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)VientianeLao PDR
  2. 2.Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)BogorIndonesia
  3. 3.Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD)MontpellierFrance
  4. 4.School of Geography, Planning and Environmental ManagementUniversity of Queensland (UQ)BrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI)Agriculture and Forest Policy Research CentreVientianeLao PDR

Personalised recommendations