Advertisement

Governing biocultural diversity in mosaic landscapes

  • Cora J. van Oosten
  • Wouter Leen Hijweege

Abstract

Biocultural diversity is reflected in the existence of mosaic landscapes in which multifunctional land use offers scope for ecologically balanced and economically productive land-use patterns. Bioculturally diverse mosaic landscapes are historically shaped by people who have developed a strong sense of belonging and a deep attachment to their living environment, or place. Mosaic landscapes are therefore characterised by strong regional identities and a sense of ownership by the actors involved. However, landscapes are often cut across by administrative boundaries as they do not have a formal position in the political-administrative scaling of governance. This hampers the upscaling of current biocultural diversity management practices to higher levels of landscape governance. We therefore argue for a ‘spatialisation’ of governance as a means to reconnect governance to landscape and to build upon inhabitants’ identities and sense of ownership to manage their biocultural diversity and govern their place. Spatial thinking and policy learning are crucial elements of landscape governance, embedded in local practice and politics of scale. Biocultural diversity can then be conserved and restored as a product of landscape governance.

Keywords

forest landscape place governance social learning 

References

  1. Arnouts, R. (2010). Regional nature governance in the Netherlands: four decades of governance modes and shifts in the Utrechtse Heuvelrug and Midden-Brabant. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Buizer, M. and Turnhout, E. (2011). Text, talk, things, and the subpolitics of performing place. Geoforum 42(5): 530–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  4. De Boo, H.L. and Wiersum, K.F. (2002). Adaptive management of forest resources: Principles and processes. Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Giller, K., Leeuwis, C., Andersson, J. A., Andriesse, W., Brouwer, A., Frost, P., Hebinck, P., Heitkönig, I., Van Ittersum, M.K., Koning, N., Ruben, R., Slingerland, M., Udo, H., Veldkamp, T., Van de Vijver, C., Van Wijk, M.T. and Windmeijer, P. (2008). Competing claims on natural resources: what role for science? Ecology and Society 13(2): 34. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art34/ Google Scholar
  6. Görg, C. (2007). Landscape governance – The ‘politics of scale’ and the ‘natural’conditions of places. Geoforum 38: 954–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guilmour, D. (2008). Understanding the landscape mosaic. In: Sayer, J.A. (ed.) The forest landscape restoration handbook. Sterling, V.A., London, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Hobbs, R.J. and Morton, S.R. (1999). Moving from descriptive to prescriptive ecology. Agroforestry Systems 45: 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. International Organisation of Forestry Research Organisations (IUFRO) (2010). Embracing complexity: meeting the challenges of international forest governance. A global assessment report. IUFRO report presented at the 9th session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), February 2011. IUFRO, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  10. Keen, M., Brown, V.A. and Dyball, R. (eds.) (2005). Social learning in environmental management – Towards a sustainable future. EarthScan, London, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Kooiman, J. (2003). Modern governance: new government-society interactions. Sage Publications, London, UK.Google Scholar
  12. Lange, B. and Büttner, K. (2010). Spatialization patterns of translocal knowledge networks: conceptual understandings and empirical evidences of Erlangen and Frankfurt/Oder. European Planning Studies 18(6): 989–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leeuwis, C. and Aarts, N. (2010). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems. Paper presented at the 9th European IFSA Symposium, 4–7 July 2010, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  14. Massey, D.B. (1994). A global sense of place. From Space, place and gender. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Massey, D.B. (2005). Landscape as a provocation: reflections on moving mountains. Journal of Material Culture 11(1–2): 33–48.Google Scholar
  16. Pierce Colfer, C.J. and Pfund, J.L. (eds.) (2011). Collaborative governance of tropical landscapes. Earthscan, London, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Pierre, J. (2000). Debating governance: authority, steering and democracy. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Sayer, J., Buck, L. and Dudley, N. (2008). Next steps in monitoring landscape approaches. In: Learning from landscapes, arborvitae special issue, Sept 2008, IUCN. Available at: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/a_avspecial_learning_from_landscapes.pdf.Google Scholar
  19. Taylor, K. (2008), Landscape and memory. Paper presented at the UNESCO international workshop ‘The right to landscape. Contesting landscape and human rights’. 8–12 December 2008, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  20. Urban, D.L., O’Neil, R.V. and Shugart, H.H. (1987). Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37: 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Noordwijk, M., Tomich, T.P., De Foresta, H. and Michon, G. (1997). To segregate or to integrate? The question of balance between production and biodiversity conservation in complex agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Today 9: 6–9.Google Scholar
  22. Van Oosten, C. (2004). Fading frontiers: local development and cross-border partnerships in Southwest Amazonia. Geographical Studies of Development and Resource Use, Royal Dutch Geographical Society (KNAG), Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Van Oosten, C. (2006). Through the looking glass: understanding regional integration from below. In: Van Lindert P., De Jong, A., Nijenhuis, G. and Van Westen, G. (eds.) Development matters, geographical studies on development processes and policies. Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Van Oosten, C. (2010). Constructing regional integration from below: cross-border partnerhsips and local development in Southwest Amazonia. In: Van Lindert, P. and Verkoren, O. (eds.) Local development and governance in Latin America, geographical Perspectives. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  25. Van Paassen, A., Van den Berg, J., Steingröver, E., Werkman, R. and Pedroli, B. (2011). Knowledge in action – The search for collaborative research in sustainable landscape development. Mansholt Publication Series no. 11, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  26. Wals, A.E.J., Van der Hoeven, N. and Blanken, H. (2009). The acoustics of social learning: designing learning processes that contribute to a more sustainable world. SenterNovem, Utrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Wenger, E.C. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organisation 7(2): 225–246.Google Scholar
  28. Wenger, E.C. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction. Available at: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm Google Scholar
  29. Wenger, E.C. and Snyder, W.M. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, January-February: 139–145.Google Scholar
  30. Wiersum, K.F. (1997). Indigenous exploitation and management of tropical forest resources: an evolutionary continuum in forest-people interactions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiersum, K.F. (2003). Use and conservation of biodiversity in East African forested landscapes. In: Tropical forests in multi-functional landscapes, Seminar proceedings. Prince Bernhard Centre, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands, pp.33–39. Available at: http://www.bio.uu.nl/pbc/publications/proceedings/Wiersum.pdf.Google Scholar
  32. Wiersum, K.F. (2004). Forest gardens as an ‘intermediate’ land-use system in the nature-culture continuum: characteristics and future potential. Agroforestry Systems 61: 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Wageningen Academic Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation and Wageningen Forest and Nature Conservation Policy GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations