IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v191y2022ics0921800921002998.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Allain, Sandrine
  • Salliou, Nicolas

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:191:y:2022:i:c:s0921800921002998
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921002998
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107240?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ângela Guimarães Pereira & Jean-Daniel Rinaudo & Paul Jeffrey & João Blasques & Serafin Corral Quintana & Nathalie Courtois & Silvio Funtowicz & Vincent Petit, 2003. "ICT Tools to Support Public Participation in Water Resources Governance & Planning: Experiences from the Design and Testing of a Multi-Media Platform," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 395-420.
    2. Peter Howley, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ rural landscape preferences," Working Papers 1105, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    3. Giampietro, Mario & Mayumi, Kozo & Ramos-Martin, Jesus, 2009. "Multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism (MuSIASEM): Theoretical concepts and basic rationale," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 313-322.
    4. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    5. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    6. Allain, S. & Plumecocq, G. & Leenhardt, D., 2018. "Spatial aggregation of indicators in sustainability assessments: Descriptive and normative claims," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 577-588.
    7. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    8. Lejano, Raul P. & Newbery, Nicola & Ciolino, Maegan & Newbery, David, 2019. "Sustainability and incommensurability: Narrative policy analysis with application to urban ecology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Vivien, F.-D. & Nieddu, M. & Befort, N. & Debref, R. & Giampietro, M., 2019. "The Hijacking of the Bioeconomy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 189-197.
    10. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.
    11. Nicolas Salliou & Roldan Muradian & Cécile Barnaud, 2019. "Governance of Ecosystem Services in Agroecology: When Coordination is Needed but Difficult to Achieve," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, February.
    12. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    13. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    14. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    15. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    16. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    17. De Marchi, B. & Funtowicz, S. O. & Lo Cascio, S. & Munda, G., 2000. "Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 267-282, August.
    18. Ayer, Harry W., 1997. "Grass Roots Collective Action: Agricultural Opportunities," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-11, July.
    19. Dryzek, John S. & List, Christian, 2003. "Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A Reconciliation," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-28, January.
    20. Vatn, Arild, 2020. "Institutions for sustainability—Towards an expanded research program for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    21. Andrea Saltelli & Gabriele Bammer & Isabelle Bruno & Erica Charters & Monica Di Fiore & Emmanuel Didier & Wendy Nelson Espeland & John Kay & Samuele Lo Piano & Deborah Mayo & Roger Pielke Jr & Tommaso, 2020. "Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto," Nature, Nature, vol. 582(7813), pages 482-484, June.
    22. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Allain, Sandrine & Plumecocq, Gaël & Leenhardt, Delphine, 2017. "How Do Multi-criteria Assessments Address Landscape-level Problems? A Review of Studies and Practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 282-295.
    2. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Hjerppe, Turo & Aapala, Kaisu, 2019. "Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis in valuing peatland ecosystem services—Trade-offs related to peat extraction vs. pristine peatlands in Southern Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 17-28.
    6. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Barton, David N. & Geneletti, Davide & Langemeyer, Johannes & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Marttunen, Mika & Antunes, Paula & Keune, Hans & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 238-249.
    7. Iker Etxano & Eneko Garmendia & Unai Pascual & David Hoyos & María-à ngeles Díez & José A. Cadiñanos & Pedro J. Lozano, 2015. "A participatory integrated assessment approach for Natura 2000 network sites," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1207-1232, October.
    8. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Iker Etxano, 2020. "Weak or Strong Sustainability in Rural Land Use Planning? Assessing Two Case Studies through Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Allain, S. & Plumecocq, G. & Leenhardt, D., 2018. "Spatial aggregation of indicators in sustainability assessments: Descriptive and normative claims," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 577-588.
    10. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    11. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    12. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    13. Giuseppe Munda, 2004. "Métodos y procesos multicriterio para la evaluación social de las políticas públicas," Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, Red Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, vol. 1, pages 31-45.
    14. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.
    15. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Lundgren, Jakob, 2022. "Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    17. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    18. Scheidel, Arnim, 2013. "Flows, funds and the complexity of deprivation: Using concepts from ecological economics for the study of poverty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-36.
    19. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    20. D'Alisa, Giacomo & Burgalassi, David & Healy, Hali & Walter, Mariana, 2010. "Conflict in Campania: Waste emergency or crisis of democracy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 239-249, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:191:y:2022:i:c:s0921800921002998. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.