Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Record number 561610
Title Including diverse knowledges and worldviews in environmental assessment and planning: : the Brazilian Amazon Kaxinawá Nova Olinda Indigenous Land case
Author(s) Ayaviri Matuk, F.; Behagel, J.H.; Simas, Felipe; Amaral, Eufran Ferreira Do; Haverroth, Moacir; Turnhout, E.
Source Ecosystems and People 16 (2020)1. - ISSN 2639-5916 - p. 95 - 113.
DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1722752
Department(s) Forest and Nature Conservation Policy
WASS
Publication type Refereed Article in a scientific journal
Publication year 2020
Abstract The concepts of ‘ecosystem services’ (ES) and ‘nature’s contributions to people’ (NCP) inform environmental frameworks that set out to include Indigenous and Local Knowledge systems (ILK) and worldviews in policy and planning processes. These frameworks aim to enhance biodiversity conservation and human well-being in a legitimate and effective way. In this article, we explore how the concept of People’s Contributions to Nature (PCN) is complementary to NCP. We use it to investigate challenges that planners and locals face in realizing the legitimate inclusion of diverse knowledges and worldviwes that account for people and ecosystems in a relational way. We introduce a case study where planners drew on ES and NCP and used participatory methods to implement a REDD+ policy in the Kaxinawá Nova Olinda Indigenous Land (Acre-Brazil). We find that both Kaxinawás and planners emphasize both NCP and PCN in their discourses. Nevertheless, differences between knowledge systems and disciplines, uneven power relations between Kaxinawás and planners, and an under-consideration of PCN by global frameworks challenge the legitimate inclusion of the Kaxinawá knowlege and worldviews to craft assessment and planning. We conclude that by explicitly addressing these challenges, science-policy interfaces can further advance knowledge legitimacy and policy effectiveness.
Comments
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
 
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.