IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1434-d144672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards Place-Based Research to Support Social–Ecological Stewardship

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica Cockburn

    (Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6139, South Africa)

  • Georgina Cundill

    (Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6139, South Africa
    International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON K1P 0B2, Canada)

  • Sheona Shackleton

    (Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6139, South Africa)

  • Mathieu Rouget

    (UMR PVBMT, CIRAD, St Pierre, 97410La Réunion, France
    School of Agriculture, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville 3201, South Africa)

Abstract

Concerns about ecological degradation and social inequalities have prompted increasing calls for stewardship in the social–ecological systems and sustainability science literature. However, how can the ideals of stewardship be realised in practice? The links between the theory and practice of stewardship are under-developed, and research to support place-based stewardship practice is limited. We therefore bring together complementary perspectives to guide research on place-based stewardship practice in the context of multifunctional landscapes. We unpack and synthesise literature on stewardship, landscapes, and collaboration for natural resource management, and highlight the ways in which the pathways approach can deepen research on collaboration and stewardship practice. We propose landscapes as a suitable level of analysis and action for stewardship. Since all landscapes are multifunctional, we argue that collaboration among multiple stakeholders is a necessary focus of such research. Our analysis reveals that existing theory on collaboration could be deepened by further research into the agency of individual human actors, the complex social–relational dynamics among actors, and the situatedness of actors within the social–ecological context. These factors mediate collaborative processes, and a better understanding of them is needed to support place-based stewardship practice. To this end, the pathways approach offers a waymark to advance research on collaboration, particularly in the complex, contested social–ecological systems that tend to characterize multifunctional landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica Cockburn & Georgina Cundill & Sheona Shackleton & Mathieu Rouget, 2018. "Towards Place-Based Research to Support Social–Ecological Stewardship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1434-:d:144672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1434/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1434/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Karpouzoglou, Timothy & Dewulf, Art & Clark, Julian, 2016. "Advancing adaptive governance of social-ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-9.
    3. Marianne Penker & Barbara Enengel & Carsten Mann & Olivier Aznar, 2013. "Understanding Landscape Stewardship – Lessons to be Learned from Public Service Economics," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 54-72, February.
    4. Gordon, Line J. & Finlayson, C. Max & Falkenmark, Malin, 2010. "Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 512-519, April.
    5. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    6. Stallman, Heidi R., 2011. "Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 131-139.
    7. Gibson, Clark C. & Ostrom, Elinor & Ahn, T. K., 2000. "The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 217-239, February.
    8. Milder, Jeffrey C. & Hart, Abigail K. & Dobie, Philip & Minai, Joshua & Zaleski, Christi, 2014. "Integrated Landscape Initiatives for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation: A Region-Wide Assessment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 68-80.
    9. Campbell, Bruce & Mandondo, Alois & Nemarundwe, Nontokozo & Sithole, Bevlyne & De JonG, Wil & Luckert, Marty & Matose, Frank, 2001. "Challenges to Proponents of Common Property Recource Systems: Despairing Voices from the Social Forests of Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 589-600, April.
    10. F. Chapin & Steward Pickett & Mary Power & Robert Jackson & David Carter & Clifford Duke, 2011. "Earth stewardship: a strategy for social–ecological transformation to reverse planetary degradation," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 44-53, March.
    11. Goldman, Rebecca L. & Thompson, Barton H. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2007. "Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 333-343, December.
    12. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    13. Takeda, Louise & Røpke, Inge, 2010. "Power and contestation in collaborative ecosystem-based management: The case of Haida Gwaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 178-188, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jessica Cockburn & Carolyn (Tally) G. Palmer & Harry Biggs & Eureta Rosenberg, 2018. "Navigating Multiple Tensions for Engaged Praxis in a Complex Social-Ecological System," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-24, November.
    2. Targetti, Stefano & Schaller, Lena L. & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2021. "A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Marina García-Llorente & Irene Pérez-Ramírez & Clara Sabán de la Portilla & Carmen Haro & Alejandro Benito, 2019. "Agroecological Strategies for Reactivating the Agrarian Sector: The Case of Agrolab in Madrid," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Chaohui Zhang & Mingyu He & Yishan Zhang, 2019. "Urban Sustainable Development Based on the Framework of Sponge City: 71 Case Studies in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.

    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. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    2. Stallman, Heidi R. & James, Harvey S., 2015. "Determinants affecting farmers' willingness to cooperate to control pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 182-192.
    3. Bethwell, Claudia & Sattler, Claudia & Stachow, Ulrich, 2022. "An analytical framework to link governance, agricultural production practices, and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    4. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Crossman, Neville D. & Smith, F. Patrick, 2012. "Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 19-26.
    5. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Andreea Ionescu & Radu Tudor & Alin-Ionuț Pleșoianu & Mioara Clius, 2022. "Online Environment as a Tool to Push Forward the Research: An Example for Landscape Disservices," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, February.
    6. Carmen Schwartz & Mostafa Shaaban & Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura & Annette Piorr, 2021. "Participatory Mapping of Demand for Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Jessica Cockburn, 2022. "Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary sustainability science: Tools from applied critical realism," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 358-374, April.
    8. Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Identifying obstacles to the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115992, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    10. Elisa Oteros-Rozas & Federica Ravera & Marina García-Llorente, 2019. "How Does Agroecology Contribute to the Transitions towards Social-Ecological Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-13, August.
    11. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    12. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    13. Song, Xiaoqing & Wang, Xiong & Hu, Shougeng & Xiao, Renbin & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2022. "Functional transition of cultivated ecosystems: Underlying mechanisms and policy implications in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Pacini, Gaio Cesare & Bruschi, Piero & Ferretti, Lorenzo & Santoni, Margherita & Serafini, Francesco & Gaifami, Tommaso, 2023. "FunBies, a model for integrated assessment of functional biodiversity of weed communities in agro-ecosystem," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 486(C).
    15. Konarska, Keri M. & Sutton, Paul C. & Castellon, Michael, 2002. "Evaluating scale dependence of ecosystem service valuation: a comparison of NOAA-AVHRR and Landsat TM datasets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 491-507, June.
    16. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    17. Fabiana Natali & Giacomo Branca, 2020. "On positive externalities from irrigated agriculture and their policy implications: An overview," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(2), pages 1-25.
    18. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    19. Davide Geneletti, 2015. "A Conceptual Approach to Promote the Integration of Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-27, December.
    20. Vincent Bretagnolle & Elsa Berthet, 2012. "Managing grasslands biodiversity at a landscape level to foster ecosystem services in intensive cereal systems: from ecological knowledge to collective action," Post-Print hal-00781244, HAL.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1434-:d:144672. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.