| 1. |
- Raymond, Christopher, et al.
(författare)
-
Mosaic governance A multi-method approach for engaging diverse groups in the planning of green spaces and meeting spots
- 2021
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim of this synthesis fact sheet is to present a sustainable spatial planning framework for revitalising green spaces and meeting spots for social inclusion, biodiversity and well-being, including safety and security. We provide important insights for city planners about how new partnerships can be established between social entrepreneurs, NGOs, municipalities and marginalised groups, with a view to achieve social inclusion, biodiversity and well-being outcomes in green spaces and associated meeting spots. This work is supported by VIVAPLAN, an international research consortium funded by FORMAS, The Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development.
|
|
| 2. |
- Stålhammar, Sanna
(författare)
-
Assessing People’s Values of Nature: Where Is the Link to Sustainability Transformations?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-701X. ; 9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The efforts to measure people’s current preferences and values of ecosystem services raise questions about the link to sustainability transformations. The importance of taking social and cultural values of nature into account is increasingly recognised within ecosystem services research and policy. This notion is informing the development and application of social (or socio-cultural) valuation methods that seek to assess and capture non-material social and cultural aspects of benefits of ecosystems in non-monetary terms. Here, ‘values’ refer to the products of descriptive scientific assessments of the links between human well-being and ecosystems. This precise use of the values term can be contrasted with normative modes of understanding values, as underlying beliefs and moral principles about what is good and right, which also influence science and institutions. While both perspectives on values are important for the biodiversity and ecosystem services agenda, values within this space have mainly been understood in relation to assessments and descriptive modes of values. Failing to acknowledge the distinction between descriptive and normative modes bypasses the potential mismatch between people’s current values and sustainability transformations. Refining methodologies to more accurately describe social values risks simply giving us a more detailed account of what we already know—people in general do not value nature enough. A central task for values studies is to explore why or how peoples’ mindsets might converge with sustainability goals, using methods that go beyond assessing current states to incorporate change and transformation.
|
|
| 3. |
- Stålhammar, Sanna
(författare)
-
Polarised views of urban biodiversity and the role of socio-cultural valuation: Lessons from Cape Town
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Ecosystem Services. - : Elsevier BV. - 2212-0416. ; 47
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study investigates values and narratives of urban biodiversity in the highly culturally and biologically diverse city Cape Town, South Africa. Local expressions of values of biodiversity are explored, in the context of the challenge of accounting for diverse values of biodiversity through a green infrastructure approach. Based on interviews with practitioners involved in green space and biodiversity management I investigate: i) narratives around challenges of different values of biodiversity and green space for management and planning, and ii) the perceived potential of assessments of social values of biodiversity and ES in practice. Highly polarised views of nature and biodiversity exist within management and planning of urban nature within the city. This study shows the complexity of including and integrating highly diverse and contrasting meanings of urban nature and biodiversity for citizens and stakeholders in management and planning based on an ES and GI approach. Potential value-conflicts arise when applying a green infrastructure approach in places with high biodiversity values, where management is based on a traditional conservation perspective. Socio-cultural valuation can be useful in green infrastructure planning, but needs to go beyond a consideration of current preferences, consider informal engagements, and recognise the potential of urban green for citizen building.
|
|
| 4. |
- West, Simon, et al.
(författare)
-
Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science–reply to Raymond et al.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Ecosystems and People. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2639-5908 .- 2639-5916. ; 17:1, s. 108-113
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We welcome Raymond et al.’s invitation to further discuss the ‘pragmatics’ of relational thinking in sustainability science. We clarify that relational approaches provide distinct theoretical and methodological resources that may be adopted on their own, or used to enrich other approaches, including systems research. We situate Raymond et al.’s characterization of relational thinking in a broader landscape of differing approaches to mobilizing ‘relationality’ in sustainability science. A key contribution of relational thinking in the process-relational, pragmatist and post-structural traditions is the focus on the generation and use of concepts. This focus is proving methodologically useful for sustainability scientists. We caution against viewing the generation of concepts purely in terms of ‘applying the knife’ to ‘divide components.’ Relational thinking offers alternatives more congruent with complexity: away from an ‘external’ actor cutting away at the world with an ‘either/or’ logic, towards an ‘immersed’ actor contributing generatively within it using a ‘both/and not only’ logic. The pragmatics of relational thinking will vary according to purposes. We describe two possible pathways for using relational thinking in research practice–(i) working forwards from relations, and (ii) working backwards from existing concepts–and discuss how relational thinking can contribute to complexity-oriented visions of ‘solutions-oriented sustainability science.’.
|
|
