Suchergebnisse

Die Wichtigkeit, eine soziale Perspektive auf die Mensch-Natur-Beziehung einzunehmen, wird seit langer Zeit erkannt. Die Erforschung sozial-ökologischer Systeme sucht durch den Ausgleich der sozialen und ökologischen Ansichten ein holistisches Verständnis der Mensch-Natur-Beziehung zu erreichen. Hier strebte ich an, ein soziales Verständnis des Sächsischen Gebiets im Herzen Rumäniens zu entwickeln, indem ich erforschte, wie Einheimische die Mensch-Natur-Beziehung betrachten. Zu diesem Zweck verwendete ich die Konzepte der sozial-ökologischen Systeme (SES), der ökosystemischen Leistungen (ES) und der Kulturlandschaften, um die Wahrnehmung der Einheimischen durch empirische Fallstudien zu erfassen. Über eine ausgiebige Recherche bestehender Fachliteratur erstellte ich zuerst eine Übersicht über eine bestimmte Form der Mensch-Natur-Beziehung, in der weder verbrauchbare noch nutzenbringende Werte vorhanden sind (´kulturelle Ökosystemdienstleistungen´). Zweitens, um die Wechselwirkung von dem sozialen zum ökologischen System abzugrenzen und zur Sprache zu bringen, untersuchte ich, wie unterschiedlich die Einheimischen die Landschaften und ihre Funktionen in Südsiebenbürgen wahrnehmen. Diese mit den Landschaften verbundenen Präferenzen verortete ich dann konzeptionell, indem ich die potenzielle Landnutzung und deren Auswirkungen im Hinblick auf das Management verdeutlichte. Drittens, um die Mensch-Natur-Beziehung vom ökologischen zum sozialen System zu erfassen, studierte ich die Nutzung der Ökosystemdienstleistungen durch disaggregierte Personengruppen. Genauer untersuchte ich, welche Faktoren über die ökosystemischen Verfahren und Funktionen hinaus die von der Natur durch den Menschen abgeleiteten Vorteile aus Sicht der potenziellen Nutznießer beeinflussten. Ich entwarf ein Konzept über die vermittelnde Rolle einer Auswahl an zusammenhängenden Faktoren, die der aktuellen Verbreitung der ES in Verbindung mit der Beziehung zwischen den ES und den Vorteilen für den Menschen zugrunde liegen. Viertens, um ein Beispiel der wechselseitigen Mensch-Natur-Beziehung zu erforschen, betrachtete ich einen Sonderfall des Nebeneinanderbestehens von Menschen und Fleischfressern sowie die Mechanismen, welche dieses Miteinander beeinflussen. Auch wenn ich in dieser Dissertation ein umfangreiches und tiefgründiges Verständnis der menschlichen Dimension der untersuchten Systeme ansammelte, wählte ich vier Querthemen, um die Mensch-Natur-Beziehung in Südsiebenbürgen zu erläutern. Diese vier Themen mögen als Grundsäulen eines Verständnisses aus der sozialen Sicht, aber auch als mögliche Ziele für die Forschung oder Politiken dienen. Das erste Thema bezieht sich auf die Werte der Einheimischen, die der Schlüssel des Verständnisses der endemischen Mensch-Natur-Beziehung sind und in künftigen sozial-ökologischen Bewertungen oder politischen Eingriffen nicht zu übersehen sind. Das zweite Thema versteht die Kulturlandschaft in Südsiebenbürgen sowohl als einen physischen als auch einen virtuellen Raum der sozial-ökologischen Wechselwirkung, welcher dem Menschen Naturerfahrungen und sozial-ökologisches Wissens ermöglicht. Das dritte Thema, die Mannigfaltigkeit des sozialen Systems hinsichtlich ihrer Anforderungen an die Landschaft sowie deren Nutznießer der Ökosystemdienstleistungen erweitert die Betrachtungsweise der Mensch-Natur-Beziehungen, kann jedoch zugleich künftig eine Konflikt- oder Entkopplungsquelle sein, wenn sie unangemessen verwaltet wird. Zuletzt spielen die Kleinbauern eine wesentliche Rolle in der Aufrechterhaltung der Mensch-Natur-Beziehung dank ihrer Interaktion mit dem Land und den daraus hervorgegangenen Überzeugungen, aber ihre Werte und ihr Lebensstil sind bedroht.

Transdisciplinary research often utilizes collaborative ways of knowledge production to enable deliberate transformations towards sustainability. Multiple concepts with varying definitions are applied, leading to confusion in the aims and uses of these concepts. In this article, we review five concepts relevant to the current debate on the new collaborative ways of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research. We focus on the concepts of co-creation, co-production, co-design, co-learning, and adaptive co-management in the context of natural resources management (NRM). This study couples a literature review and a conceptual analysis, and aims to clarify definitions, use, the interlinkages of these concepts and to shed light on their intertwined nature. We propose an integrative understanding of the concepts to facilitate collaborative modes and to enable the transformative aims of research processes. To this end, we discuss how to harvest the transformative potential of the "co-concepts" by focusing on reflexivity, power analysis and process orientation. ; publishedVersion ; Peer reviewed

Abstract Sustainability transformations call forth new forms and systems of knowledge across society. However, few tools and processes exist for promoting dialogue among different interests and normative stances in knowledge co-creation. In this article, we build on the notion of thought collectives to argue that understanding and moderating normative tensions are necessary if sustainability science is to provide successful solutions. Drawing on an analysis of the normative tensions between rival high-tech and low-tech thought collectives in the mobility and food production sectors, we discuss three strategic approaches: applying common evaluative frameworks, building contextual convergence and embracing complexity. We argue that these strategies indicate a need to distinguish different kinds of reflexivity in managing tensions among thought collectives. As a practical conclusion, we establish sets of reflexive questions to help sustainability scientists deploy the knowledge management strategies discussed.

Sustainability transformations call forth new forms and systems of knowledge across society. However, few tools and processes exist for promoting dialogue among different interests and normative stances in knowledge co-creation. In this article, we build on the notion of thought collectives to argue that understanding and moderating normative tensions are necessary if sustainability science is to provide successful solutions. Drawing on an analysis of the normative tensions between rival high-tech and low-tech thought collectives in the mobility and food production sectors, we discuss three strategic approaches: applying common evaluative frameworks, building contextual convergence and embracing complexity. We argue that these strategies indicate a need to distinguish different kinds of reflexivity in managing tensions among thought collectives. As a practical conclusion, we establish sets of reflexive questions to help sustainability scientists deploy the knowledge management strategies discussed. ; Peer reviewed

This document contains the draft Chapter 4 of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Governments and all observers at IPBES-7 had access to these draft chapters eight weeks prior to IPBES-7. Governments accepted the Chapters at IPBES-7 based on the understanding that revisions made to the SPM during the Plenary, as a result of the dialogue between Governments and scientists, would be reflected in the final Chapters.IPBES typically releases its Chapters publicly only in their final form, which implies a delay of several months post Plenary. However, in light of the high interest for the Chapters, IPBES is releasing the six Chapters early (31 May 2019) in a draft form. Authors of the reports are currently working to reflect all the changes made to the Summary for Policymakers during the Plenary to the Chapters, and to perform final copyediting.

© 2019, The Author(s). This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce a novel transdisciplinary conceptual framework that revolves around concepts of 'lenses' and 'tensions' to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the notion of lenses: perspectives on value and valuation along diverse dimensions that describe what values focus on, how their sociality is envisioned, and what epistemic and procedural assumptions are made. We characterise fourteen of such dimensions. This provides a foundation for exploration of seven areas of tension, between: (1) the values of individuals vs collectives; (2) values as discrete and held vs embedded and constructed; (3) value as static or changeable; (4) valuation as descriptive vs normative and transformative; (5) social vs relational values; (6) different rationalities and their relation to value integration; (7) degrees of acknowledgment of the role of power in navigating value conflicts. In doing so, we embrace the 'mess' of diversity, yet also provide a framework to organise this mess and support and encourage active transdisciplinary collaboration. We identify key research areas where such collaborations can be harnessed for sustainability transformation. Here it is crucial to understand how certain social value lenses are privileged over others and build capacity in decision-making for understanding and drawing on multiple value, epistemic and procedural lenses.

The promise of co-production to address complex sustainability challenges is compelling. Yet, co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice, encompasses diverse aims, terminologies and practices, with poor clarity over their implications. To explore this diversity, we systematically mapped differences in how 32 initiatives from 6 continents co-produce diverse outcomes for the sustainable development of ecosystems at local to global scales. We found variation in their purpose for utilizing co-production, understanding of power, approach to politics and pathways to impact. A cluster analysis identified six modes of co-production: (1) researching solutions; (2) empowering voices; (3) brokering power; (4) reframing power; (5) navigating differences and (6) reframing agency. No mode is ideal; each holds unique potential to achieve particular outcomes, but also poses unique challenges and risks. Our analysis provides a heuristic tool for researchers and societal actors to critically explore this diversity and effectively navigate trade-offs when co-producing sustainability.

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent. ; publishedVersion