Evaluating governance for sustainable development - Insights from experiences in the Dutch fen landscape.
Evaluating governance for sustainable development - Insights from experiences in the Dutch fen landscape.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.022
复制
发表时间：
2015-11
影响因子：
8.7
通讯作者：
Roos M. den Uyl;P. Driessen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Roos M. den Uyl;P. Driessen
在关于可持续发展治理的文献中，讨论的主要内容是如何引导变革以加强可持续性，以及如何评价旨在促进这种变革的干预措施。引人注目的是，关于如何引导变革的重要思想如何处理追求可持续发展的多重治理标准的贡献很少。此外，还没有在实证的范围内研究关于促成变革的想法与可持续发展治理标准的关系。因此，本文比较分析了可持续发展治理的三种主要模式-适应性管理、过渡管理和环境服务付费-如何与文献中报告的一套五个主要标准相关，即：公平、民主、合法性、规模问题的处理和不确定性问题的处理。它发现，这三种模式的学术辩论解决这些标准与不同的注意力，而分散，而在经验设置的荷兰沼泽景观的研究标准的几个方面是存在的，并大大影响了可持续发展的三种模式的运作。总之，对文献辩论和经验数据的分析能够表明，狭隘的评价视角可能无法诊断和捕捉沿着可持续发展治理相关问题而来的相关斗争和复杂性。研究表明，为了提高我们对可持续发展治理的理解，在研究这些模式时纳入多种标准确实很重要。此外，这项研究表明，必须纳入在现实世界环境中采用不同可持续发展模式时所表现出来的经验。
Prominent strands of discussion in the literature on governance for sustainable development debate how change can be induced to enhance sustainability, and how to evaluate the interventions aimed at prompting such change. Strikingly, there are few contributions about how prominent ideas of inducing change deal with multiple governance criteria for pursuing sustainable development. Moreover, the way ideas about inducing change relate to criteria of governance for sustainable development is not yet studied in an empirical context. This paper therefore comparatively analyses how three prominent modes of sustainable development governance – adaptive management, transition management and payments for environmental services – relate to a set of five prominent criteria reported in the literature, namely: equity, democracy, legitimacy, the handling of scale issues and the handling of uncertainty issues. It finds that the academic debates on these three modes address these criteria with varying attention and rather fragmented, while in the empirical setting of the Dutch fen landscape several aspects relating to the studied criteria were present and substantially influenced the functioning of the three modes of sustainable development. Together, the analysis of the literature debate and the empirical data are able to show that a narrow evaluation perspective may fail to diagnose and capture relevant struggles and complexities coming along with governance for sustainable development relevant issues. The study shows that in order to advance our understanding of governance for sustainable development, it is indeed important to include multiple criteria in studying these modes. Moreover, the study shows the importance of including empirical experiences which manifest when different modes for sustainable development are applied in real-world settings.