The Research–Action Interface in Sustainable Land Management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan: Challenges and Recommendations
The Research–Action Interface in Sustainable Land Management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan: Challenges and Recommendations
复制标题
吉尔吉斯斯坦和塔吉克斯坦可持续土地管理的研究与行动界面：挑战和建议
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Chad Dear
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Wolfgramm;J. Shigaeva;Chad Dear
在中亚前苏联加盟共和国1991年独立后，国际机构和方案将可持续土地管理引入中亚。早期可持续土地管理举措的一个目的是应对与农业部门从中央计划经济向分散的市场经济转型有关的挑战。本文分析了吉尔吉斯斯坦和塔吉克斯坦与可持续土地管理相关的知识-行动界面。通过文献综述的方法，重点分析了潜在的土地管理理念的影响。利用参与性评估确定了研究-行动交界处的当代障碍。对研究人员、政策制定者和实践者之间互动的有效性的历史背景理解是基于对有目的地选择的案例的分析。该研究的结论是，不同利益相关者群体的知识往往高度脱节。跨学科和跨学科的研究很少，因此，关于可持续土地管理的学术研究在为社会带来实质性好处方面效果不佳。此外，在这方面，研究人员、政策制定者和实践者必须认识到可持续土地管理与通常被称为苏联时代的同等概念--合理利用土地资源--之间的差异，以及这些差异所产生的影响。作者建议：通过学术机构改革为可持续土地管理研究创造一个有利的环境，消除结构性限制，通过应用系统方法为政策制定者提供关于可持续土地管理的多重好处的证据，使研究成果更加有效，帮助土地使用者评估可持续土地管理战略，并投资建立和维护一个允许动态交流的多方利益相关者可持续土地管理平台。版权所有©2015 John Wiley&Sons，Ltd.
International agencies and programmes introduced sustainable land management (SLM) to Central Asia after the former Soviet Republics became independent in 1991. An aim of early SLM initiatives was to address challenges linked to the transformation of the agricultural sector from a centrally planned economy to a decentralized market economy. This article analyses the knowledge–action interface in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan as it relates to SLM. The analysis focuses on the influence of underlying land management concepts by means of a literature review. Contemporary barriers at the research–action interface were identified using participatory appraisal. And a historically contextualized understanding of the effectiveness of interactions between researchers, policy makers and practitioners is based on an analysis of purposefully selected cases. The study concludes that knowledge of different stakeholder groups is often highly disconnected. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies are rare, and academic research on SLM has subsequently been ineffective at contributing to substantial benefits for society. Further, researchers, policy makers and practitioners in this context must recognize the differences between SLM and what is often referred to as the equivalent Soviet‐era concept—rational use of land resources—and the resulting implications of these differences. The authors recommend the following: creating an enabling environment for SLM research through academic institutional reform removing structural constraints, making research outcomes more effective by applying systems approaches that produce evidence for policy makers on the multiple benefits of SLM, helping land users evaluate SLM strategies and investing in the establishment and maintenance of a multi‐stakeholder SLM platform that allows dynamic exchange. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.