Conflicting Rationalities, Knowledge and Values in Scarred Landscapes

Autor/inn/en	Collier, Marcus J.; Scott, Mark
Titel	Conflicting Rationalities, Knowledge and Values in Scarred Landscapes
Quelle	In: Journal of Rural Studies, 25 (2009) 3, S.267-277 (11 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0743-0167
DOI	10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.12.002
Schlagwörter	Land Use; Planning; Rural Areas; Rural Development; Conflict; Cooperation; Stakeholders + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Bodennutzung; Ablaufplanung; Planungsprozess; Rural area; Ländlicher Raum; Rural environment; Development; Ländliches Milieu; Entwicklung; Konflikt; Co-operation; Kooperation
Abstract	Incorporating public or local preferences in landscape planning is often discussed with respect to the difficulties associated with accurate representation, stimulating interest and overcoming barriers to participation. Incorporating sectoral and professional preferences may also have the same degree of difficulty where conflicts can arise. Planning theory calls for inclusiveness and collaboration, ideally egalitarian, and analysis of the process often uses case study scenarios that may offer examples for practice and further research. Much of the literature takes case studies in urban landscapes as the starting point for discussion and little is known of the collaborative process in rural landscapes, especially damaged landscapes such as those that may occur after extreme resource extraction. In this paper, we use industrially mined, or "cutaway", peatlands as illustrative examples of the remaining "scarred" landscapes. Using narratives of "knowledge-holders" as iterative examples, we explore the perspectives of key actors within scarred landscape after-use planning. It is shown that though there is agreement that community "stakes" are important, there are conflicts relating to the exact level of collaboration or to the extent that it is necessary at all. Traditional sectoral approaches predominate with community level narratives following established pathways. The prevailing rationalities revolve around protectionism and differing opinions of knowledge. Where a policy vacuum exists in relation to after-use of damaged landscapes, the resulting conflict may be an impediment to non-tokenistic stakeholder collaboration. (Contains 3 tables.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Elsevier. 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32887-4800. Tel: 877-839-7126; Tel: 407-345-4020; Fax: 407-363-1354; e-mail: usjcs@elsevier.com; Web site: http://www.elsevier.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10