understanding alignments and mis-alignments of values to better craft institutions in the pastoral drylands

Clicks: 260
ID: 154681
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality Improving Quality
0.0 /100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
Tensions in values between dryland pastoralists and non-pastoralists, and often between pastoralists themselves, are common globally. The re-imagining of grazed landscapes must recognize that current pastoralists have their own visions of what pastoralism does, can and should provide to both themselves and society at large. “Disrupters” may rapidly and permanently alter the social-ecological system but understanding pastoralist visions and values may help highlight effective and ethical mechanisms by which we can gently shift current systems toward socially re-imagined systems. Here we draw on two case studies from grazed dryland landscapes to highlight the ways in which understanding pastoralist values and visions could help with this shift. We choose case studies from contrasting institutional, cultural and economic contexts to better explore fit-for-purpose policy options. The first case study is from the typical and desert steppe of Mongolia, and the second from dryland Australia. Drawing on primary data and the literature, we explore in these contexts: what constitutes a meaningful livelihood for pastoralists? how might these imaginings align (or misalign) with the imaginings of the broader population? what inertia against future societal imaginings might a potential misalignment create? and how might policy provide a push (or pull) against such an inertia? We show that context-specific understandings of pastoralist values and visions can highlight appropriate policy options to encourage the movement of social-ecological systems toward those that are more socially desirable. However, the design of these options requires understanding unique combinations of pastoral and societal values, biophysical parameters and institutional contexts.
Reference Key
addison2020frontiersunderstanding Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Jane Addison;Jane Addison;Colin Brown;Chris R. Pavey;Enkh-Orchlon Lkhagvadorj;Duinkherjav Bukhbat;Lkhagvadorj Dorjburegdaa
Journal gecco 2019 companion - proceedings of the 2019 genetic and evolutionary computation conference companion
Year 2020
DOI
10.3389/fsufs.2020.00116
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.