Viewpoint Environmental Slogans: Memes with Diverging Interpretations

Environmental slogans can be seen as memes, i.e. cultural constructs that, not unlike genes, replicate themselves from one generation to the next. Memes may, however, be divergently interpreted and some memes can even have unwanted side-effects. We wanted to find out how supporters of an environmental non-governmental organisation (NGO) interpreted their slogan ‘People Caring for the Earth’. During a celebratory event of one of the NGO’s branches we asked 65 supporters of the organisation to write down their interpretation of the meaning of the slogan, as well as the actions that they regularly engage in to give substance to it. Fifty-eight per cent of the 34 respondents gave social-ecological systems  interpretations of ‘Caring for the Earth’ and interpreted it as humans living  sustainably with nature. Their associated actions centred around sustainable living principles. Forty-two per cent of respondents held strong naturecentric interpretations of the slogan, understanding it as a call to conserve species and ecosystems. Their associated actions centred around awareness raising and educating others. While these were broad patterns rather than exclusive, distinct categories, our results suggest that environmental memes should be used with circumspection, that their meaning should be clarified through actions rather than words, and that organisations should give as much attention to the meaning of their slogan as they do to the environmental causes they aim to address. The way  environmental slogans are perpetuated within an organisation has implications for the membership they attract or deter

Modelling with stakeholders to integrate biodiversity into land-use planning - Lessons learned in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean)

International audienceThis paper considers participatory modelling to integrate biodiversity Conservation into land use planning and to facilitate the incorporation of ecological knowledge into public decision making for spatial planning. Réunion Island has experienced rapid urban and agricultural expansion, which threaten its unique biodiversity. In this context, we designed three participatory modelling sequences, involving overall multidisciplinary researchers and stakeholders. The sequences aimed 1) to map land-use and biodiversity, 2) to develop a conservation plan following systematic conservation planning principles using a spatial optimization tool MARXAN) and 3) to simulate coupled land-use/conservation scenarios using a multi-agent system (MAS). The conservation plan confirms that priority areas for biodiversity protection are located on the coast where rapid land-use changes occur. Nevertheless, stakeholders from the urban and agricultural sector didn‟t participate to this sequence. Indeed, conservation planning tools are useful to locate conservation priorities but they have to be designed with stakeholders to be accepted as negotiation tool. Besides, the researchers engaged in this second equence were perceived as conservation stakeholders rather than holders of scientific knowledge. In the third sequence, the researchers involved adopted the stance of facilitating the elicitation of each stake and gathered trust from stakeholders. Overall, we conclude that the participatory development of land-use simulation models should be promoted to explore alternative scenarios for biodiversity conservation with stakeholders. In a situation of land-use conflict, a gradual and sequential participatory modelling approach should be implemented to fit into public decision-making processes

Principle 4 – foster complex adaptive systems thinking

The social–ecological systems that provide ecosystem services to society can be viewed as complex adaptive systems (CAS), characterized by a high level of interconnectedness, potential for non-linear change, and inherent uncertainty and surprise. This chapter focuses on whether resilience of ecosystem services is enhanced by management based on what we refer to as ‘CAS thinking’, meaning a mental model for interpreting the world that recognizes these CAS properties. We present evidence that CAS thinking has contributed to change in management approaches in the Kruger National Park, Great Barrier Reef, Tisza river basin and Chile among other places. However, attempts to introduce CAS thinking may compromise resilience when complexity is not effectively communicated, when uncomfortable institutional change is required or when CAS thinking is not able to evolve with changing contexts or is not equitably shared. We suggest that CAS thinking can be fostered by the following: adopting a systems framework; tolerating and embracing uncertainty; investigating critical thresholds and non-linearities; acknowledging epistemological pluralism; matching institutions to CAS processes; and recognizing barriers to cognitive change. Key questions for future research on this principle relate to communicating CAS thinking, the role of power, the importance of an organizational level of CAS thinking, and institutional barriers

Assessing the effects of invasive alien species on rural livelihoods: Case examples and a framework from South Africa

The detrimental impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) on ecosystem goods and services and local and regional economies are well documented. However, the use of IAS by rural communities is little understood, and rarely factored into IAS control programmes. Understanding the use of IAS by rural communities and factoring these into cost-benefit models is complex, depending upon a range of local-level attributes such as the time since invasion, abundance, and local-level costs and benefits. This paper reports on two case studies examining the role of IAS in rural livelihoods in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. In both cases, rural communities made widespread consumptive use of the IAS and generally would prefer higher densities, except in certain key localities. Several households traded in IAS products to generate supplementary income. We present a conceptual framework to guide interpretation of these and future case studies, considering attributes such as time since invasion, the competitiveness of the species, and the relative costs and benefits

Resilience and development: Mobilizing for transformation

In 2014, the Third International Conference on the resilience of social-ecological systems chose the theme “resilience and development: mobilizing for transformation.” The conference aimed specifically at fostering an encounter between the experiences and thinking focused on the issue of resilience through a social and ecological system perspective, and the experiences focused on the issue of resilience through a development perspective. In this perspectives piece, we reflect on the outcomes of the meeting and document the differences and similarities between the two perspectives as discussed during the conference, and identify bridging questions designed to guide future interactions. After the conference, we read the documents (abstracts, PowerPoints) that were prepared and left in the conference database by the participants (about 600 contributions), and searched the web for associated items, such as videos, blogs, and tweets from the conference participants. All of these documents were assessed through one lens: what do they say about resilience and development? Once the perspectives were established, we examined different themes that were significantly addressed during the conference. Our analysis paves the way for new collective developments on a set of issues: (1) Who declares/assign/cares for the resilience of what, of whom? (2) What are the models of transformations and how do they combine the respective role of agency and structure? (3) What are the combinations of measurement and assessment processes? (4) At what scale should resilience be studied? Social transformations and scientific approaches are coconstructed. For the last decades, development has been conceived as a modernization process supported by scientific rationality and technical expertise. The definition of a new perspective on development goes with a negotiation on a new scientific approach. Resilience is presently at the center of this negotiation on a new science for development. (Résumé d'auteur