Values and knowledges in decision-making on environmentally disruptive infrastructure projects: insights from large dams and mines

IF 6.6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Sharachchandra Lele , Daniela Del Bene , Duygu Avcı , Tatiana Roa-Avendaño , Brototi Roy , Geetanjoy Sahu , Maureen Harris , Deborah Moore
{"title":"Values and knowledges in decision-making on environmentally disruptive infrastructure projects: insights from large dams and mines","authors":"Sharachchandra Lele ,&nbsp;Daniela Del Bene ,&nbsp;Duygu Avcı ,&nbsp;Tatiana Roa-Avendaño ,&nbsp;Brototi Roy ,&nbsp;Geetanjoy Sahu ,&nbsp;Maureen Harris ,&nbsp;Deborah Moore","doi":"10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Large infrastructure projects generate irreducible trade-offs between different societal values towards nature. We asked what kinds of values and knowledges are articulated in decision-making around these projects, and specifically how well marginalised are values and the values and knowledges of marginalised stakeholders incorporated in it. Focusing on dams and mines, we chose and systematically analysed a set of well-documented cases from the Environmental Justice Atlas to answer this question. We found that there is substantial overlap between the values and knowledges articulated by proponents and opponents of such projects: values for human life, material livelihood and well-being are invoked by both sides, as is modern scientific knowledge, while relational value for nature and experiential knowledge<span> are highlighted by ecosystem-dependent communities. It is, however, the lack of a value for democratic process<span> and for justice towards marginalised people, that contributes the most to environmental concerns being overlooked in decision-making, thereby obstructing transformative change.</span></span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":294,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","volume":"64 ","pages":"Article 101346"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343523000933","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Large infrastructure projects generate irreducible trade-offs between different societal values towards nature. We asked what kinds of values and knowledges are articulated in decision-making around these projects, and specifically how well marginalised are values and the values and knowledges of marginalised stakeholders incorporated in it. Focusing on dams and mines, we chose and systematically analysed a set of well-documented cases from the Environmental Justice Atlas to answer this question. We found that there is substantial overlap between the values and knowledges articulated by proponents and opponents of such projects: values for human life, material livelihood and well-being are invoked by both sides, as is modern scientific knowledge, while relational value for nature and experiential knowledge are highlighted by ecosystem-dependent communities. It is, however, the lack of a value for democratic process and for justice towards marginalised people, that contributes the most to environmental concerns being overlooked in decision-making, thereby obstructing transformative change.

破坏环境的基础设施项目决策中的价值观和知识:来自大型水坝和矿山的见解
大型基础设施项目在不同的社会对自然的价值观之间产生了不可减少的权衡。我们询问了围绕这些项目的决策中明确表达了哪些价值观和知识,特别是价值观和边缘化利益相关者的价值观和知识在多大程度上被边缘化。为了回答这个问题,我们从环境正义地图集中选择并系统地分析了一组有充分记录的案例,重点关注水坝和矿山。我们发现,这些项目的支持者和反对者所表达的价值观和知识之间存在大量重叠:双方都援引了人类生命、物质生活和福祉的价值观,就像现代科学知识一样,而依赖生态系统的社区则强调了自然和经验知识的关系价值。然而,正是由于缺乏对民主进程和对边缘化人民的公正的重视,环境问题在决策中被忽视,从而阻碍了变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: "Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (COSUST)" is a distinguished journal within Elsevier's esteemed scientific publishing portfolio, known for its dedication to high-quality, reproducible research. Launched in 2010, COSUST is a part of the Current Opinion and Research (CO+RE) suite, which is recognized for its editorial excellence and global impact. The journal specializes in peer-reviewed, concise, and timely short reviews that provide a synthesis of recent literature, emerging topics, innovations, and perspectives in the field of environmental sustainability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信