政策干预如何影响燃烧,以实现文化和小规模生计目标

IF 3.6 2区 社会学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Cathy Smith, Jacob Ainscough, Rahinatu S. Alare, Abigail R. Croker, Kayla M. De Freitas, James D.A. Millington, Jayalaxshmi Mistry, Ol Perkins, Kate Schreckenberg, Francisco Seijo, Henry J. Thompson, Michel Valette, Kapil Yadav
{"title":"政策干预如何影响燃烧,以实现文化和小规模生计目标","authors":"Cathy Smith, Jacob Ainscough, Rahinatu S. Alare, Abigail R. Croker, Kayla M. De Freitas, James D.A. Millington, Jayalaxshmi Mistry, Ol Perkins, Kate Schreckenberg, Francisco Seijo, Henry J. Thompson, Michel Valette, Kapil Yadav","doi":"10.5751/es-14850-290135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Fire has cultural and economic significance for Indigenous and rural peoples worldwide, being used to manage landscapes for activities such as hunting, gathering, cropping, and forestry, and for ceremonial and spiritual purposes. Policy interventions by state and non-state organizations, such as regulations, economic incentives, and communication campaigns, can target fire use directly, or affect it indirectly, for example, by restricting land access. Yet evidence of such impacts has not been synthesized at the global scale. We analyzed 512 examples in 68 countries to describe the range of policy interventions by state and non-state organizations that target and/or affect fire use, categorizing interventions based on the broad actor types involved, their mode of operation (e.g., regulation) and their intentionality and/or possible effects vis-a-vis fire use. Of these interventions, 74% involved only state agencies in policy design and implementations, 4% involved only non-state organizations, and 18% involved collaboration between state and/or non-state organizations and/or communities. Three hundred and nine interventions directly targeted fire use, of which 87% aimed to eliminate or constrain fire use. Two hundred and three affected fire use indirectly, of which 88% led to reductions in or constraints upon fire use. Though there is some recognition in the 21st century of a need, in certain contexts, to support local fire use, for reasons related to environmental justice, ecology, wildfire risk and climate change, the literature we reviewed points to several challenges for contemporary efforts toward this end. These include contradictions between policy interventions, mistrust between actors following histories of fire suppression, greater fuel loads increasing the risk of burning where fire has been suppressed, and the need to consider the indirect effects of other types of policy, such as those related to land tenure.</p>\n<p>The post How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives first appeared on Ecology & Society.</p>","PeriodicalId":51028,"journal":{"name":"Ecology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives\",\"authors\":\"Cathy Smith, Jacob Ainscough, Rahinatu S. Alare, Abigail R. Croker, Kayla M. De Freitas, James D.A. Millington, Jayalaxshmi Mistry, Ol Perkins, Kate Schreckenberg, Francisco Seijo, Henry J. Thompson, Michel Valette, Kapil Yadav\",\"doi\":\"10.5751/es-14850-290135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Fire has cultural and economic significance for Indigenous and rural peoples worldwide, being used to manage landscapes for activities such as hunting, gathering, cropping, and forestry, and for ceremonial and spiritual purposes. Policy interventions by state and non-state organizations, such as regulations, economic incentives, and communication campaigns, can target fire use directly, or affect it indirectly, for example, by restricting land access. Yet evidence of such impacts has not been synthesized at the global scale. We analyzed 512 examples in 68 countries to describe the range of policy interventions by state and non-state organizations that target and/or affect fire use, categorizing interventions based on the broad actor types involved, their mode of operation (e.g., regulation) and their intentionality and/or possible effects vis-a-vis fire use. Of these interventions, 74% involved only state agencies in policy design and implementations, 4% involved only non-state organizations, and 18% involved collaboration between state and/or non-state organizations and/or communities. Three hundred and nine interventions directly targeted fire use, of which 87% aimed to eliminate or constrain fire use. Two hundred and three affected fire use indirectly, of which 88% led to reductions in or constraints upon fire use. Though there is some recognition in the 21st century of a need, in certain contexts, to support local fire use, for reasons related to environmental justice, ecology, wildfire risk and climate change, the literature we reviewed points to several challenges for contemporary efforts toward this end. These include contradictions between policy interventions, mistrust between actors following histories of fire suppression, greater fuel loads increasing the risk of burning where fire has been suppressed, and the need to consider the indirect effects of other types of policy, such as those related to land tenure.</p>\\n<p>The post How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives first appeared on Ecology & Society.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology and Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5751/es-14850-290135\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5751/es-14850-290135","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

火对世界各地的土著居民和农村居民具有重要的文化和经济意义,他们利用火来管理狩猎、采集、耕作和林业等活动的景观,并用于祭祀和精神活动。国家和非国家组织的政策干预,如法规、经济激励措施和宣传活动,可直接针对用火,或通过限制土地使用权等方式间接影响用火。然而,有关此类影响的证据尚未在全球范围内进行综合。我们分析了 68 个国家的 512 个案例,以描述国家和非国家组织针对和/或影响用火的一系列政策干预措施,并根据所涉及的广泛行为者类型、其运作模式(如监管)及其意图和/或对用火可能产生的影响对干预措施进行了分类。在这些干预措施中,有 74% 只涉及国家机构的政策设计和实施,4% 只涉及非国家组织,18% 涉及国家和/或非国家组织和/或社区之间的合作。有 39 项干预措施直接针对用火问题,其中 87% 旨在消除或限制用火。23 项干预措施间接影响了用火,其中 88% 的干预措施减少或限制了用火。尽管在 21 世纪的某些情况下,出于环境正义、生态、野火风险和气候变化等原因,人们认识到有必要支持当地的用火,但我们查阅的文献指出了当代实现这一目标的努力所面临的若干挑战。这些挑战包括:政策干预之间的矛盾;在经历了灭火历史后,参与者之间的不信任;更大的燃料负荷增加了火灾被扑灭地区的火灾风险;以及需要考虑其他类型政策的间接影响,如与土地保有权相关的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives

Fire has cultural and economic significance for Indigenous and rural peoples worldwide, being used to manage landscapes for activities such as hunting, gathering, cropping, and forestry, and for ceremonial and spiritual purposes. Policy interventions by state and non-state organizations, such as regulations, economic incentives, and communication campaigns, can target fire use directly, or affect it indirectly, for example, by restricting land access. Yet evidence of such impacts has not been synthesized at the global scale. We analyzed 512 examples in 68 countries to describe the range of policy interventions by state and non-state organizations that target and/or affect fire use, categorizing interventions based on the broad actor types involved, their mode of operation (e.g., regulation) and their intentionality and/or possible effects vis-a-vis fire use. Of these interventions, 74% involved only state agencies in policy design and implementations, 4% involved only non-state organizations, and 18% involved collaboration between state and/or non-state organizations and/or communities. Three hundred and nine interventions directly targeted fire use, of which 87% aimed to eliminate or constrain fire use. Two hundred and three affected fire use indirectly, of which 88% led to reductions in or constraints upon fire use. Though there is some recognition in the 21st century of a need, in certain contexts, to support local fire use, for reasons related to environmental justice, ecology, wildfire risk and climate change, the literature we reviewed points to several challenges for contemporary efforts toward this end. These include contradictions between policy interventions, mistrust between actors following histories of fire suppression, greater fuel loads increasing the risk of burning where fire has been suppressed, and the need to consider the indirect effects of other types of policy, such as those related to land tenure.

The post How policy interventions influence burning to meet cultural and small-scale livelihood objectives first appeared on Ecology & Society.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology and Society
Ecology and Society 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
109
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Ecology and Society is an electronic, peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary journal devoted to the rapid dissemination of current research. Manuscript submission, peer review, and publication are all handled on the Internet. Software developed for the journal automates all clerical steps during peer review, facilitates a double-blind peer review process, and allows authors and editors to follow the progress of peer review on the Internet. As articles are accepted, they are published in an "Issue in Progress." At four month intervals the Issue-in-Progress is declared a New Issue, and subscribers receive the Table of Contents of the issue via email. Our turn-around time (submission to publication) averages around 350 days. We encourage publication of special features. Special features are comprised of a set of manuscripts that address a single theme, and include an introductory and summary manuscript. The individual contributions are published in regular issues, and the special feature manuscripts are linked through a table of contents and announced on the journal''s main page. The journal seeks papers that are novel, integrative and written in a way that is accessible to a wide audience that includes an array of disciplines from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities concerned with the relationship between society and the life-supporting ecosystems on which human wellbeing ultimately depends.
×
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