Including diverse knowledges and worldviews in environmental assessment and planning: the Brazilian Amazon Kaxinawá Nova Olinda Indigenous Land case.

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributorFernanda Ayaviri Matuk, Wageningen University / Federal Institute of Minas Gerais; Jelle Hendrik Behagel, Wageningen University; Felipe Nogueira Bello Simas, Federal University of Viçosa; EUFRAN FERREIRA DO AMARAL, CPAF-AC; MOACIR HAVERROTH, CPAF-AC; Esther Turnhout, Wageningen University.
dc.creatorMATUK, F. A.
dc.creatorBEHAGEL, J. H.
dc.creatorSIMAS, F. N. B.
dc.creatorAMARAL, E. F. do
dc.creatorHAVERROTH, M.
dc.creatorTURNHOUT, E.
dc.date2020-02-17T18:13:56Z
dc.date2020-02-17T18:13:56Z
dc.date2020-02-17
dc.date2020
dc.date2020-04-20T11:11:11Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-30T22:52:06Z
dc.descriptionThe concepts of 'ecosystem services' (ES) and 'nature's contributions to people' (NCP) inform environmental frameworks that set out to include Indigenous and Local Knowledge systems (ILK) and worldviews in policy and planning processes. These frameworks aim to enhance biodiversity conservation and human well-being in a legitimate and effective way. In this article, we explore how the concept of People's Contributions to Nature (PCN) is complementary to NCP. We use it to investigate challenges that planners and locals face in realizing the legitimate inclusion of diverse knowledges and worldviwes that account for people and ecosystems in a relational way. We introduce a case study where planners drew on ES and NCP and used participatory methods to implement a REDD+ policy in the Kaxinawá Nova Olinda Indigenous Land (Acre-Brazil). We find that both Kaxinawás and planners emphasize both NCP and PCN in their discourses. Nevertheless, differences between knowledge systems and disciplines, uneven power relations between Kaxinawás and planners, and an underconsideration of PCN by global frameworks challenge the legitimate inclusion of the Kaxinawá knowlege and worldviews to craft assessment and planning. We conclude that by explicitly addressing these challenges, science-policy interfaces can further advance knowledge legitimacy and policy effectiveness.
dc.identifierEcosystems and People, v. 16, n. 1, p. 95-113, 2020.
dc.identifier2639-5916
dc.identifierhttp://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1120347
dc.identifier10.1080/26395916.2020.1722752
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/369861
dc.languageeng
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.subjectServiços ecossistêmicos
dc.subjectServicios ecosistémicos
dc.subjectContribuições das pessoas para a natureza
dc.subjectPeople's contributions to nature
dc.subjectConhecimento tradicional
dc.subjectConocimiento tradicional
dc.subjectAbordagem participativa
dc.subjectGestión participativa
dc.subjectPovos indígenas
dc.subjectPueblos indígenas
dc.subjectTerra Indígena Kaxinawá de Nova Olinda (TIKNO)
dc.subjectAcre
dc.subjectAmazônia Ocidental
dc.subjectWestern Amazon
dc.subjectAmazonia Occidental
dc.subjectIndigenous knowledge
dc.subjectEcosystem services
dc.subjectParticipatory management
dc.subjectIndigenous peoples
dc.titleIncluding diverse knowledges and worldviews in environmental assessment and planning: the Brazilian Amazon Kaxinawá Nova Olinda Indigenous Land case.
dc.typeArtigo de periódico

Archivos

Colecciones

Embrapa Acre (CPAF-AC)