Discourses mapped by Q-method show governance constraints motivate landscape approaches in Indonesia

Interpreting discourses among implementers of what is termed a “landscape approach” enables us to learn from their experience to improve conservation and development outcomes. We use Q-methodology to explore the perspectives of a group of experts in the landscape approach, both from academic and implementation fields, on what hinderances are in place to the realisation of achieving sustainable landscape management in Indonesia. The results show that, at a generic level, “corruption” and “lack of transparency and accountability” rank as the greatest constraints on landscape functionality. Biophysical factors, such as topography and climate change, rank as the least constraining factors. When participants considered a landscape with which they were most familiar, the results changed: the rapid change of regulations, limited local human capacity and inaccessible data on economic risks increased, while the inadequacy of democratic institutions, “overlapping laws” and “corruption” decreased. The difference indicates some fine-tuning of generic perceptions to the local context and may also reflect different views on what is achievable for landscape approach practitioners. Overall, approximately 55% of variance is accounted for by five discourse factors for each trial. Four overlapped and two discourses were discrete enough to merit different discourse labels. We labelled the discourses (1) social exclusionists, (2) state view, (3) community view, (4) integrationists, (5) democrats, and (6) neoliberals. Each discourse contains elements actionable at the landscape scale, as well as exogenous issues that originate at national and global scales. Actionable elements that could contribute to improving governance included trust building, clarified resource rights and responsibilities, and inclusive representation in management. The landscape sustainability discourses studied here suggests that landscape approach “learners” must focus on ways to remedy poor governance if they are to achieve sustainability and multi-functionality.

[1]  Joern Fischer,et al.  A plea for multifunctional landscapes , 2017 .

[2]  Aiora Zabala,et al.  Perceptions across scales of governance and the Indonesian peatland fires , 2017 .

[3]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  From displacement activities to evidence-informed decisions in conservation , 2017 .

[4]  W. Laurance,et al.  Infrastructure development and contested forest governance threaten the Leuser Ecosystem, Indonesia , 2018, Land Use Policy.

[5]  Aiora Zabala,et al.  When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research , 2018, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[6]  M. Moeliono,et al.  Discursive barriers and cross-scale forest governance in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia , 2014 .

[7]  Y.S. Kim,et al.  Decentralisation Policy as Recentralisation Strategy: Forest Management Units and Community Forestry in Indonesia1 , 2016, International Forestry Review.

[8]  A. Tsing,et al.  Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection by Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing , 2009, Transforming Anthropology.

[9]  J. Barlow,et al.  Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future , 2016, Global change biology.

[10]  Lalisa A. Duguma,et al.  Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice , 2015 .

[11]  M. Haug,et al.  In and Out of the Forest: Decentralisation and Recentralisation of Forest Governance in East Kalimantan, Indonesia , 2012 .

[12]  J. McCarthy,et al.  Land and Development in Indonesia , 2016 .

[13]  E. Bergsma,et al.  Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: a Q methodology application , 2014, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[14]  M. McCall.  Beyond “Landscape” in REDD+: The Imperative for “Territory” , 2016 .

[15]  C. V. Oosten,et al.  Governing Forest Landscape Restoration: Cases from Indonesia , 2014 .

[16]  James Reed,et al.  Bridging funding gaps for climate and sustainable development:Pitfalls, progress and potential of private finance , 2018 .

[17]  E. Lambin,et al.  Companies’ contribution to sustainability through global supply chains , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  L. Giessen,et al.  The fragmented land use administration in Indonesia - analysing bureaucratic responsibilities influencing tropical rainforest transformation systems. , 2015 .

[19]  E. Ostrom.  A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems , 2009, Science.

[20]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  Polycentric governance of multifunctional forested landscapes , 2012 .

[21]  S. Scherr,et al.  From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes , 2012, Agriculture & Food Security.

[22]  Vincent Gitz,et al.  Tropical forest-transition landscapes: a portfolio for studying people, tree crops and agro-ecological change in context , 2017 .

[23]  Nathan Clay.  Producing hybrid forests in the Congo Basin: A political ecology of the landscape approach to conservation , 2016 .

[24]  J. Barlow,et al.  Clarifying the landscape approach: A response to the Editor , 2017, Global change biology.

[25]  J. Glassman.  Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession, accumulation by ‘extra-economic’ means , 2006 .

[26]  Fikret Berkes,et al.  Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[27]  M. Brockhaus,et al.  Social Forestry – why and for whom? A comparison of policies in Vietnam and Indonesia , 2017 .

[28]  M. Moeliono,et al.  From Product to Place—Spatializing governance in a commodified landscape , 2017, Environmental Management.

[29]  Meredith Welch-Devine,et al.  Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being , 2011 .

[30]  B. Hoeksema.  Delineation of the Indo-Malayan Centre of Maximum Marine Biodiversity: The Coral Triangle , 2007 .

[31]  H. Baral,et al.  Perceptions of Local People Toward Pulpwood Plantations: Insights from the Q-Method in Indonesia , 2016, International Forestry Review.

[32]  Rytis Maskeliūnas,et al.  Relationship between Convenience, Perceived Value, and Repurchase Intention in Online Shopping in Vietnam , 2018 .

[33]  B. Campbell,et al.  The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods and the Global Environment , 2003 .

[34]  Karen Bakker,et al.  Neoliberalizing Nature? Market Environmentalism in Water Supply in England and Wales , 2005 .

[35]  C. Margules,et al.  Comparative development benefits from small and large scale mines in North Sulawesi, Indonesia , 2015 .

[36]  Terry Sunderland,et al.  What are ‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ and how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics: a systematic map protocol , 2015, Environmental Evidence.

[37]  Beria Leimona,et al.  Discourses on the performance gap of agriculture in a green economy: a Q-methodology study in Indonesia , 2017 .

[38]  C. Margules,et al.  Governance Challenges in an Eastern Indonesian Forest Landscape , 2018 .

[39]  E. Corbera,et al.  Distinct positions underpin ecosystem services for poverty alleviation , 2018, Oryx.

[40]  Carl Folke,et al.  Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability , 2017 .

[41]  T. Li.  After the land grab: Infrastructural violence and the “Mafia System” in Indonesia's oil palm plantation zones , 2017, Geoforum.

[42]  P. Pacheco,et al.  Livelihood Dilemma of The Rural Household Around The Oil Palm Plantation in East Kalimantan , 2018 .

[43]  S. Spiegel.  Governance Institutions, Resource Rights Regimes, and the Informal Mining Sector: Regulatory Complexities in Indonesia , 2012 .

[44]  T. Sunderland,et al.  Estate Crops More Attractive than Community Forests in West Kalimantan, Indonesia , 2017 .

[45]  M. Brockhaus,et al.  Advocacy coalitions, REDD+, and forest governance in Papua New Guinea: how likely is transformational change? , 2014 .

[46]  N. Bennett.  Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[47]  Aaron Pollack,et al.  The New Imperialism , 2008 .

[48]  C. Termeer,et al.  The disciplining of illegal palm oil plantations in Sumatra , 2018 .

[49]  P. Minang,et al.  Participatory Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in Integrated Landscape Initiatives , 2017, Environmental Management.

[50]  Meine van Noordwijk,et al.  Integrated natural resource management as pathway to poverty reduction: Innovating practices, institutions and policies , 2017, Agricultural Systems.

[51]  D. Harvey.  Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction , 2007 .

[52]  J. Lund.  Paradoxes of participation: The logic of professionalization in participatory forestry☆ , 2015 .

[53]  Steven R. Brown.  A Primer on Q Methodology , 1993, Operant Subjectivity.

[54]  F. DeClerck,et al.  Integrated landscape initiatives for agriculture, livelihoods and ecosystem conservation: an assessment of experiences from South and Southeast Asia. , 2017 .

[55]  B. White.  Land's End: Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier , 2017 .

[56]  Ravi Prabhu,et al.  Adaptive collaborative management of community forests in Asia: experiences from Nepal, Indonesia and the Philippines. , 2007 .

[57]  F. Bongers,et al.  Conservation Science and Practice Must Engage With the Realities of Complex Tropical Landscapes , 2018 .

[58]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Clarifying the landscape approach: A Letter to the Editor on “Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics” , 2017, Global change biology.

[59]  Felix Kienast,et al.  Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application , 2017 .

[60]  D. Mutiarin,et al.  DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE , 2019 .

[61]  Claude A. Garcia,et al.  Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[62]  F. DeClerck,et al.  Integrated landscape initiatives in practice: assessing experiences from 191 landscapes in Africa and Latin America , 2015 .

[63]  W. Adams,et al.  Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration , 2016 .

[64]  J. Barlow,et al.  Have integrated landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental issues in the tropics , 2017 .

[65]  P. Opdam.  Exploring the Role of Science in Sustainable Landscape Management. An Introduction to the Special Issue , 2018 .

[66]  Jeffrey Sayer,et al.  Forest tenure and conflict in Indonesia: contested rights in Rempek Village, Lombok , 2016 .

[67]  Steven R. Brown.  Q Methodology and Qualitative Research , 1996 .

[68]  R. Cowling,et al.  The role of participatory modeling in landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development , 2010 .

[69]  James R. Stevenson,et al.  Measuring the effectiveness of landscape approaches to conservation and development , 2017, Sustainability Science.

[70]  D. Dennis,et al.  Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed , 1998 .

[71]  W. Renema.  Biogeography, time, and place : distributions, barriers, and islands , 2007 .

[72]  James C. Scott,et al.  Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed , 1999 .

[73]  John Barry,et al.  Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology , 1999 .

[74]  G. Bull,et al.  Global Forest Discourses Must Connect with Local Forest Realities , 2018, International Forestry Review.

[75]  Fabrice DeClerck,et al.  Landscape Approaches to Achieving Food Production, Natural Resource Conservation, and the Millennium Development Goals , 2012 .

[76]  Johan A. Oldekop,et al.  The data not collected on community forestry , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[77]  T. Sunderland,et al.  Landscape approaches; what are the pre-conditions for success? , 2015, Sustainability Science.

[78]  P. Jourdan.  Spatial development initiatives (SDIs) ‐ the official view , 1998 .

[79]  Frances Cleaver,et al.  Development Through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management , 2012 .

[80]  M. Moeliono,et al.  Assessing the New Social Forestry Project in Indonesia: Recognition, Livelihood and Conservation? , 2018, International Forestry Review.

[81]  W. Neil Adger,et al.  The Political Economy of Cross-Scale Networks in Resource Co- Management , 2005 .

[82]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[83]  L. Cordingley,et al.  Q methodology. , 1997, Nurse Researcher.

[84]  G. Bull,et al.  Mediating Forest Transitions: 'Grand Design' or 'Muddling Through' , 2008 .

[85]  Lawrence A Fisher,et al.  Managing Forest Conflicts: Perspectives of Indonesia’s Forest Management Unit Directors , 2017 .

[86]  Lekelia D. Jenkins,et al.  The role of bridging organizations in environmental management: Examining social networks in working groups , 2015 .

[87]  Robert Y. Shapiro,et al.  Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness , 2000 .

[88]  Cheryl Tatano Beck,et al.  Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. , 2010, International journal of nursing studies.

[89]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems: a Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) perspective , 2017 .