Land degradation is contextual
A. Warren
Abstract
A. Warren
Abstract
Abstract Land degradation cannot be judged independently of its spatial, temporal, economic, environmental and cultural context. Evaluations are therefore almost infinitely variable and very dynamic. These observations are examined in two contexts, first in two case studies. One, from the southern Levant, makes use of a long and well‐documented history of environmental assessment that varied greatly between communities. The other, from contemporary Niger, shows finer scale differences among villagers. Second, the dynamic and multiple assessment of futures (sustainability) is illustrated with data from the same case study in Niger. In this wider context, multiplicity and dynamicity are largely a consequence of the choice of model of the environmental or social future. The usually positive difference between large‐scale and finer scale assessments of degradation is dubbed the [social delivery ratio]. Simplified systems of evaluation may be necessary for allocation, but they need to be treated with great caution if the argument here is accepted. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OpenAlex reports 200 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Abstract Land degradation cannot be judged independently of its spatial, temporal, economic, environmental and cultural context. Evaluations are therefore almost infinitely variable and very dynamic. These observations are examined in two contexts, first in two case studies. One, from the southern Levant, makes use of a long and well‐documented history of environmental assessment that varied greatly between communities. The other, from contemporary Niger, shows finer scale differences among villagers. Second, the dynamic and multiple assessment of futures (sustainability) is illustrated with data from the same case study in Niger. In this wider context, multiplicity and dynamicity are largely a consequence of the choice of model of the environmental or social future. The usually positive difference between large‐scale and finer scale assessments of degradation is dubbed the [social delivery ratio]. Simplified systems of evaluation may be necessary for allocation, but they need to be treated with great caution if the argument here is accepted. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key concepts: Futures contract, Land degradation, Argument (complex analysis), Context (archaeology), Scale (ratio), Environmental degradation, Sustainability, Spatial contextual awareness