Discursive Relationships Between Landscape Science, Policy and Management Practice: Concepts, Issues and Examples - Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture - page 219

The challenge of translating knowledge from the general to the particular is also
a well-recognised problem in landscape planning. As Steinitz ( 1990 ) explains it in
practical terms, what works well at one scale does not necessarily work well at
another scale. A number of authors have addressed the problem. Nassauer and
Opdam, for example, propose a stepwise process moving from science knowledge
through generalizable pattern rules to place specific design solutions ( 2008 : 642),
and Theobald et al. ( 2005 ) propose the use of indicators to bridge between general
knowledge and particular situations. Jensen et al. ( 2000 ) distinguish between the
role of expertise in context independent knowledge—for example about genetic
landscape processes- as opposed to context dependent knowledge about commu-
nities and their landscape practices, which is grounded in particular situations.
Each of these may need different investigative strategies. However, the question
remains of how to reconcile scientific credibility with problem salience, imagi-
nation, and local and political legitimacy (Cash et al. 2003 ).
The importance of legitimacy opens the issue of how best to understand and
incorporate diverse social values. Opdam et al. ( 2002 : 769) argued that ''The
future of landscape ecology lies in the understanding of how landscape pattern is
related to the functioning of landscape systems, placed in the context of (changing)
social values and land use'' (our emphasis). This has led to a now widely accepted
imperative to include social scientific expertise within the multidisciplinary teams
undertaking applied landscape ecological projects (Mussachio 2009a ). Nonethe-
less, introducing social science into landscape ecology per se does not necessarily
achieve either practical results or legitimacy. There are a wide range of social
science traditions and methodologies, and knowledge generated using methods
aligned with the natural sciences may not adequately engage with ways of
knowing about landscapes that are embedded in communities and practices. As
Flyvberg ( 2001 ) demonstrated in an urban context, social sciences tend to be
strongest where natural sciences are weakest, and vice versa- landscape ecology is
strong on explanation and prediction, whereas social sciences overall may be most
effective in interpretation and critique. It is for this reason that several authors have
called for 'transdisciplinary' approaches (Tress et al. 2003 ; Mussachio 2009a ),
which can transcend particular methodologies.
However, drawing together knowledge from diverse sources is not a neutral
process. Reflecting upon a decade of rural landscape ecological management in
Northern Australia, Duff et al. ( 2009 ) note that attempts to 'integrate' across
diverse interests and cultures seldom works because of power imbalances. Instead,
they argue for collaborative 'working in combination', development of trust
through embracing difference and developing shared understandings, brokering
between interests, and investing heavily in communication to enhance adaptive
learning. Flyvberg ( 2001 : 154) reached a similar conclusion. Noting that ''...power
has a rationality that rationality does not know. Rationality, on the other hand, does
not have a power that power does not know. The result is an unequal relationship
between the two'', he argued that to be effective in influencing urban policy and
planning, social science had to set aside its ambition of adopting the instrumental