Discursive Relationships Between Landscape Science, Policy and Management Practice: Concepts, Issues and Examples - Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture - page 226

required to ensure effective, democratic and dialogical planning. An internal
perspective means that the planner (or the landscape ecologist in our case) must
participate in the planning process and relate to other participants as subjects
(rather than objects), in order to fully understand the values behind the issues in
question and to participate as a collaborator in the process of deliberation based
upon value rationality—it thus provides social and political legitimacy.
An 'external' perspective analyses the planning from outside, as an object,
using various theoretical 'lenses', and is needed in order to understand their rel-
ative effectiveness in achieving functional outcomes. Without this external per-
spective the participants will be unable to critically explain and evaluate the
process and outcomes. An external perspective thus provides scientific credibility.
However, without the insights achieved through (internal) participation the land-
scape ecologist will have no way to fully justify proposed planning solutions, apart
from either individual interests or very general assumptions of 'right' and 'wrong'.
Traditional expert involvement places landscape science in an overtly 'external'
perspective, although as we have shown above, in practice it still makes 'internal'
decisions. A collaborative approach based upon value rationality involves the
landscape scientists in the local 'internal' process and therefore enables them to
''integrate and apply external knowledge into the internal framework.'' (Stein and
Harper 2003 , p. 132). In the next part of the chapter we present a case study of
such expert-informed deliberation in place.
The practical effectiveness- or otherwise- of the two contrasting approaches in
the case studies also deserves some comment. Outwardly, the strongly stakeholder
focused Willamette project appears to have resulted in a more tangible outcome, in
the form of conservation policies adopted and promoted by the EPA and local not-
for-profit resource agencies. It could be inferred that the sense of ownership and
engagement that resulted from the collaborative science process led to a com-
mitment to act. In contrast, the San Pedro project did not appear to lead to a
cohesive land planning response. However, there were consequences- and a dec-
ade later it is possible to identify significant changes in the water management
regime within the military area. Hence the obvious planning outcome of a process
may not be the only outcome, and a nuanced interpretation is needed. This is
typical of alternative futures projects, and reflects another contrast between science
as problem solving (outcome: problem solved, or not); and science as part of a
deliberative process (with an outcome of improved understanding and collabora-
tion, expressed in many ways). In the next section, we illustrate this more nuanced
role for science through a Danish case study.