IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i7p1381-1394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structuring stakeholder participation in New Zealand's water resource governance

Author

Listed:
  • Lennox, James
  • Proctor, Wendy
  • Russell, Shona

Abstract

International experience has shown that extensive, systematic and structured stakeholder engagement is important in modern water resource governance. Through two case studies in the Canterbury Region, we investigate the emergence of structured and deliberative participatory processes for decision-making in New Zealand. We particularly focus on the use of evaluative criteria and weightings in providing structure for stakeholder deliberations and clarity and transparency in decision-making processes. Some of the benefits of using criteria weightings to reflect individuals' priorities include their ability to bring out the various perspectives and preferences to start the deliberations and increase the understanding of other people's points of views and their knowledge to all of the stakeholders. We consider particular aspects of the New Zealand context, including the development of criteria specific to Maori interests. These case studies lead us to conclude that stakeholder participation in decision-making is beneficial and increasingly necessary to resolve the problems and tensions around the governance of Canterbury's water resources. They also demonstrate that there are numerous practical and systemic barriers that must be overcome if the potential is to be fully realised. We provide recommendations on how such participatory processes can be successfully implemented to produce meaningful and effective outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Lennox, James & Proctor, Wendy & Russell, Shona, 2011. "Structuring stakeholder participation in New Zealand's water resource governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1381-1394, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:7:p:1381-1394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(11)00088-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P A Memon & B J Gleeson, 1995. "Towards a New Planning Paradigm? Reflections on New Zealand's Resource Management Act," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 22(1), pages 109-124, February.
    2. Giuseppe Munda, 2016. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis and Sustainable Development," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1235-1267, Springer.
    3. Kodikara, P.N. & Perera, B.J.C. & Kularathna, M.D.U.P., 2010. "Stakeholder preference elicitation and modelling in multi-criteria decision analysis - A case study on urban water supply," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 209-220, October.
    4. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    5. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, December.
    6. Pereira, Ângela Guimarães & Quintana, Serafin Corral, 2009. "3 pillars and 1 beam: Quality of river basin governance processes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 940-954, February.
    7. Wendy Proctor & Martin Drechsler, 2006. "Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, April.
    8. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    9. Marlene Buchy & Digby Race, 2001. "The Twists and Turns of Community Participation in Natural Resource Management in Australia: What is Missing?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 293-308.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ki Woong Cho & Kyujin Jung, 2018. "From Collaborative to Hegemonic Water Resource Governance through Dualism and Jeong : Lessons Learned from the Daegu-Gumi Water Intake Source Conflict in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, November.
    2. J. M. A. Coleman & F. S. Sosa-Rodriguez & L. D. Mortsch & P. J. Deadman, 2016. "Assessing stakeholder impacts and adaptation to low water-levels: the Trent-Severn waterway," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 115-129, January.
    3. Martin Quinn & Theodore Lynn & Stephen Jollands & Binesh Nair, 2016. "Domestic Water Charges in Ireland - Issues and Challenges Conveyed through Social Media," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(10), pages 3577-3591, August.
    4. Armatas, Christopher A. & Venn, Tyron J. & Watson, Alan E., 2014. "Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 447-456.
    5. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & Amelia Pérez Zabaleta & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "Dealing with Water Conflicts: A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Approaches to Manage Freshwater Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    6. Bebbington, Jan & Russell, Shona & Thomson, Ian, 2017. "Accounting and sustainable development: Reflections and propositions," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 21-34.
    7. Fiona Myles & Ronlyn Duncan & Ann Brower, 2016. "Measuring to manage: Reconfiguring people–water relations through water measurement standards and technologies in New Zealand," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(3), pages 546-558, May.
    8. Lo, Alex Y., 2013. "Agreeing to pay under value disagreement: Reconceptualizing preference transformation in terms of pluralism with evidence from small-group deliberations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 84-94.
    9. Valerie Rountree & Elizabeth Baldwin & Jeffrey Hanlon, 2022. "A review of stakeholder participation studies in renewable electricity and water: does the resource context matter?," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 232-247, June.
    10. Bell, Brian A. & Sinner, Jim & Phillips, Yvonne & Yap, Michael & Scarpa, Riccardo & Batstone, Chris & Marsh, Dan, 2012. "“Mixed signals: Stated preferences for future states of three New Zealand rivers”," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124234, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Linda Lilburne & Melissa Robson-Williams & Ned Norton, 2022. "Improving Understanding and Management of Uncertainty in Science-Informed Collaborative Policy Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-23, May.
    12. J. Coleman & F. Sosa-Rodriguez & L. Mortsch & P. Deadman, 2016. "Assessing stakeholder impacts and adaptation to low water-levels: the Trent-Severn waterway," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 115-129, January.
    13. Fabien Martinez, 2015. "A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Framework of Corporate Water Responsibility," Post-Print hal-02887624, HAL.
    14. Larson, Silva & Stoeckl, Natalie & Neil, Barbara & Welters, Riccardo, 2013. "Using resident perceptions of values associated with the Australian Tropical Rivers to identify policy and management priorities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 9-18.
    15. Mika Marttunen & Jyri Mustajoki, 2018. "Use of Analyst-Generated Stakeholder Preference Profiles in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis — Experiences from an Urban Planning Case," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-29, September.
    16. Rodríguez-Piñeros, Sandra & Martínez-Cortés, Oscar & Villarraga-Flórez, Liz & Ruíz-Díaz, Alejandra, 2018. "Timber market actors' values on forest legislation: A case study from Colombia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-10.
    17. Alex Y Lo & Kim S Alexander & Wendy Proctor & Anthony Ryan, 2013. "Reciprocity as Deliberative Capacity: Lessons from a Citizen's Deliberation on Carbon Pricing Mechanisms in Australia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 444-459, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    2. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.
    3. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    4. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Amir Noori & Hossein Bonakdari & Khosro Morovati & Bahram Gharabaghi, 2018. "The optimal dam site selection using a group decision-making method through fuzzy TOPSIS model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-488, December.
    6. Manley, Dawn K. & Hines, Valerie A. & Jordan, Matthew W. & Stoltz, Ronald E., 2013. "A survey of energy policy priorities in the United States: Energy supply security, economics, and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 687-696.
    7. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Silva Larson & Thomas G Measham & Liana J Williams, 2009. "Remotely Engaged? A Framework for Monitoring the Success of Stakeholder Engagement in Remote Regions," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    9. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    11. Yongjun Shen & Elke Hermans & Tom Brijs & Geert Wets, 2013. "Data Envelopment Analysis for Composite Indicators: A Multiple Layer Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 739-756, November.
    12. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    13. Javier Rodrigo-Ilarri & Claudia P. Romero & María-Elena Rodrigo-Clavero, 2020. "Land Use/Land Cover Assessment over Time Using a New Weighted Environmental Index (WEI) Based on an Object-Oriented Model and GIS Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    14. Gamboa, Gonzalo & Munda, Giuseppe, 2007. "The problem of windfarm location: A social multi-criteria evaluation framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1564-1583, March.
    15. Munda, Giuseppe, 2009. "A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 307-322, April.
    16. Kadziński, Miłosz & Cinelli, Marco & Ciomek, Krzysztof & Coles, Stuart R. & Nadagouda, Mallikarjuna N. & Varma, Rajender S. & Kirwan, Kerry, 2018. "Co-constructive development of a green chemistry-based model for the assessment of nanoparticles synthesis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 472-490.
    17. Šalkauskienė, Vilma & Gudritienė, Daiva & Abalikštienė, Edita, 2019. "Analysis of the non-productive land use in Lithuania," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 135-141.
    18. Mario Martín-Gamboa & Luis C. Dias & Paula Quinteiro & Fausto Freire & Luís Arroja & Ana Cláudia Dias, 2019. "Multi-Criteria and Life Cycle Assessment of Wood-Based Bioenergy Alternatives for Residential Heating: A Sustainability Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-17, November.
    19. J. Cabello & M. Luque & F. Miguel & A. Ruiz & F. Ruiz, 2014. "A multiobjective interactive approach to determine the optimal electricity mix in Andalucía (Spain)," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 22(1), pages 109-127, April.
    20. Iker Etxano & Eneko Garmendia & Unai Pascual & David Hoyos & María A. Díez & José A. Cadiñanos & Pedro J. Lozano, "undated". "Towards a Participatory Integrated Assessment Approach for Planning and Managing Natura 2000 Network Sites," Working Papers 2012-10, BC3.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:7:p:1381-1394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.