IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v38y2013i4p657-669.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultivating collaboration: Lessons from initiatives to understand and manage cumulative impacts in Australian resource regions

Author

Listed:
  • Porter, Madeleine
  • Franks, Daniel M.
  • Everingham, Jo-Anne

Abstract

Australia has experienced rapid development within its resource regions, with traditional mining sectors like coal, iron-ore and natural gas expanding and new industries such as coal seam gas emerging. As a result, there is an increasing prevalence and awareness of the cumulative impacts of the extractive resource industries on the society, environment and economy of these regions. Collaborative governance is emerging as a means of addressing cumulative impacts. This article undertakes an analysis of 30 case studies of collaborative governance in the resources sector of Australia. The initiatives analysed range from those focussed on information exchange and coordination to higher degrees of collaboration that involve shared resources and shared risks. The study demonstrates that there are challenges in using collaborative approaches to tackle cumulative impacts, but that significant benefits can be realised. The study highlights the need to nurture and cultivate collaborative relationships in order to provide the foundation for long-term solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Porter, Madeleine & Franks, Daniel M. & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "Cultivating collaboration: Lessons from initiatives to understand and manage cumulative impacts in Australian resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 657-669.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:38:y:2013:i:4:p:657-669
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.03.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420713000184
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.03.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Mark Lubell, 2004. "Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 549-573.
    2. William D. Leach & Neil W. Pelkey & Paul A. Sabatier, 2002. "Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 645-670.
    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. Franks, Daniel M. & Brereton, David & Moran, Chris J., 2013. "The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 640-647.
    2. Carl Österlin & Kaisa Raitio, 2020. "Fragmented Landscapes and Planscapes—The Double Pressure of Increasing Natural Resource Exploitation on Indigenous Sámi Lands in Northern Sweden," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Magdalena Bemke-Świtilnik & Aneta Drabek & Anna Małgorzata Kamińska & Adam Smoliński, 2020. "Research Collaboration Patterns in Sustainable Mining—A Co-Authorship Analysis of Publications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Suopajärvi, Leena & Kantola, Anna, 2020. "The social impact management plan as a tool for local planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    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. Janmaat, Johannus A., 2007. "Stakeholder Engagement in Land Development Decisions: A Waste of Effort?," MPRA Paper 6147, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Florence Metz & Karin Ingold, 2017. "Politics of the precautionary principle: assessing actors’ preferences in water protection policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 721-743, December.
    3. Mark Lubell & Adam Douglas Henry & Mike McCoy, 2010. "Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 287-300, April.
    4. Manuel Fischer & Philip Leifeld, 2015. "Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 363-382, September.
    5. Lihua Yang, 2018. "Collaborative knowledge-driven governance: Types and mechanisms of collaboration between science, social science, and local knowledge," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 53-73.
    6. Janmaat, John, 2008. "Playing monopoly in the creek: Imperfect competition, development, and in-stream flows," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 455-473, August.
    7. Ananda, Jayanath & Proctor, Wendy, 2013. "Collaborative approaches to water management and planning: An institutional perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 97-106.
    8. Axel Marx, 2008. "Limits to non‐state market regulation: A qualitative comparative analysis of the international sport footwear industry and the Fair Labor Association," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 253-273, June.
    9. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    10. Vilma Atkociuniene & Sigitas Vaitkevicius & Egle Stareike, 2021. "Development of Sustainable Partnership Organizational Mechanism (POM): Case of Local Action Groups (LAG)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Mary Dengler, 2008. "Finding the Political ‘Sweet Spot’: Sectional Interests, Consensus Power, and the Everglades Restudy (1992–2000)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(4), pages 766-784, April.
    12. S. Franceschini & G. Marletto, 2017. "The dynamics of social capital during public participation: new knowledge from an on-going monitoring," Working Paper CRENoS 201706, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    13. McDonald, Sara L. & Rigling-Gallagher, Deborah, 2015. "Participant perceptions of consensus-based, marine mammal take reduction planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 216-226.
    14. Kristan Cockerill & Lacy Daniel & Leonard Malczynski & Vincent Tidwell, 2009. "A fresh look at a policy sciences methodology: collaborative modeling for more effective policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(3), pages 211-225, August.
    15. Le Anh Nguyen Long & Megan Foster & Gwen Arnold, 2019. "The impact of stakeholder engagement on local policy decision making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(4), pages 549-571, December.
    16. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    17. Candace K May, 2015. "Politics of visibility: competing for legitimacy in North Carolina fisheries governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(6), pages 1484-1500, December.
    18. Rob Tulder & M. May Seitanidi & Andrew Crane & Stephen Brammer, 2016. "Enhancing the Impact of Cross-Sector Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 1-17, April.
    19. Eberhard, Rachel & Johnston, Nathan & Everingham, Jo-Anne, 2013. "A collaborative approach to address the cumulative impacts of mine-water discharge: Negotiating a cross-sectoral waterway partnership in the Bowen Basin, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 678-687.
    20. Haixia Zhao & Xiang Gu & Tengjie Yang & Binjie Gu, 2022. "Evolutionary Logic and Development Foresight of Environmental Collaborative Governance Policy in the Yangtze River Delta," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Q30; Cumulative impacts; Cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM); Governance; Multi-sector; Coordination; Mining;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q30 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jrpoli:v:38:y:2013:i:4:p:657-669. 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/inca/30467 .

    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.