IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v2y2013i4p528-554d29794.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clermont Preferred Future: Stakeholder Reflections on a Community Foresight and Planning Initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Parsons

    (Social Research Consultant, Nimbin, NSW 2480, Australia)

  • Aleta Lederwasch

    (Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia)

  • Kieren Moffat

    (Minerals Down Under Flagship, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Brisbane Australia, P.O. Box 883, Kenmore QLD 4069, Australia)

Abstract

This paper demonstrates the potential of the mining industry to contribute to social development (community building, resilience and wellbeing) and to economic transitioning post-mining. A number of factors may facilitate the realisation of this potential, in particular community engagement activities that build community resilience and capacity to adapt to changing environments. This paper reviews a community foresight initiative, named Clermont Preferred Future (CPF), which is associated with a coal mine development in the town of Clermont in Queensland, Australia. The purpose of CPF, which was adopted in 2008 and is intended to continue to 2020, is to facilitate a transition to a prosperous and sustainable future by leveraging opportunities from coal mining while reducing dependence on the industry. CPF has been cited as a successful model of engagement and community development, and was highly commended in the Community Economic Development category at the 2011 Australian National Awards for Economic Development Excellence. This review draws on the experiences of stakeholders involved in CPF, and on foresight, community engagement, and community development literature. It identifies what has worked well, what has fallen short of the project’s rhetorical aspirations, and how processes and outcomes might be improved. It also trials artwork as an engagement tool. The findings are valuable for Clermont specifically, but also for the mining industry and mining communities more broadly, as well as for other industries in the context of community engagement and strategic planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Parsons & Aleta Lederwasch & Kieren Moffat, 2013. "Clermont Preferred Future: Stakeholder Reflections on a Community Foresight and Planning Initiative," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-27, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:2:y:2013:i:4:p:528-554:d:29794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/4/528/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/2/4/528/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abigail Oxley Green & Lynsey Hunton‐Clarke, 2003. "A typology of stakeholder participation for company environmental decision‐making," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(5), pages 292-299, September.
    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. Jami L. Dixon & Lindsay C. Stringer, 2015. "Towards a Theoretical Grounding of Climate Resilience Assessments for Smallholder Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa," Resources, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, March.

    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. Jingjing Li & Xianming Wu, 2022. "Technology-Driven Cross-Border M&A, CSR, and Enterprise Innovation Performance—Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-32, March.
    2. Céline Bérard & Martin Cloutier L. & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print halshs-01666605, HAL.
    3. Annesi, Nora & Battaglia, Massimo & Frey, Marco, 2021. "Stakeholder engagement by an Italian water utility company: Insight from participant observation of dialogism," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    4. Tiina Onkila, 2011. "Multiple forms of stakeholder interaction in environmental management: business arguments regarding differences in stakeholder relationships," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(6), pages 379-393, September.
    5. Maryam Jamilah Asha’ari & Salina Daud & Norazah Mohd Suki, 2023. "Linking Sustainable Design and Social Sustainability Performance of Chemical Manufacturing Firms: Moderating Role of Islamic Work Ethics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Danso, Albert & Adomako, Samuel & Lartey, Theophilus & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Owusu-Yirenkyi, Diana, 2020. "Stakeholder integration, environmental sustainability orientation and financial performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 652-662.
    7. Céline Bérard & L.M., Cloutier & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print hal-02128255, HAL.
    8. Céline Bérard, 2013. "Les démarches participatives en matière de politiques publiques : le cas de la propriété intellectuelle des innovations biotechnologiques," Post-Print halshs-00987945, HAL.
    9. Ardion D. Beldad & Colin T. Seijdel & Menno D. T. Jong, 2020. "Managing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Together: The Effects of Stakeholder Participation and Third-Party Organization (TPO) Endorsement on CSR Initiative Effectiveness," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(4), pages 225-240, November.
    10. Andrew S. Mitchell, 2021. "Rethinking theories of change in the light of enactive cognitive science: Contributions to community‐scale local sustainability initiatives," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 448-458, August.
    11. Korapin Jirapong & Karina Cagarman & Laura von Arnim, 2021. "Road to Sustainability: University–Start-Up Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, May.
    12. Samuel Adomako & Mai Dong Tran, 2022. "Stakeholder management, CSR commitment, corporate social performance: The moderating role of uncertainty in CSR regulation," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1414-1423, September.
    13. Giorgos Somarakis & Anastasia Stratigea, 2014. "Public Involvement in Taking Legislative Action as to the Spatial Development of the Tourist Sector in Greece—The “OpenGov” Platform Experience," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-25, November.
    14. Hilke Elke Jacke Bos‐Brouwers, 2010. "Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: Evidence of themes and activities in practice," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(7), pages 417-435, November.

    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:gam:jresou:v:2:y:2013:i:4:p:528-554:d:29794. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.