IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cse/wpaper/2009-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Terms of Engagement: Consensus or Control in Remote Australian Resource Management?

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas G Measham
  • Carol Richards
  • Cathy Robinson
  • Silva Larson
  • Lynn Brake

    () (CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Australia)

Abstract

Community based natural resource management (NRM) has seen a shift in the discourse from participation to engagement, reflecting a focus on increasingly active citizen involvement in management and action. This paper considers this shift in relation to two contrasting theoretical perspectives. The first is deliberative democracy, drawing on Habermas, which emphasises the importance of discussing and rationalising values and actions. The second is governmentality, or ‘governing through community’ which draws on Foucault, emphasising neo-liberal management styles and ‘self-help’. In considering the empirical relevance of these theoretical perspectives, this paper draws on a case study of public engagement in NRM in the Lake Eyre Basin, a remote, inland region of Australia. This research yielded a practical set of “factors for success” for public engagement in remote areas. The findings support the view that, especially in remote regions, public engagement in NRM reflects contrasting goals. We make two conclusions. First, that these contrasting objectives emphasise the tension between deliberative and neo-liberal conceptualisations of engagement; and second, the evidence for neo-liberal interpretations of engagement are stronger than for deliberative interpretations of engagement in the case study region.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas G Measham & Carol Richards & Cathy Robinson & Silva Larson & Lynn Brake, 2009. "Terms of Engagement: Consensus or Control in Remote Australian Resource Management?," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-10, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
  • Handle: RePEc:cse:wpaper:2009-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/prmo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leach, Melissa & Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian, 1999. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 225-247, February.
    2. Toni Darbas, 2008. "Reflexive governance of urban catchments: a case of deliberative truncation," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 40(6), pages 1454-1469, June.
    3. Simon Niemeyer & Clive L Spash, 2001. "Environmental Valuation Analysis, Public Deliberation, and their Pragmatic Syntheses: A Critical Appraisal," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(4), pages 567-585, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Thomas G Measham & Guy B Barnett, 2007. "Environmental Volunteering: Motivations, Modes and Outcomes," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2007-03, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    participation; decentralisation; governmentality; deliberation;

    JEL classification:

    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cse:wpaper:2009-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CSE-Webrequest). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/secsiau.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.