IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cse/wpaper/2009-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Remotely Engaged? A Framework for Monitoring the Success of Stakeholder Engagement in Remote Regions

Author

Listed:
  • Silva Larson
  • Thomas G Measham
  • Liana J Williams

    (CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Australia)

Abstract

The importance of stakeholder engagement for the success of natural resources management processes is widely acknowledged, yet evaluation frameworks employed by administrators of environmental programs continue to provide limited recognition of or insistence upon engagement processes. This paper presents a framework for monitoring and evaluation of engagement that aims to better incorporate community engagement into mainstream environmental programs, in particular in remote regions such as arid and desert regions of the world. We argue that successful monitoring of engagement should not only comprise a generic set of indicators but rather, in addition to the principles of good monitoring practice, should take into account a variety of the stakeholder interests as well as key regional drivers, addressing them at right geographic, institutional and time scale.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:cse:wpaper:2009-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/prmp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Sadahisa Kato & Jack Ahern, 2008. "'Learning by doing': adaptive planning as a strategy to address uncertainty in planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(4), pages 543-559.
    3. Marcus Lane & Geoff McDonald, 2005. "Community-based Environmental Planning: Operational Dilemmas, Planning Principles and Possible Remedies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 709-731.
    4. M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
    5. Caron Chess, 2000. "Evaluating Environmental Public Participation: Methodological Questions," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 769-784.
    6. Ronald D. Brunner, 2004. "Context-sensitive monitoring and evaluation for the World Bank," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 37(2), pages 103-136, June.
    7. Richard Margerum & Debra Whitall, 2004. "The challenges and implications of collaborative management on a river basin scale," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 409-429.
    8. 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. 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.

    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. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    2. 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.
    3. Morgan, Edward A. & Osborne, Natalie & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Evaluating planning without plans: Principles, criteria and indicators for effective forest landscape approaches," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Brescancin, Flavia & Dobšinská, Zuzana & De Meo, Isabella & Šálka, Jaroslav & Paletto, Alessandro, 2018. "Analysis of stakeholders' involvement in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 22-30.
    5. Jose Eugenio Martínez-Falero & Esperanza Ayuga-Tellez & Concepcion Gonzalez-Garcia & M. Angeles Grande-Ortiz & Alvaro Sánchez De Medina Garrido, 2017. "Experts’ Analysis of the Quality and Usability of SILVANET Software for Informing Sustainable Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    6. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    7. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    8. Rebecca Page & Lisa Dilling, 2020. "How experiences of climate extremes motivate adaptation among water managers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 499-516, August.
    9. Mahsa Mesgar & Diego Ramirez-Lovering & Mohamed El-Sioufi, 2021. "Tension, Conflict, and Negotiability of Land for Infrastructure Retrofit Practices in Informal Settlements," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    10. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    11. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    12. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    13. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    14. Gregory Hill & Steven Kolmes & Michael Humphreys & Rebecca McLain & Eric T. Jones, 2019. "Using decision support tools in multistakeholder environmental planning: restorative justice and subbasin planning in the Columbia River Basin," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(2), pages 170-186, June.
    15. Joop de Kraker & Astrid Offermans & Merel M. van der Wal, 2021. "Game-Based Social Learning for Socially Sustainable Water Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    16. Alessandro Paletto & Claudia Becagli & Francesco Geri & Sandro Sacchelli & Isabella De Meo, 2022. "Use of Participatory Processes in Wood Residue Management from a Circular Bioeconomy Perspective: An Approach Adopted in Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Germain, Rene H. & Floyd, Donald W. & Stehman, Stephen V., 2001. "Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3-4), pages 113-124, November.
    18. Shariful Malik & Mohammad Shahidul Hasan Swapan & Shahed Khan, 2020. "Sustainable Mobility through Safer Roads: Translating Road Safety Strategy into Local Context in Western Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    19. Uttaran Dutta, 2019. "Design Engagements at the Margins of the Global South: De-Centering the “Expert” Within Me," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    20. Michelle L. M. Graymore, 2014. "Sustainability Reporting: An Approach to Get the Right Mix of Theory and Practicality for Local Actors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-26, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    engagement; evaluation; governance; natural resources; participation; stakeholders;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy
    • 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:2009-11. 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: CSE-Webrequest (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/secsiau.html .

    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.