Many natural resource management researchers have focused either on institutional design and evaluation or on livelihood outcomes per se without explicitly acknowledging and rigorously examining linkages between the two. Thus, a major gap in the current literature on comanagement institutional arrangements is the extent to which co-management has strengthened the livelihoods of poor forest-dependent communities. This gap is addressed in this paper by developing and testing an argument that well-designed co-management arrangements have strengthened the livelihood outcomes of poor forest-dependent communities in a Kenyan case study. The hybrid analytical framework developed for this analysis situates Ostrom's (1990) design criteria for co-management institutions in the broader context of the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. It then uses this analytical framework to evaluate the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve (ASFR) co-management initiative in Kenya, based on a three-step process. First, the paper provides an overview of current institutional arrangements for governance of the ASFR co-management regime. Second, it evaluates the extent to which these governance arrangements can be characterized as devolved collaborative governance, informed by Ostrom's (1990) design principles and; third, it evaluates the extent to which the livelihood outcomes of forest dependent communities that are participants in the co-management project have had their livelihoods strengthened as a result of the ASFR co-management governance arrangements. The paper demonstrates that the institutional arrangements for ASFR co-management are relatively nascent and emerging because the governance arrangements for the ASFR co-management project cannot be characterized as fully devolved de jure collaborative governance. Notwithstanding this, the findings reveal that participant forest-dependent communities in the co-management project had improved livelihoods compared to forest-dependent communities outside the comanagement scheme. It is suggested that this is due to the de facto co-management arrangements.
The task of designing appropriate institutional arrangements for metropolitan government and planning has recently proved highly contestable politically. We interrogate how the role of the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) was zealously contested and hollowed‐out during the 1990s. More recently, the impacts of the neo‐liberal reforms in Auckland have been mediated by a further round of local government reforms inspired by a Third Way ideology and by the imperative to respond to the planning crisis resulting from infrastructure underinvestment. New regionally based governance arrangements and planning processes have been created. We argue that this new commitment to regionalism can realistically expect to be tested by deep‐seated political cleavages within Auckland and by Auckland's relationship with central government.
The Canterbury Regional Council, which manages 70 percent of New Zealand's irrigated land, has struggled to control the burgeoning demand for water resources as more land is converted to highly profitable, water intensive dairy farms relying on groundwater. At the center of Canterbury's struggle over water resources and its effective management are two competing groundwater science models. The different approaches and their implications for water management have led to a situation commonly described as a "science impasse" with scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders increasingly focused on "how to break the gridlock over science," particularly in one of the region's major watersheds, the Selwyn. In keeping with the traditional logical positivist, linear approach to science the expectation is that if the scientists can get the science right, then the ultimate goal of water sustainability will be made more likely since the "facts" will guide policymakers toward proper decisions. Yet our research found that while stakeholders do focus tightly on the dominant role of science and scientists when discussing solutions to the impasse, the underlying reality is a societal impasse grounded in the overarching adversarial setting, the logic of the wicked problem set, and the ultimate goal of sustainability. Seeing the "impasse problem" from this new perspective means that getting only the physical science right addresses the symptoms, not the underlying causes of the impasse. The article develops why the traditional instrumental, linear approach to science is unlikely to work in this case and why an alternative approach to science-civic science-offers promise as a way forward. A final section turns to the kind of steps most likely required to transition the Selwyn watershed's "societal impasse" dynamic from an adversarial setting to an effective collaborative governance arrangement conducive to the civic science enterprise. Regional Council-Environment Canterbury (ECan)-which manages 70 percent of NZ's irrigated land using 60% of all water allocated for consumptive use in NZ, is no exception. In the Selwyn watershed of Central Canterbury, ECan has struggled to control the burgeoning demand for water as more dryland farms (mainly sheep) and plantation forests are converted to more profitable water intensive dairy farms relying on irrigation from groundwater. These trends coincide with a period of lower than average rainfall. The result is that lowland streams now experience low or no flows for significant portions of the year.At the center of Canterbury's struggle over water resource management is the science that maps the hydrogeological characteristics of the region. Most dairy farmers, irrigators, and developers prefer a physical processes computer modeling approach--the "Aqualinc" groundwater model. The idea of an impasse runs contrary to the traditional logical positivist, linear approach to science in the policy process that is based on a rational planning model. Implicit to this line of reasoning is the bel...
Given that New Zealand has long been known as an innovative, effective leader in natural resource policy, the idea that a major region of the country is facing a water resource crisis will strike many as odd. Yet, much like the many areas of the world experiencing serious water resource management and allocation problems, current water use and development trends in Canterbury (South Island) since 1991 have resulted in the gradual depletion and overuse of key water resources. The regional governing authority, Environment Canterbury (ECAN), and many stakeholders recognize that the current top-down, hierarchical water resource policy and management initiatives are not working and are, in many instances, contributing to the very crisis they seek to avoid. Nor are they making headway toward their desired overarching goal of establishing a network of sustainable communities within the region. The research examines the daunting problem of water resource policy management in the Canterbury area, describes the many obstacles in the way of a collaborative approach to water resource sustainability, and uses lessons learned from the international literature on collaborative approaches to critically appraise the potential for the successful collaborative governance of water resources in the region, specifically for the purpose of engendering sustainable communities.
This paper reviews recent changes in the direction of planning in New Zealand within the framework of the Resource Management Act (RMA). It is argued that the RMA enacted in 1991 is potentially a progressive planning statute. Its legislative intent embraces sustainability ethical values and norms as a basis for decision making in the context of a property owning democracy. However, the potential of the Act has been compromised during the last 10 years by attempts by the previous government and New Right interest groups to force a narrower interpretation of the Act's purpose as stated in Section 5. These attempts have been challenged by recent Court decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.