No abstract

The operational dilemmas and challenges associated with the practice of community-based environmental planning (CBEP) are examined. The paper examines the frequently invoked 'bottom-up' versus 'top-down' dichotomy and argues that environmental governance is more complex, dynamic and multi-scalar than this simple dichotomy implies. The paper identifies six key problems with the CBEP approach: (i) the conceptualization of 'community' which poorly accounts for difference; (ii) problems of inequality; (iii) the organizational capacity and efficacy of community groups; (iv) the scale of CBEP; (v) the types of knowledge utilized by communities in environmental management; and (vi) the potential for parochial concerns to dominate the priorities and agenda of community organizations. The paper analyses each of these issues, identifies planning principles that may aid resolution, and suggests possible remedies.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractIWRM has emerged as a popular ideology in the water sector since the 20 th century. From a highly technocentric approach in the past, it has taken a new turn worldwide, following a Habermasian communicative rationality, as a place-based nexus for multiple actors to consensually and communicatively take decisions in a hydrological unit. This communicative practice expects to be consensual, stable and static in integration of water management. This how IWRM should be approach had a remarkable appeal worldwide as promoting authentic participation of all stakeholders in integrating water management. Its Foucauldian critiques argue how IWRM cannot be achieved given the power dynamics in social interactions. The critiques reveal that the domain of water resources management is a discursive terrain of collective action, contestation and negotiation, making water management a socio-political process, where there are multiple forms and meanings of integration. The emphasis is on complexities, contextuality, power dynamics and importance of analysing real world situations, but without proposing any concrete actions. These apparently contradictory discourses depict a polarised world of water management, without offering any insights for future water resource management. On one hand, the Habermasian communicative practice emphasises on 'ideal speech situations', in which no affected party is excluded from discourse or by asymmetries of power for collective decisions. On the other hand, the Foucauldian theory argues for analysing the real world situation of integration and the power dynamics. A prospective option to further the integration of water resource management is to consider these apparently contradictory discourses as interdependent by examining how integration actually does take place in a strategic context, notwithstanding the absence of Habermasian conditions and the presence of Foucauldian relations of power.

No abstract

The prescriptions of The Wentworth Group of scientists for delivering improved environmental management and remediation are reviewed against the backdrop of international experience with decentralisation. The Group's preferred means of implementation -here referred to as decentralised regionalism -is examined and shown to be idealised and therefore naive to its complexities and potential pitfalls. Five problem areas are highlighted: 1. defining a 'region'; 2. power, conflict and community; 3. developing mechanisms for accountability; 4. subsidiarity, and 5. the tensions between democracy and technocracy.