Affirming New Directions in Planning Theory: Comanagement of Protected Areas

Abstract

In recent years the conservation management literature has seen many calls for comanagement of parks and protected areas. The rationale for this approach to protected area management has come from the experience of park managers struggling to integrate the protected area with the socioeconomic fabric of the surrounding region. This rich experience informs calls for comanagement. A theoretical rationale for and explanation of comanagement, however, have been slow in coming. This article considers the trajectory of change in planning theory over the past 50 years and demonstrates that planning theorists have converged on similar ground to managers of protected areas. Developing cooperative relationships with local stakeholders and sharing the burden of management responsibilities have emerged as a potential new paradigm in natural resource planning. Protected areas therefore provide a context in which many of the ideas and concepts, much debated among scholars of planning, have been empirically tested.Conceptual convergence seems to be a popular topic for commentators and observers of natural resource planning and management. Freemuth (1996) comments that ecosystem management is increasingly viewed as a "new paradigm" in public lands management. Field (1997a, 336) suggests that:Integrated resource management, landscape ecology, watershed management, ecosystem management, biodiversity, and restoration ecology-terms in the lexicon of contemporary resource management -will enhance the convergence of a uni ed conservation philosophy.

Doğal Kaynakların Birlikte Yönetimi: Katılımcı Planlama ve Kolaboratif Yaklaşım

“…Geleneksel planlama ve yönetim sürecinde planlamaya konu olan alanlar ve sorunlar, niceliksel verilerin ve analizlerin ağırlıkta olduğu, kavramsal ya da matematiksel modeller kullanılarak ele alınmaktadır (Hudson 1979 Fiziksel planlama ve doğal kaynak yönetiminde iletişimsel eylem yaklaşımını yönlendiren bakış açısı: "dünyanın dinamik, tamamen anlaşılması imkânsız, karmaşık ve sürekli değişen, doğal ve sosyo-kültürel ilişkilerin tek bir neden-sonuç ilişkisi ile açıklanamaz" olduğudur (Hudson 1979;Lane 2001 (Selin ve Chavez 1995).…”

“…Bu yaklaşımda karar verme süreci, katılımcı tarzdadır ve planlamaya konu olan alan ve/veya sorunlara ortak; müzakere edilmiş, üzerinde uzlaşılmış ve ortak eylem gerektiren çözümler geliştirmeye yöneliktir. Ortak çözüme dayalı bu tür karar verme süreçlerinde, plan kararlarının uygulanmasında ve sonuçlarında sorumluluğun ilgi grupları arasında paylaşılması gerektiği savunulmaktadır(Lane 2001;Healey 2003) Healey (1992)…”

Crossing Boundaries, Crossing Scales: The Evolution of Environment and Resource Co‐Management

“…It is important to recognize that co-management does not replace other models of governance (e.g., central government and market-based) but builds upon them in a supplementary fashion (Plummer and FitzGibbon 2004a). Because the co-operative model responds well to the changing governance context, it has garnered considerable attention in a number of geography related fields such as planning (e.g., Lane 2001;Schusler et al 2003), tourism (e.g., Bramwell andLane 2000;Wall 1999), and recreation (e.g., Backman et al 1997;Plummer and Arai 2005). Although critical questions have been raised about the motivations by governments regarding devolution in natural resource management (Edmunds and Wollenberg 2001;Ribot 2002), increasing the amount of involvement by resource users, local people, and the general public coincides with the spirit of sustainable development and Agenda 21 as well as community-based resource management.…”

“…Capturing the essence of co-management will involve looking beyond much of the descriptive literature and directing attention to its accompanying theoretical base that strives to answer 'how' and 'why' questions, and explain and predict phenomena. Theoretical development emerges as a point of irony as it has been consistently called for in the co-management literature (e.g., see Berkes 1997;Jentoft et al 1998;Klooster 2000;Lane 2001;Natcher et al 2005;Ostrom 1990) and yet is often present in the more than 100 articles and chapters on the subject in the past 7 years (Plummer and Fennell forthcoming). Plummer and Fennell (forthcoming) comprehensively chart co-management theory using Turner's (1994) four theoretical formats or schemes that are helpful for consolidating theoretical perspectives: modeling, propositional, analytical, and metatheoretical.…”

The Indigenous Land Corporation's First Land Management Policy: Reconciling National Policy with the Contingencies of Local Context

“…In the broader field of environmental management, these approaches have a longer tenure. Institutionalised participation (Ribot, 2002), collaborative environmental management (Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000), communitybased environmental planning (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999), co-management (Lane, 2001) and an enhanced role for civil society (Friedmann, 1998) are just some of the modes of the civic approach to environmental governance. These approaches have been used in many aspects of natural resource policy around the world, including: forest management; conservation; watershed management, and urban and regional planning (Healey, 1997;Gibson et al , 2000;Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000;Snow 2001) as well as in a host of other areas of social policy (Ehrenberg, 1999).…”