How can we ever create participation when we are the ones who decide? On natural resource management practice and its readiness for change

Abstract

This article addresses the gap between demands for participatory approaches in natural resource management (NRM) policies and lack of such approaches in the work of environmental authorities. The analysis draws on practice theory, using the case of NRM practice created by Swedish County Administrative Board (CAB) officials. The data originate from officials' reflections during courses designed to strengthen their participatory and collaborative competences. Based on practice theory, officials are seen as participants of a routinised practice in which their interpretations of their work and roles are socially constructed. The analysis shows that the objective of this practice is to protect nature and mitigate resistance from stakeholders through information. These interpretations have acquired a reified nature, making them taken for granted. This stabilises the practice, maintaining the gap between demands in national policies and their implementation. To enable change in the CAB practice, the objective constructed by officials needs to be reinterpreted to produce a rule of law that can be justified and which concurrently permits stakeholder participation. To achieve changes in NRM officials' practice, these need to be seen in their institutional context and comprise the whole system, from international/EU auditing levels to Swedish CABs and the officials' everyday activities.

Behind the scenes of planning for public participation: planning for air-quality monitoring with low-cost sensors

“…They also struggle with not having control over how to tackle this political dimension of community-based data. This is similar to the findings of Westberg and Waldenstr€ om (2017), suggesting that to enable participatory approaches in the work of environmental authorities, their practice needs to be reinterpreted and seen in their institutional contexts (including national and international levels). The IoT project members' way out of the dilemma of handling possible agency is to address the fact that the CS initiative is not theirs from the beginning and that the initiative gains new members regardless of their efforts.…”

Politicising the landscape: a theoretical contribution towards the development of participation in landscape planning

“…While the above understanding of landscape is gaining prominence in landscape planning rhetoric and policy, practice continues as a professional domain with limited public input (Conrad et al, 2011). There are many possible explanations for this disparity including: institutional barriers (Raitio, 2012), expert ambivalence (Westberg & Waldenström, 2017), or public unwillingness to participate (Höppner, Frick, & Buchecke, 2008). However, the focus in the next section is the role of theory and conceptualisation of landscape in the shortcomings in landscape planning.…”

Inspired by structured decision making: a collaborative approach to the governance of multiple forest values

“…This outcome requires broad stakeholder participation, transparent decisions, awareness of collective responsibility, trust building, and measurable outcomes (Johansson 2016). At the same time, public agencies may struggle with the different expectations of each of the participants and their own desires (Wesserlink et al 2011, Mårald et al 2015, Westberg and Waldenström 2017. A recent study of Finnish forest governance highlights the importance of past decision-making processes involving the stakeholders, the extent to which all relevant stakeholders participate in the deliberations, and the extent to which divergent views are considered in a balanced and transparent manner (Sarkki and Heikkinen 2015;see also Ansell and Gash 2007).…”