Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:11:57.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Agenda-setting and power in collaborative natural resource management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2013

NORMAN DANDY*
Affiliation:
Forest Research, Centre for Human and Ecological Sciences, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, UK
STEFANO FIORINI
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Associated Faculty, Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
ALTHEA LYNN DAVIES
Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK
*
*Correspondence: Dr Norman Dandy Tel: +44 1420 526228 e-mail: [email protected]

Summary

Collaborative management is a widely accepted means of resolving conflict amongst natural resource stakeholders. Power sharing is central to most conceptualizations of collaboration, but theoretical insights about power are only rarely used to interrogate collaborative processes. Agenda-setting theory was used to analyse cases of collaborative deer management in England, Scotland and Indiana (USA). Collaborative management agendas across scales and social contexts were found to be primarily set by contextual factors, particularly stakeholders drawing on specific cultures and policies, and pre-defining issues. These findings highlight significant gaps between the theory and practice of collaboration. If, in practice, substantial power has been wielded in advance, the capacity of subsequent collaborative processes to share power amongst stakeholders may be severely limited. To provide opportunities for differing cultural perspectives to be expressed and challenged, convenors of collaborative processes therefore need to be aware of and reflexive upon existing power relationships and structures.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Crown Copyright. Published by Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J., Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E.W. & Wollenberg, E.K. (2009) Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 95102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M.S. (1962) Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review 56: 947952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. & Jones, B. (2009) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, second edition. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Belton, L.R. & Jackson-Smith, D. (2010) Factors influencing success among collaborative sage-grouse management groups in the western United States. Environmental Conservation 37: 250260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F. (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning, Journal of Environmental Management 90: 16921702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkes, F., George, P. & Preston, R.J. (1991) Co-management. Alternatives 18: 1218.Google Scholar
Bernard, H.R. (2011) Research Methods in Anthropology, 5th edition. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
Bogdewic, S. (1999) Participant observation. In: Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd edition, ed. Crabtree, B.F. & Miller, W.L., pp. 4770. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Booher, D.E & Innes, J.E. (2002) Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21: 221236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A. & Renard, Y. (2007) Sharing Power: a Global Guide to Collaborative Management of Natural Resources. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Bullock, C.H. (1999) Environmental and strategic uncertainty in common property management: the case of Scottish red deer. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42: 235252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chrislip, D.D. & Larson, C.E. (1994) Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders can Make a Difference. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Citizens for Responsible Deer Management (no date) Citizens for responsible deer management blog [www document]. URL http://citizens4responsibledeermanagement.blogspot.com Google Scholar
City of Bloomington (no date) Deer Task Force [www document]. URL http://bloomington.in.gov/deertaskforce Google Scholar
Côté, S.D., Rooney, T.., Tremblay, J.P., Dussault, C. & Waller, D.M. (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 113147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, S.E. & Walker, G.B. (2001) Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT, USA: Praeger.Google Scholar
Davies, A.L. & White, R. (2012) Collaboration in natural resource governance: reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management 112: 160169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decker, D.J., Raik, D., Carpenter, L., Organ, J. & Schusler, T. (2005) Collaboration for community based wildlife management. Urban Ecosystems 8: 227236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEFRA (2002) Working With the Grain of Nature. A Biodiversity Strategy for England. London, UK: Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
DEFRA (2004) The sustainable management of wild deer populations in England: an action plan. Report. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013) The Habitats Directive [www document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/ Google Scholar
Fiorini, S., Yearley, S. & Dandy, N. (2011) Wild deer multivalence and institutional adaptation: the ‘deer management group’ in Britain. Human Organization 70: 179188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, R.M.A. (1990) Monitoring the status of European and North American cervids. GEMS Information Series Volume 8. Global Environment Monitoring System, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Gramsci, A. (1975) [2001] Quaderni del carcere. Torino, Italy: Giuliio Einaudi Editore.Google Scholar
Gray, B. (1985) Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations 38: 911936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, C. (1997) Divided by a common language: political theory and the concept of power. Politics 17: 4552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IDNR (2010) Common Council of the City of Bloomington and Monroe County, Indiana. 2010. Resolution 10–03 [www document]. URL http://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/7549.pdf Google Scholar
Jentoft, S. (2007) In the power of power: the understated aspect of fisheries and coastal management. Human Organization 66: 426437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. (1997) The governance of complexity and the complexity of governance: preliminary remarks on some problems and limits of economic guidance. In: Beyond Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity, ed. Amin, A. & Hausner, J., pp. 111147. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Keough, H.L. & Blahna, D.J. (2006) Achieving integrative, collaborative ecosystem management. Conservation Biology 20: 13731382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, R. & Daniels, S.E. (1997) Procedural justice and public involvement in natural resource decision making. Society & Natural Resources 10: 577590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leopold, A. (1933) Game Management. Reprinted 1966. Dehra Dun, India: Natraj Publishers.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: a Radical View. London, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J-L., Stockton, S.A., Allombert, S. & Gaston, A.J. (2010) Top-down and bottom-up consequences of unchecked ungulate browsing on plant and animal diversity in temperate forests: lessons from a deer introduction. Biological Invasions 12: 353371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, second edition. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Prell, C., Reed, M., Racin, L. & Hubacek, K. (2010) Competing structure, competing views: the role of formal and informal social structures in shaping stakeholder perceptions. Ecology and Society 15: 34 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art34/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raik, D.B., Lauber, T.B., Decker, D.J. & Brown, T.L. (2005 a) Managing community controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopting practices that address value differences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 109122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raik, D.B., Siemer, W.F. & Decker, D.J. (2005 b) Intervention and capacity considerations in community-based deer management: the stakeholders’ perspective. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 259272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.H. & Stringer, L.C. (2009) Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1933–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, C.J., Margerum, R.D., Koontz, T.M., Moseley, C. & Lurie, S. (2011) Policy-level collaboratives for environmental management at the regional scale: lessons and challenges from Australia and the United States. Society & Natural Resources 24: 849859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research, second edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (no date) Collaborative Deer Management: RES-227-25-0014 [www document]. http://relu.data-archive.ac.uk/explore-data/search-browse/project/?ID=RES-227-25-0014 Google Scholar
Sabatier, P., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A. & Matlock, M., eds (2005) Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P.A. & Shaw, L.K. (2009) Are collaborative watershed management groups democratic? An analysis of California and Washington partnerships. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64: 61A64A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York, NY, USA: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Taiepa, T., Lyver, P., Horsley, P., David, J., Brag, M. & Moller, H. (1997) Comanagement of New Zealand's conservation estate by Maori and Pakeha: a review. Environmental Conservation 24: 236250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R.N., Humphrey, J.W., Harmer, R. & Ferris, R. (2003) Restoration of native woodland on ancient woodland sites. Forestry Commission Practice Guide, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Ward, A.I. (2005) Expanding ranges of wild and feral deer in Great Britain. Mammal Review 35: 165173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, C.R. & McKee, A. (2011) The Scottish revolution? Evaluating the impacts of post-devolution land reform. Scottish Geographical Journal 127: 1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, E.R. (1999) Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. London, UK: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, S.A. & Primmer, E. (2006) Between incentives and action: a pilot study of biodiversity conservation competencies for multifunctional forest management in Finland. Society & Natural Resources 19: 845–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wondolleck, J. & Yaffee, S. (2000) Making Collaboration Work. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar