2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.05.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Between argument and coercion: Social coordination in rural environmental governance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
29
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
29
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…At face value, although this approach relies more on institutional collaboration than on regulation, there is something of a paradox in play. The paradox of this more collaborative or inclusive approach is that the broader rules that set the policy agenda, operational environment, and responsibilities for implementation in which collaboration occurs are increasingly framed by central government authority (Taylor 2010). In this way governments are devolving or sharing accountability for action while often recentralizing the locus of control of the implementation apparatus (Boonstra and Van Den Brink 2007).…”
Section: Scale and Australian Environmental Governancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…At face value, although this approach relies more on institutional collaboration than on regulation, there is something of a paradox in play. The paradox of this more collaborative or inclusive approach is that the broader rules that set the policy agenda, operational environment, and responsibilities for implementation in which collaboration occurs are increasingly framed by central government authority (Taylor 2010). In this way governments are devolving or sharing accountability for action while often recentralizing the locus of control of the implementation apparatus (Boonstra and Van Den Brink 2007).…”
Section: Scale and Australian Environmental Governancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Se pretende organizar una red de núcleos de población que favorezca la dispersión de la población y de la riqueza y, con esto, un desarrollo más equilibrado de todo el territorio europeo (COMISIÓN EUROPEA, 1998). Se habla, por lo tanto, de una clara necesidad de una comarcalización en la que el mundo rural se inserte en una estrategia más amplia de ordenación territorial planteada mediante el diseño de una red de ciudades que suministren todos los bienes y servicios necesarios al espacio rural integrado en su hinterland y con la que se establezca una cooperación urbano-rural que conlleve a la fijación de la población en los municipios más desfavorecidos aprovechando las nuevas infraestructuras y mejoras en la accesibilidad (OCDE, 2013) y con la que se contribuya en la búsqueda de soluciones a problemas complejos existentes en los espacios rurales y agrícolas (TAYLOR, 2010). Es primordial plantear una nueva reorganización administrativa única de comarcas o partenariados rurales-urbanos como estructuras para el desarrollo regional desde donde se gestionen de manera conjunta servicios de calidad de vida, energía, transporte, turismo o innovación y teniendo en cuenta, sobre todo, las interdependencias y similitudes existentes en estos territorios más que las diferencias entre lo urbano y lo rural (CAFFYN y DAHLSTRÖM, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…In this case, and in that described by Taylor (2010), the non-traditional alliance of stakeholders may have represented the formation of a superordinate identity which subsumed historical inter-stakeholder conflict. These examples share the attribute of intervention which has, intentionally or unintentionally, broadened the socio-political context within which the conflict legacy for these stakeholder groups had been established, causing a reframing of the nature of the relationships.…”
Section: Implications and Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…This includes the institutionalisation of interest groups in the decision-making process (Lane 2003) and mandated processes for eliciting the views of communities and the broader public (Taylor 2010). The imperative for governance is based on arguments that this mode of decision-making leads to enhanced outcomes, public acceptance, and civil engagement as instrumental or intrinsic goods (Jennings and Moore 2000;Zammit et al 2000;Lane et al 2004;Reed 2008;Gritten et al 2009;Reed et al 2009;Taylor 2010;Buijs and Lawrence 2013). However, in addition to the expected benefits of governance, there are critiques about the negative consequences for ENRM decision-making when governance is poorly managed.…”
Section: Governancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation