Democratic legitimacy and new commons: examples from English protected areas

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between protected areas and commons arguing that protected areas can be seen as a form of new commons because of the different objectives and beneficiaries compared to traditional commons. If the purpose of traditional commons is sustainable resource exploitation, the primary objective of these new commons is the conservation of nature/protection of biodiversity. And if on traditional commons local resource users are the key beneficiaries, in new commons the public at large and future generations are the key beneficiaries as biodiversity is the common concern of human kind. Because of new commons' different purposes and different set of beneficiaries, normative questions need to be asked regarding who should have a say in their management and who is able to better represent the interests of nature. To answer these questions, the paper draws on deliberative democratic theory. To ground the theoretical insights empirically it presents a comparison between English protected areas at sea and on land designated under national law.

The Urban Commons:

“…Traditional commons have exclusively been concerned with the goods that can be obtained from exploiting specific material resources. The modern concern with eco-system services have led to the creation of organisations and regulations of designated protected areas that arguably can be called commons (Berge 2006, Pieraccini 2015. The goods that the protected areas are protecting are eco-system services and biodiversity aspects of nature.…”

“…In their green appearance, urban parks are similar to national parks and similar protected areas. Both urban parks and protected areas have been discussed as forms of commons (Lee and Webster 2006, Colding 2011, Vasstrom 2014, Pieraccini 2015).…”