Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement

Conley, A.; Moote, Margaret A.

doi:10.1080/08941920309181

Cited by 383 publications

(279 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

266

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This helped target participant goals, ensured effective use of time (Conley and Moote, 2003) and provided a democratic and legitimate framework for exploring issues of controversy (Laurian and Shaw, 2009). It is important to note that one of the roles of the facilitator was to encourage shared leadership rather than directive leadership, a commonality found in research by Head (2007) and Bormann et al (2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since context is such an important element to consider in any evaluation of public participation, this table is the first step toward delineating charrette characteristics, which could be used as a precursor guiding evaluation (Hassenforder et al, 2015). Comparability of cases is only feasible if a degree of similarity can be identified; therefore, the results from this analysis could help toward building classifications or charrette-groups (Conley et al, 2003). Equally, the table coupled with a sufficient sample of evaluations could help toward achieving what Chess (2000) …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, cost of participatory exercises has been discussed in the wider literature concerning both its monetary value and what it costs participants and organisers in time, effort and preparation (Blackstock et al, 2007;Conley et al, 2003). Given Rowe and Frewer (2004) suggest evaluation is necessary 'to ensure the proper use of public or institutional money', and the financial penalties mentioned in Mouat et al's (2013) failed project, charrette cost became an important component on the conceptual framework.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework For Analysing Charrette Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As some initiatives assessed continued for several years (Blackstock et al, 2007), others were short-lived targeted exercises delivered in charrette-like fashion (Bond et al, 2007;Hopkins, 2010). Although the charrette format is somewhat predetermined (Walters, 2007), Sanoff (2000), in wider participation literature, describes its variations when adapted to meet different project objectives.Third, cost of participatory exercises has been discussed in the wider literature concerning both its monetary value and what it costs participants and organisers in time, effort and preparation (Blackstock et al, 2007;Conley et al, 2003). Given Rowe and Frewer (2004) suggest evaluation is necessary 'to ensure the proper use of public or institutional money', and the financial penalties mentioned in Mouat et al's (2013) failed project, charrette cost became an important component on the conceptual framework.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scotland's Approach to Participatory Planning: Characterising the Charrette

Kennedy¹

2017

ArchNet-IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONInvolving multiple stakeholders in spatial and community planning has become a salient concept with decades of legislative support in the United Kingdom (Jenkins, 2002). Many public services now lay claim to having been longstanding supporters of this participatory turn (Bishop, 2015); of which, planning is one. The 1969 Skeffington Report is often evidenced as one of the earliest national level documents to consider public involvement strategies (Baker et al., 2007;Damer et al., 1971). Since then, a plethora of techniques have come to the fore (Sanoff, 2000), and the Scottish Government in recent years endorsed the 'charrette' as an effective participatory design tool to generate strategies for community development (Scottish Government, 2010a, 2011b. The term 'charrette' derives from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, in which architecture students would hurriedly work until the 'little cart' came to collect their drawings for the examiners. The term has since been used to connote a sense of urgency, which frames the format of a typical charrette as it is approached today (Walters, 2007). The tool is a participatory 'model' yet malleable enough in the sense that its process constitutes a series of other participatory mechanisms, which can be matched to suit different scenarios (Sanoff, 2000).The model that was introduced to Scotland in 2010 was developed by New Urbanism's cofounder, Andres Duany as part of Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) & Company. The charrette is often their go-to approach to community participation (Grant, 2006), which typically lasts between four to seven days and involves a multidisciplinary team establishing a temporary design studio within the study area. The team will work collaboratively with community members and key stakeholders in a series of interactive workshops, often producing a masterplan that has been developed through a series of short feedback loops (Sanoff, 2000;Walters, 2007). The compressed format has been lauded over other communicative approaches that may last weeks or months. Proponents argue these feedback loops condense the time between input and design to just hours, so not only do participants exercise more influence they can watch a transparent process unfold, thus fostering greater trust (Lennertz, 2003;Walters, 2007). Benefits of this approach therefore do not centre only on the physical; there is a commitment to social goals embedded in New Urbanism (Talen, 2002), and communicative processes more generally.Jurgen Habermas, who many communicative theorists are indebted to, also advocated collaborative discursive approaches to challenge the shortcomings observed in representative democracy (Bond, 2011). These approaches challenged modernist thinking that valued expert epistemologies, and instead believed knowledge to be something coconstructed; not a collation of ideas but rather that communication has the power to build shared meanings through reasoning and deliberative exchange (Brand et al., 2007;Innes et al., 1999). Equally, the charrette's consensus-seeking na...

show abstract

“…For example, the 2009 Forest Landscape Restoration Act is one of several recent federal statues to specifically call for collaboration in the management of National Forest System lands (Cheng and Sturtevant 2012;Schultz et al 2012;Butler et al 2 2015). Collaboration can encompass many related processes (Conley and Moote 2003;Reed 2008;Susskind et al 2012): engaging stakeholders in natural resources management; incorporating local knowledge; increasing mutual learning; reducing conflict; building relationships; and maximizing the diversity of perceptions. Collectively the hope is that these collaborative efforts will lead to more effective management with less strife.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Word to the Wise: Advice for Scientists Engaged in Collaborative Adaptive Management

Hopkinson

Huber

Saah

2017

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative adaptive management (CAM) is a process for making decisions about the environment in the face of uncertainty and conflict. Scientists have a central role to play in these decisions. However, while scientists are well-trained to reduce uncertainty by discovering new knowledge, most lack experience with the means to mitigate conflict in contested situations. To address this gap, we drew from our efforts coordinating a large CAM effort, the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project, to offer advice to our fellow environmental scientists. Key challenges posed by CAM include the confusion caused by multiple institutional cultures, the need to provide information at management-relevant scales, frequent turn-over in participants, fluctuations in enthusiasm among key constituencies, and diverse definitions of success among partners. Effective strategies included a dedication to consistency, a commitment to transparency, the willingness to communicate frequently via multiple forums, and the capacity for flexibility.CAM represents a promising, new model for scientific engagement with the public. Learning the lessons of effective collaboration in environmental management is an essential task to achieve the shared goal of a sustainable future.

show abstract

Evaluating Collaborative Natural ResourceManagement

Cited by 383 publications

References 39 publications

Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes

Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes

Scotland's Approach to Participatory Planning: Characterising the Charrette

A Word to the Wise: Advice for Scientists Engaged in Collaborative Adaptive Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About