Trust—A monolithic panacea in land use planning?

Höppner, Corina

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.007

Cited by 31 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this literature rarely defines or discusses trust conceptually. Furthermore, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that trust is a predictor of participation (Dekker, 2007;Duffy et al, 2008;Hoppner et al, 2008;Hoppner, 2009;Koontz, 2005;Raymond, 2006). This paper suggests that these findings could be the result of insufficiently developed conceptualisations, with not enough focus on the 'objects' of trust.…”

Section: Introd Introd Introd Introduction Uction Uction Uctionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Many scholars have commented upon the context-dependent nature of trust (Butler, 1991;Hoppner, 2009;Laeequddin, 2010;Peters et al, 1997). Burns et al (2003) argue that:…”

Section: Trust Trust Trust Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Building on the work of Hoppner (2009), this article sets out to theoretically consider the concept of trust in relation to participation in urban regeneration. It begins with a discussion of trust, developing both a workable definition derived from organisational literature and a tripartite model for its application.…”

Section: Introd Introd Introd Introduction Uction Uction Uctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This suggests a paradox -there appear to be logical arguments as to how trust may both increase and decrease participation in governance. The paper argues that solving this theoretical impasse may require greater consideration as to the nature of trust, which, by default, has been inferred as uniform rather than contextdependent (Hoppner, 2009). The paper attempts to diffuse some of the confusion in the literature by considering three potential forms of trust, based upon the objects of trust in officers: receptivity trust; ability trust; and representative trust.…”

Section: Introd Introd Introd Introduction Uction Uction Uctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Trust and participation in urban regeneration

Aitken¹

2012

PPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract AbstractDespite trust's perceived importance in participatory local governance, very few studies, theoretical and empirical, have devoted attention specifically to understanding their interaction. Focussing on resident participation in urban regeneration, this paper identifies shortcomings in the literature's theoretical grasp of trust. This has led to a trust-participation paradox: some academics have suggested that increasing resident trust in officers, institutions or their community will result in more participation, whilst others have argued that lower trust leads to greater participation. This paper suggests that the key to solving this theoretical quandary is to relinquish the perception of trust as a monolithic concept and recall its context-dependent nature. It proposes several forms of trust which could theoretically impact on residents' willingness to participate in urban regeneration: receptivity trust; ability trust; and representative trust. It concludes with recommendations for future theoretical and empirical research.

show abstract

Section: Introd Introd Introd Introduction Uction Uction Uctionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Many scholars have commented upon the context-dependent nature of trust (Butler, 1991;Hoppner, 2009;Laeequddin, 2010;Peters et al, 1997). Burns et al (2003) argue that:…”

Section: Trust Trust Trust Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introd Introd Introd Introduction Uction Uction Uctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introd Introd Introd Introduction Uction Uction Uctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trust and participation in urban regeneration

Aitken¹

2012

PPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of the research on public participation has focused on case studies that have assessed a variety of concepts related to public participation, including roles of stakeholders, incorporation of public values in decision making, conflict resolution, satisfaction levels of interest groups, perceptions of the collaborative experience, and trust (Anderson and Yaffee 1998, Carr et al 1998, Beierle and Konisky 2000, Germain et al 2001, Stringer et al 2006, Höppner 2009). Additional case study research has assessed the utility of specific participatory techniques (Chess andPurcell 1999, Parkins andDavidson 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory processes for public lands: Do provinces practice what they preach?

Miller¹,

Nadeau²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Here, we analyze the current spaces for public participation in Crown (public) land management through a comparative study that focuses on the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We define spaces for public participation as opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the decision-making arena of forest management. We examine the experiences of public participation in these provinces in an exploratory study comparing perceptions of participatory processes and outcomes of the processes in these two provinces based on 15 years (1999-2014) of informant experience. The objective is to understand more fully the barriers and bridges to meaningful public participation and relate these perceptions to on-the-ground implementation. A primary goal is to understand how, over time, processes with unsatisfying outcomes shape the perceptions of the participants. Rather than focusing on one particular participatory process, this comparative study assesses participation over time to identify the limitations in the participatory environments of these two provinces. We take a qualitative research approach using semistructured interviews with 42 forestry stakeholders, combined with participant observation and document analysis. This research reveals: (1) the importance of historical and cultural context as ongoing power imbalances shape the current dialogue and spaces for participation; (2) periods of robust and sound attempts at public participation in both provinces, with disappointments in implementation giving rise to a sense of futility, a closed system, and mistrust of government and industry over time; (3) a system of privileged access in opposition to the ideals of deliberative democracy and an equitable decision-making process; (4) in New Brunswick, public land policy implementation that is not reflective of participatory processes or of interests outside government and industry; (5) in Nova Scotia, recent efforts to incorporate values outside the government-industry policy realm, demonstrating an attempt to shift toward a more collaborative system for public land management.

show abstract

Understanding Factors That Influence Stakeholder Trust of Natural Resource Science and Institutions

Gray

Shwom

Jordan

2012

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building trust between resource users and natural resource institutions is essential when creating conservation policies that rely on stakeholders to be effective. Trust can enable the public and agencies to engage in cooperative behaviors toward shared goals and address shared problems. Despite the increasing attention that trust has received recently in the environmental management literature, the influence that individual cognitive and behavioral factors may play in influencing levels of trust in resource management institutions, and their associated scientific assessments, remains unclear. This paper uses the case of fisheries management in the northeast to explore the relationships between an individual's knowledge of the resource, perceptions of resource health, and participatory experience on levels of trust. Using survey data collected from 244 avid recreational anglers in the Northeast U.S., we test these relationships using structural equation modeling. Results indicate that participation in fisheries management is associated with increased trust across all aspects of fisheries management. In addition, higher ratings of resource health by anglers are associated with higher levels of trust of state and regional institutions, but not federal institutions or scientific methods.

show abstract

Trust—A monolithic panacea in land use planning?

Cited by 31 publications

References 44 publications

Trust and participation in urban regeneration

Trust and participation in urban regeneration

Participatory processes for public lands: Do provinces practice what they preach?

Understanding Factors That Influence Stakeholder Trust of Natural Resource Science and Institutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About