Literature DB >> 21216520

Benefits, efforts and risks of participants in landscape co-management: an analytical framework and results from two case studies in Austria.

Barbara Enengel1, Marianne Penker, Andreas Muhar, Rachael Williams.   

Abstract

Participatory processes in general and also in relation to managing landscape issues are gathering importance mostly due to arguments surrounding legitimacy and effectiveness in decision-making. The main aim of this research, based on a transaction costs perspective, is to present an integrated analytical framework in order to determine individual efforts (time, money), benefits and risks of participants in landscape co-management processes. Furthermore a reflection on the analytical approach developed and arising lessons to be learned for landscape co-management are presented. In the analytical framework benefit-components comprise of factors such as 'contributing to landscape maintenance/development and nature protection', 'representing one's interest group', 'co-deciding on relevant topics', 'providing and broadening one's knowledge' and 'building networks'. The risks of participation are related to a lack of information and agreements, missing support and actual decision-making power. The analytical framework is applied to two case studies in Austria: an EU LIFE-Nature project and a Cultural Landscape Project of the Provincial Government of Lower Austria. Analysis of the effort-benefit-relations provides an indication for a more effective design of co-management. Although the processes are rated as quite adequate, there is a low willingness of participants to commit additional time to co-management processes. In contrast to the Cultural Landscape Project, in the LIFE-Nature project, professionally involved persons participate next to partly and full volunteers. These uneven conditions of participation and an unfair distribution of transaction costs, jeopardize the promising chances co-management bears for landscape governance.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21216520     DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Manage        ISSN: 0301-4797            Impact factor:   6.789


  3 in total

1.  Biosphere Reserve for All: Potentials for Involving Underrepresented Age Groups in the Development of a Biosphere Reserve through Intergenerational Practice.

Authors:  Tamara Mitrofanenko; Julia Snajdr; Andreas Muhar; Marianne Penker; Elisabeth Schauppenlehner-Kloyber
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Challenges to Build up a Collaborative Landscape Management (CLM)-Lessons from a Stakeholder Analysis in Germany.

Authors:  Jana Zscheischler; Maria Busse; Nico Heitepriem
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Co-producing better land management? An ethnographic study of partnership working in the context of agricultural diffuse pollution.

Authors:  Thomas Vetter
Journal:  Rev Agric Food Environ Stud       Date:  2022-05-16
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.