Advertisement

Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 10, Issue 1–2, pp 81–92 | Cite as

Participatory tools for coastal zone management: Use of stakeholder analysis and social mapping in Australia

Special Feature

Abstract

This paper presents research currently being conducted in Central Queensland, Australia to understand conflicts between coastal zone resource users and the associated sociocultural and political issues surrounding coastal zone management. Conflict occurs between stakeholders in the coastal zone over values, conservation and development trade-offs, access, and resource use rights. Decisions are currently made within a multi-stakeholder framework where there is limited understanding among stakeholders of each groups values and aspirations, and few, mechanisms for negotiation, or to ensure transparency of decisions and feedback on consultation. This paper reports on the contribution of stakeholder analysis and social mapping to conflict management and findings from their application. As it is applied here, stakeholder analysis and social mapping have been successful participatory tools used to document and feed back the values, interests, attitudes and aspirations of stakeholders. Understanding stakeholder conflict is essential in progressing a whole catchment approach to decision-making that secures the cooperation of a diverse range of social groups.

Keywords

Environmental conflict Great Barrier Reef Planning Queensland Social analysis Socio-cultural 

Abbreviation

ICM

Integrated catchment management

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bingham, G. 1986.Resolving environmental disputes: a decade of experience. The Conservation Foundation, Washington DC, US.Google Scholar
  2. Cicin-Sain, B. & Knecht, R. W. 1998.Integrated coastal and ocean management: concepts and practices. Island Press, Washington, DC, US.Google Scholar
  3. Dale, A.P. & Lane, M.B. 1994. Strategic perspectives analysis: A procedure for participatory and political social impact assessment.Soc. Nat. Resour. 7: 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Lopes, T.T. 2001. Stakeholder management for conservation projects: A case study of Ream National Park, Cambodia.Environ. Manage. 28: 49–60.Google Scholar
  5. Dryzek, J. 1990.Discursive democracy. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, US.Google Scholar
  6. Elkington, J. 1997.Cannibals with forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Heard, C. 2002.The good oil, Insight, 16/05/2002, Available: http://www.sbs.com.au (Accessed 27 May. 2002).Google Scholar
  8. Jennings, S.F. & Lockie, S. 2002.Democratisation and capacity building in coastal zone decision-making in Australia: the application of stakeholder analysis and social mapping. Paper presented at the Coastal Zone Asia Pacific Conference, Bangkok, TH.Google Scholar
  9. Jennings, S.F. & Moore, S.A. 2000. The rhetoric behind regionalization in Australian natural resource management: myth, reality and moving forward.J. Environ. Policy Plann. 2: 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lockie, S. 2001. Social Impact Assessment in Review: Setting the Agenda for Impact Assessment in the Twenty-First Century.Impact Assess, Project Appr. 19: 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lockie, S. & Jennings, S.F. 2002.Central Queensland healthy waterways survey. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  12. McCreary, S., Gamman, J., Brooks, B., Whitman, L., Bryson, R., Fuller, B., McInerny, A. & Glaser, R. 2001. Applying a mediated negotiation framework to integrated coastal zone management.Coastal Manage. 29: 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McGlashan, D.J. & Williams, E. 2003. Stakeholder involvement in coastal decision-making processes.Local Environ. 8: 85–94.Google Scholar
  14. Mitchell, B. & Hollick, M. 1993. Integrated catchment management in Western Australia: The transition from concept to implementation.Environ. Manage. 17: 735–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ramanathan, R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment.J. Environ. Manage. 63: 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reeve, I. 2001. Property rights and natural resource management: tiptoeing round the slumbering dragon. In: Lockie, S. & Bourke, L. (eds.)Rurality bites: the social and environmental transformation of rural Australia, pp. 257–269. Pluto Press, Sydney, AU.Google Scholar
  17. Stolp, A. 1999.Citizen values profiling: an impact assessment tool to investigate citizens' judgements Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of International Association for Impact Assessment, 15–19 June 1999, Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Wescott, G. 2002. Integrated natural resource management in Australia: the opportunity offered by a national Coastal Policy.Aust. J. Environ. Manage. 9: 138–140.Google Scholar
  19. Westmacott, G. 1998. Reforming coastal management to improve community participation and integration in Victoria, Australia.Coastal Manage. 26: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EUCC: Opulus Press Uppsala 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Social Science ResearchCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia

Personalised recommendations