Community perceptions of collaborative processes for managing freshwater resources
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4882455 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jim Sinner (0000-0002-5956-2660, Cawthron Institute), Philip Brown (0000-0003-4310-1103, Cadre Research), Mark Newton (0000-0002-3223-2215, Cawthron Institute) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Publication date | 2016-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Conservation Ecology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1195-5449 • E-ISSN: 1708-3087 |
| Publisher | Resilience Alliance (PUBLISHER • CA) |
| DOI | 10.5751/es-08851-210405 |
| OpenAlex | W2531885627 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 6 |
Six of New Zealand's 16 regional councils are trialling collaborative planning as a means of addressing complex challenges in freshwater management. Although some work has been undertaken to evaluate similarities and differences across those processes, the success or failure rests with the public's acceptance of the processes and their outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate public perceptions of freshwater management in regions with collaborative processes. We surveyed 450 respondents in Hawke's Bay, Northland, and Waikato, some of whom live in catchments in which collaborative processes are under way and some of whom do not. In addition to assessing awareness of the collaborative planning processes, the survey measured perceptions regarding the regional council's management of freshwater resources, the extent of agreement regarding freshwater management among various interests, the fairness of freshwater management, and the extent to which respondents believe that their interests and concerns are included in freshwater management. We hypothesized that relative to respondents in parts of the region in which traditional processes are in places, respondents in catchments with collaborative management of freshwater resources would have more positive perceptions of management, agreement, fairness, and interests, even if there is low awareness that a collaborative planning process is under way. Survey results indicate that knowledge of collaborative processes is generally low and that living in catchments with collaborative processes does not impact respondents' perceptions of management, agreement, fairness, or interests in Northland or Waikato. However, relative to Hawke's Bay respondents living outside of the collaborative catchment, respondents living inside the collaborative catchment believe that the regional council's freshwater management is better and fairer. Moreover, Hawke's Bay residents living inside the collaborative catchment perceive less conflict over freshwater management than Hawke's Bay respondents living outside the collaborative catchment. Further research is needed to identify the reasons for this regional variation
Business · Environmental planning · Environmental resource management · Geography · Perception · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Engineering · Environmental Conservation and Management · Environmental Science · Land Use and Ecosystem Services · Psychology
The Changing Role of Scientists in Supporting Collaborative Land and Water Policy in Canterbury, New Zealand
Sustainably managing freshwater resources
Factors influencing successful collaboration for freshwater management in Aotearoa, New Zealand
Where to for collaboration in land and water policy development in Aotearoa New Zealand? Guidance for authorising agencies
Death by a Thousand Cuts”
Multi-stakeholder collaboration for the governance of water supply in Wolkite, Ethiopia
New public management and collaboration in canterbury, New Zealand’s freshwater management
New Challenges for Telephone Survey Research in the Twenty-First Century
Regression Analysis when the Dependent Variable Is Truncated Normal
The Struggle to Govern the Commons
The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management
Reaching the U.S. Cell Phone Generation
Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,78 |
| Citation span | 2017 - 2023 (7) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |