1. INTRODUCTION
Post industrialization perceptions of communities as a hindrance to successful conservation fostered a dichotomous view of communities and natural resources (West et al. 2006; Agrawal 1999). This interpretation of nature-environment dissociation was embedded in intrusive natural resource governance and conservation strategies. Natural resources management authority was vested in a central agency, mostly reflecting some facet of the state, focusing on scientific data, and within the legal confines of state policies (Berkets et al. 1991; Ostrom 1990). State management of common’s resources resulted in less than satisfactory conservation outcomes (Agrwal and Gibson 1999) attributed largely to the multifaceted, complexity, and dynamics of natural resource systems which requires multiple stakeholder participation for sustainable management (Berkes 2009). Cognizant of their role in natural resource sustainability, communities and civil society demanded a role in management of natural resources prompting scholars and policy makers to reshape the way they think about communities’ role in natural resources governance (Berkes et al. 1991). This approach resultantly fostered a strong vertical linkage for community-civil society-government cooperation in natural resources governance.
Scholars have advanced co-management as an alternative to steady-state, centralized, singular approach to natural resources management. Co-management (also referred to as collaborative, joint, or participatory management) is seen as a special type of management regime implementing joint institutions to govern natural resources. Institutions, in this context, refer to those resources use and interaction constraints that community implement t...
... middle of paper ...
...utions, and natural resource governance. Focus group discussions aimed at sample community members to establishing historical and development settings of the community institutions. To observe key processes of interactions of residents within governance and resource setting we used participatory and independent observations. As one of the few Belizean researchers in these communities, and our previous knowledge of these informants, many indicated that there were at much more ease to discuss intricacies of culture and history with our team. While the approach of our study limits the generalizability of our results and recommendations, policy recommendations can be considered in social-ecological systems which fit similar context. Our study is also limited by the chronic absence of peer-reviewed literature on communities in Belize, especially those in co-management.
Bodansky, Daniel. "The Who, What, and Wherefore of Geoengineering Governance." Climate Change 121.3 (2013): 539-551. Print. DOI.ORG/10.2139/SSRN.2168850
In this essay I shall make a critical comparison of different theories and approaches of community organising. By focusing on main aspects of Paulo Freire and Saul Alinsky’s models of community organising I shall discuss how applicable these models are in the UK. By drawing examples from experiences of applying Root Solution Listening Matters (RSLM) and Participatory Action Research (PAR) frameworks in my practice. I shall demonstrate relationships and differences between the two. By addressing key elements of theories of power and conflict I shall highlight the main characteristics of both and use these theories as lenses to view some problems in the communities. By comparing models of community enterprise I shall reflect on future opportunities of a budding community enterprise. Finally by outlining the methods of evaluation I shall reflect on my chosen framework for evaluation of my work.
The conflict in the North Vancouver district is over the resource of land and how to use it. There are many stake holders involved in this conflict. The district owns the Mountain Forest and Cove Forest areas, and wanted to develop the areas in response to projected increases in future populations, taken from the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) reports. The individual residents of the district are also stake holders. As taxpaying members of the municipality they indirectly own the land. They are also stake holders from the point of view of citizens who live near the proposed development sites and use the forests for its recreation and aesthetic values. Other stake holders include the Lower Mainland residents; many of these people use the North Shore Mountains, and in particular Mountain and Cove Forests, for their outdoor recreation activities. If the land was to be developed they too would be affected.2
Hijjar, Reem, David G. McGrath, Robert A. Kozak, and John L. Innes. "Framing Community Forestry Challenges with a Broader Lens: Case Studies from the Brazilian Amazon." Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011): 2159-169. ScienceDirect. 06 May 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
Halpern and his team suggest that an EBM approach may be the best solution for addressing these issues. Chuenpagdee’s research also highlights the challenges and issues surrounding the implementation of effective MPAs. The study included an in-depth look into four case studies that focused on the design stages of MPAs, and the social issues that must be taken into consideration, and how the incorporation of local communities into management efforts could lead to increases in MPA network success and sustainability. The compilation of data presented in these studies, all highlight the fact that nations are increasing the number of MPAs, in order to reach international goals of conservation, however even if the global area goals of protection are met, it is clear that the success of these protected areas will be heavily dependent upon the socioeconomic issues surrounding the impacted areas, as well as the larger-scale issues that need to be simultaneously addressed such as pollution and climate change, both of which can not be resolved by the implementation of protected zones.... ...
QUESTION ONE: Chapter 12 discusses the issue of police discretion and community relations. There are 8 main issues raised by the authors. Describe the highlights of the issues.
Stonich, S.C., (1989) The Dynamics of social Processes and environmental Destruction : A Central American Case Study. Journal of Population Development, 15(270).
Tietenberg, Thomas. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Addison Wesley: New York, 2003. pp. 561. ISBN 0-201-77027-X, pp. 7-11.
Conca, K., & Dabelko, G. D. (2010). Institutions of Global Environmental Governance. In K. Conca, & G. D. Dabelko, Green Planet Blues (pp. 117-124). Boulder: Westview Press
Political ecology also involves conflicts between people and institutions over resources, in both developed world and developing world contexts. The use of natural resources and the creation of a sustainable environment is a critical issue that must be observed from different perspectives. Does it permit sustainable resources? Is it a threat to local security? How is income distributed through societies, both gender and location wise? Who decides how these are to be classified? These are key problems in political ecology.
Common pool resources have long stood as the obstacle for human’s domain over the Earth. Humans have successfully conquered many frontiers, whether it has been the vast and almost endless open oceans or the dry and arid deserts across the world. With persistent exploration, discovery, and through new science advancements, humans have learned to not only become familiar with these new frontiers but have learned to exploit them. But when it came to utilizing these frontiers, common pool resources often created problems for anyone who sought to control it. “Common pool resources,” according to the encyclopedia, are resources made available to all for consumption and to which access can be limited only by high cost. Whether people realize the effects of this term or not, the availability and accesses to common pool resources has always afflicted with the relationship between
Wilcock, D. A. (2013). From blank spcaes to flows of life: transforming community engagment in environmental decision-making and its implcations for localsim. Policy Studies 34:4, 455-473.
* Daily, Gretchen C., ed. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997.
Borges-Mendez, Ramon. "Sustainable Development and Participatory Practices in Community Forestry: the Case of FUNDECOR in Costa Rica." Local Environment 13.4 (2008): 367-383. Print.
On the one hand, participatory approach to land use planning can provide openings for the decentralized administration of land management and enhance legal protection of local land rights through contributing to formal recognition of existing land tenure systems. According to Chigbu et al, (2015) four functions of land use planning that directly links to tenure security. (1) Its capacity to identify or determine land areas, parcels and uses and users. (2) Its propensity to enable documentation of land areas, parcels, rights, restrictions and responsibilities. (3) The opportunities it provides for stakeholder involvement, compensation of claims and community participation. (4) Its impact on land value, land markets and credit opportunities. On the other hand, land use planning, promoting sustainable natural resource use and environmental management are generally part of the mandate of local governments. And these prerogatives often tend to be weakly developed, both legally and with respect to capacity building and methodology (Hilhorst 2010). Unclear property rights and tenure insecurity are the major constraints to the potential of successful land use planning. According to UN-Habitat (2008, p. 17), poor land use planning associated with insecurity of tenure and incompletely specified land rights leads to problems of air and water-borne pollution from agricultural and industrial land use. Though there is a