Journal
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 92, Issue 4, Pages 1256-1267Publisher
ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.12.005
Keywords
Co-management; Cultural landscape; Landscape governance; Transaction costs; Local participation; Time effort
Categories
Funding
- Federal Ministry of Science and Research
- Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management (BMLFUW)
- Province Lower Austria
- Province Styria
- Province Vienna
Ask authors/readers for more resources
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. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available