Community-based Environmental Planning: Operational Dilemmas, Planning Principles and Possible Remedies

This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 10 October 2014, At: 04:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Planning andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Community-based EnvironmentalPlanning: Operational Dilemmas,Planning Principles and PossibleRemediesMarcus B Lane a & Geoff McDonald ba Geographical and Environmental Studies, The University ofAdelaide , Australiab Department of Geographical Sciences and Planning , Universityof Queensland , St Lucia, Queensland, AustraliaPublished online: 22 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Marcus B Lane & Geoff McDonald (2005) Community-based EnvironmentalPlanning: Operational Dilemmas, Planning Principles and Possible Remedies, Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, 48:5, 709-731, DOI: 10.1080/09640560500182985

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560500182985

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09640560500182985

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560500182985

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Community-based EnvironmentalPlanning: Operational Dilemmas,Planning Principles and PossibleRemedies

MARCUS B. LANE* & GEOFF MCDONALD***Geographical and Environmental Studies, The University of Adelaide, Australia

**Department of Geographical Sciences and Planning, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland,

Australia

(Received February 2004; revised January 2005)

ABSTRACT The operational dilemmas and challenges associated with the practice of community-based environmental planning (CBEP) are examined. The paper examines the frequently invoked‘bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’ dichotomy and argues that environmental governance is morecomplex, dynamic and multi-scalar than this simple dichotomy implies. The paper identifies sixkey problems with the CBEP approach: (i) the conceptualization of ‘community’ which poorlyaccounts for difference; (ii) problems of inequality; (iii) the organizational capacity and efficacyof community groups; (iv) the scale of CBEP; (v) the types of knowledge utilized bycommunities in environmental management; and (vi) the potential for parochial concerns todominate the priorities and agenda of community organizations. The paper analyses each of theseissues, identifies planning principles that may aid resolution, and suggests possible remedies.

Introduction

This paper is concerned with the operational dilemmas and challenges associatedwith the practice of community-based environmental planning (henceforth CBEP).‘Community-based’ responses to questions of environmental management andsustainability, sponsored by ideologically diverse government agencies, bi- andmulti-lateral aid organizations and non-government organizations (NGOs) operat-ing in many different national and transnational contexts, became a major approachin the 1990s. For scholars of urban and regional planning, frequent and diverseexperimentation with CBEP provides an important opportunity for ‘groundtruthing’ a host of ideas and concepts critical to the field.

While decentralized environmental planning and management has becomeprominent in practice over the past decade, it features in the academic discourse

Correspondence Address: Marcus B. Lane, Geographical and Environmental Studies, The University of

Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005, Australia. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,Vol. 48, No. 5, 709 – 731, September 2005

ISSN 0964-0568 Print/1360-0559 Online/05/050709-23 ª 2005 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

DOI: 10.1080/09640560500182985

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

since the 1970s (Friedmann, 1973). Collaborative environmental planning, co-management of natural resources and community-based environmental planning arejust three of the approaches commonly used in the ‘bottom-up’ lexicon. This paperprovides an overview of CBEP, identifying a range of key problems associated withthe concept and practice of the approach. For each problem identified and assessed,a set of ‘planning principles’ is developed from which possible remedies to CBEPpractice are proposed.

Community-Based Environmental Planning

While CBEP consists of a diverse set of practices, a common conceptual andoperational core can be identified. By (i) decentralizing government agencies andinstitutions concerned with environmental management, (ii) devolving responsibilityfor the development and implementation of environmental policies to localcommunities and non-state associations, and (iii) enabling localized participationin and control of planning, a more effective, context-sensitive mode of planning issaid to result (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Leach et al., 1999; Kellert et al., 2000; Carr& Halvorsen, 2001).

CBEP, as used in this paper, refers to the deliberate, programmatic decentraliza-tion of authority and resources to communities for the purposes of environmentalmanagement and planning. It is to be distinguished therefore from radical planningwhich is concerned with the mobilization of groups (without state support and oftenin defiance of the state) in order to secure a range of community objectives(Sandercock, 1998). CBEP embodies an inherent, conceptual contradiction. It seeksto secure the benefits of ‘bottom-up’ knowledge and action yet the opportunities andpossibilities of community engagement are framed by state policy and action.

CBEP is a major dimension of environmental planning in a host of developed anddeveloping countries around the world. The US EPA launched its community-basedenvironmental protection program in 1994 as a means of overcoming the problemsof traditional protection methods (Colvin, 2002). Australia’s most importantnational environmental management program, the Natural Heritage Trust, whichwas introduced in 1996, made community-based environmental planning thedominant response to environmental problems (Lane et al., 2004). In wider,international contexts, the work of multilateral donor agencies such as the WorldBank and the Asian Development Bank, as well as diverse, international anddomestic NGOs, have made CBEP a critical dimension of environmental planning indeveloping countries. The United Nations has also been a prominent intellectual andpolitical supporter (Leach et al., 1999).

Among advocates, the benefits of CBEP are manifold and range from improvedplan development through to implementation (Gray et al., 2001). Underpinning theapproach is the assumption that local communities are better able to understand andintervene in environmental problems because they are ‘closer’ to both the problemand the solution. In this conception, CBEP offers three major benefits. First, thecommunity-based approach is said to enable sensitivity and deployment ofindigenous (or local) knowledge in planning. As a result, CBEP overcomes a majorproblem associated with rational, top-down or state-directed planning. Animportant failing of the ‘top-down’ model, with its modernist epistemology, is its

710 M. Lane & G. McDonald

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

failure to recognize, respect, and utilize indigenous knowledge (Kingsley, 1996;Scott, 1998; Kellert et al., 2000). Sensitivity to indigenous knowledge has, in turn,been associated with minimizing the local social impacts of plans, reducingunintended consequences and sources of failure, and with more equitable planningprocesses (Scott, 1998; Young, 2000).

Second, the community-based model is said to be more responsive to context andlocal priorities and imperatives, partly for the reasons described above (Gray et al.,2001). This in turn helps fashion context-sensitive plans (Li, 2002). An importantsource of failure in modernist planning is problems caused by the crudesimplification of the local social and physical environment that state (or top-down)vision and action often entailed (Scott, 1998). The momentum is driven also by therealization that centralized states simply ‘do not know what to do’ when the diversityof localities is too great for uniform policies to work everywhere (Blair, 1996, p. 488).Addressing problems manifest at the local scale requires, in other words, asophisticated and nuanced understanding of the local social and physicalenvironment.

Third, the community-based model, with its emphasis on the ‘co-management’ ofnatural resources, is said to provide greater efficiency in plan implementation byrecruiting local communities. This rationale for and benefit of CBEP has beenparticularly prominent in the sub-field of environmental conservation. Instead oftop-down planners working to keep an unsympathetic public at bay, the CBEPmodel emphasizes harnessing local agency in implementation efforts (Western et al.,1994; Leach et al., 1999; Scheberle, 2000). Enhanced implementation is, of course,partially dependent on the development of approaches that are responsive to thelocal context, and partially dependent on harnessing local agency as the primarymeans of implementation.

The concept of participation is obviously crucial to this mode of planning (Colvin,2002). The participation of the public in traditional modes of planning has beenconcerned with informing the planning process and with helping to legitimize andvalidate decisions made (Hyman & Stiftel, 1988). The ‘level’ or ‘power’ that citizensare able to exert on the planning process and on decisions reached has long been thesubject of study and debate (Arnstein, 1969; Amy, 1987). Amy has argued that:

the history of citizen participation . . . has shown that participation techniquesare often used for purely political purposes—to give the illusion of citizen powerwhile actually serving the interests of policy makers who desire to increase thelegitimacy and public acceptance of their decisions. (1987, p. 13)

In community-based environmental planning, participation is required not as adecision-making supplement but as the central means by which plans are developedand implemented (Kellert et al., 2000; Colvin, 2002). Instead of participation beingconcerned with placation, therapy, or even manipulation (to use Arnstein’s 1969well-known phraseology), participation in CBEP is ‘‘open, inclusive . . . andemphasizes a shared responsibility among all stakeholders for implementingdecisions’’ (US EPA 1999, p. 6).

Another significant ingredient in both the intellectual and ideological rationale forcommunity-based or bottom-up planning processes has been the well-chronicled

Community-based Environment Planning 711

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

failings of the so-called top-down approach (a critique best provided by Scott, 1998).While the debate between advocates of the so-called rational model and thoseadvocating transactive approaches (see, for example, the exchange betweenFriedmann, 1993, 1994 and Alexander, 1994) has illuminated the conceptual andoperational problems with these models, the call for bottom-up planning can also beassociated with simplistic conceptions of natural resource governance. Too often,‘community’ is conceptualized as a homogenous, spatially fixed social entity ready,able and willing to take charge of complex environmental problems, or by contrast,the state as a monolithic, clumsy actor capable only of imposing its will on a localitythat it poorly understands. In truth, the character of, and interplay between, stateand community is more complex.

The complexity of state-community relations is best understood in the context ofenvironmental governance. There are four major complexities of environmentalgovernance that should be foregrounded. First, a multi-faceted state organized atdifferent scales pursues a varied (and sometimes even competing) agenda. Second, adiversified civil society operational at different political scales seeks access to policyprocesses. Some of these non-state associations may, indeed, exhibit thecharacteristics of the mythic community commonly invoked in narratives aboutthe potential of CBEP: place-centeredness, social homogeneity, and commitment tosustainable resource management. Others do not. Third, formal and informalinstitutions structure and mediate the dynamic interplay between state and civilsociety in the management of natural resources (Lane et al., 2004). This interplayincludes sectoral allegiances, tactical alliances, corporatist agreements based onentrenched policy communities, and of course, policy conflicts and disputes. Theseinteractions, in turn, shape and re-fashion formal and informal institutions ofresource management. ‘Institutions’ in this conception, are ‘‘provisional agreementson how to accomplish’’ the management of natural resources (Agrawal & Gibson,1999, p. 638). Fourth, the institutional arrangements that emerge from these forcesare constantly being reshaped by interaction with diverse actors. For these reasons,resource management outcomes rarely if ever conform to the prescriptions of a giveninstitutional arrangement: it is usually both more complex and dynamic.

Thinking about environmental governance in this way helps us to understand thepotential role (and disadvantages) of CBEP. Most importantly, it reveals the ‘top-down’ versus ‘bottom-up’ dichotomy so commonly invoked to be misleading. Abetter conception is that environmental management, policy and practice occur, atany moment, somewhere along a sliding (even slippery) scale that ranges from thelocal to the central. Agencies of central government act at the local level, at thehighest levels of policy and governance, and at points in between. ‘Concurrence’ is amajor feature of environmental governance (Abers, 2000; Lane et al., 2004).Similarly, local communities also act at different political scales. The political scaleor level at which resource management policy and implementation occur, variesaccording to the type of actors involved, the historic role and presence of civil societyin governance, and the substantive character of the issue at hand. Finally, the messy,a-systemic character of governance, involving multiple formal and informalinstitutions, has caused many to lament the demise of coherence and co-ordination,and to call for enhanced ‘integration’ of environmental management activities (see,for example, Healey, 1997; Cortner & Moote, 1999).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

With this background, the paper now turns to an examination and analysis of arange of problems with the community-based environmental planning mode.

Conceptualizing ‘Community’

The ways in which ‘community’ is conceptualized in CBEP is crucial to the ways inwhich community is used as an agent of planning. Two distinct discourses can beidentified. First, the ‘proximity’ of community to environmental problems, incontrast to the remoteness of government, renders community-based approachesmore functional and effective (Cortner & Moote, 1999; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000).Local communities, in this discourse, should have a greater say in ecosystemmanagement than national groups because solutions will only ‘‘emerge from a localprocess of dialogue and debate’’ (Cortner & Moote, 1999, p. 97, emphasis added).The commitment of local communities to place, according to this argument, ensuresthat they have both the motivation and the (indigenous) knowledge to effectivelymanage natural resources (Kemmis, 1990). Second, there is a utopian, ethicaldimension: empowering communities to address environmental problems isappropriate and important to restore the harmony and balance between ecologicaland human systems (see, for example, Leach et al., 1999; Bauman, 2001; Moore,2001, p. 71).

The character, role, and functionality of ‘community’ are fundamental precepts inCBEP. However, the design and operation of CBEP programs and projects appearto take little heed of the significant theoretical and empirical literature that unpacksthe community concept, questions its viability as a focus for policy and planning,and critiques the outcomes that emerge from community-based action.

CBEP approaches are based, fundamentally, on a notion that a distinct‘community’ exists. Community, in this discourse, is seen as a distinct, relativelyhomogenous, spatially fixed social group that shares a consciousness of being a‘community’ and which is characterized by social consensus and solidarity (Agrawal& Gibson, 1999; Bauman, 2001). However, this understanding has been undersustained empirical and theoretical critique. Disciplinary diverse approaches withinthe social sciences have been concerned with ‘difference’ within social entities atmultiple scales, demonstrating how gender, ethnicity, class, age and other forms ofsocial identity divide so-called communities (Sandercock, 1998). As Leach and others(1999) observe, the issue of ‘difference’ has been remarkably absent from the recentdiscourse emphasizing community and collaboration in environmental management.In addition, it has been largely absent from theorizing in the wider field of planning(Sandercock, 1998).

Yet, the plausibility and viability of the concept of ‘community’ is fundamental todoing CBEP. Empirically, evidence is mounting that failure to recognize, understandand grapple with difference as manifest in community an important source of failure,dissension, and critique (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Talen, 2000). According to theseaccounts, CBEP can serve to entrench elites, marginalize certain social groups andfashion unjust outcomes. Importantly, the political implications of naive localismhave been enunciated before. Writing in the 1960s, Grant McConnell argued that:‘‘far from providing guarantees of liberty, equality, and concern for the publicinterest, organization of political life by small constituencies tends to enforce


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

conformity, to discriminate in favor of elites, and to eliminate public values fromeffective political consideration’’ (1996, p. 6).

The utopian, ethical discourse that underpins the role of community in CBEPalso has important implications. Some suggest that ‘‘a common image underlyingthese approaches is of harmony, equilibrium or balance between communitylivelihoods and natural ecological balance’’ (Leach et al., 1999, p. 228). The studywishes to pursue the conceptual problems with these assumptions—problems thatinevitably find expression when CBEP is operationalized. Three key problemsdeserve mention. First, the structuralist narrative of human-ecological balancesuggests a linear, deterministic relationship between human society and naturethat is at odds both with the role of human action and agency, and dynamic,non-equilibrious ecologies (Gunderson et al., 1995). Second, the treatment of‘communities’ as static and rule-bound denies the role of human agency and theimportance of humans actively monitoring, interpreting and acting on andtherefore shaping the world around them. This finds direct expression in CBEPoutcomes. A number of commentators complain that CBEP has a tendency totreat communities as passive recipients of funding and other assistance ratherthan actors with interests, imperatives and agenda of their own (Agrawal &Gibson, 1999; Leach et al., 1999). Third, believers of the role of community inresource management simultaneously advocate the centrality of community andlament its demise in contemporary social organization (see, for example, Moore,2001). As a result, a need to re-build community and re-establish the relationshipbetween community and nature emerges (Kemmis, 1990; Moore, 2001). Bauman(2001) best captures the problem of attempting to construct community andcollaboration:

All homogeneity must be ‘hand-picked’ from a tangled mass of variety throughselection, separation and exclusion; all unity needs to be made; concord‘artificially produced’ is the soul form of unity available. Common under-standing can be only an achievement, attained . . . at the end of a long andtortuous labor of argument and persuasion . . . Community of commonunderstanding, even if reached, will therefore stay fragile and vulnerable,forever in need of vigilance, fortification and defense. (p. 14)

The ‘mythic’ community deployed in CBEP has been implicated in a range ofproblems, both in outcomes and processes, including: (1) inequalities of participationand resource distribution (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999; Kellert et al., 2000); (2)treatment of beneficiaries as passive recipients of program activities and resources(Leach et al., 1999); (3) the failure of community responses to achieve on-the-groundsuccess (Napier, 1998); and (4) the dynamic, ephemeral character of communitygroups to whom resources and program activities are devolved which can renderCBEP activities and outcomes short-lived (Born & Genskow, 2001). Related, yetdistinct, problems can be discerned in the frequent conflation of Non-GovernmentOrganizations (NGOs) with place-based communities. NGOs occupy an importantrole in environmental policy. Assuming NGOs are community or local organizationsobscures that many have non-local interests, and are private organizations withhighly specific agenda. They cannot be used as a surrogate for place-based


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

communities or for the representation of multiple interests (Breckenridge, 1999;Lane, 2003).

The problems with the concept of community being commonly deployed havebeen clearly and repeatedly depicted and elaborated. Agrawal & Gibson (1999, p.640) argue for a shift away from the ‘‘usual assumptions about communities’’ andpropose:

a stronger focus on the divergent interests of multiple actors withincommunities, the interactions of politics through which these interests emergeand different actors interact with each other, and the institutions that influencethe outcomes of political processes. (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999, p. 641)

In other words, a focus on local institutions, rather than communities, might providefor a more durable and effective approach than relying on local ‘communities’.

Duane has also called for a more nuanced understanding of ‘community’ in thecontext of natural resource management. He suggests that three types ofcommunities are typically involved: (1) communities of place; (2) communities ofidentity; and, (3) communities of interest (1997). In a similar vein, Talen (2000)suggests that planners recognize the multi-dimensionality of community, both interms of meaning and scale. Imprecise conceptualizations of ‘community’ areparticularly manifested when expressed in scalar terms (Lovell et al., 2002).Community is too often assumed to be solely a local phenomenon. Community(conceived of here as reciprocal bonds of trust and exchange) is too frequentlyignored at wider scales and the potential for ‘aspatial’ community is also neglected.

What principles might be used to develop effective responses and remedies to theseproblems? The first is to avoid romanticizing community in a way that obscures thediversity of actors. When dealing with place-based entities, it is necessary to look outfor sources of division as well as unity. There is a need to be alert to difference andnot hope for oneness. Second, ‘difference’, when discovered, is not pathology to bewished away but, instead, gender, class, ethnicity and other sources of difference arecommon (even ubiquitous) features of social organization. When working withcommunities there is a need to embrace rather than avoid difference. Third, havingrecognized difference it is also necessary to acknowledge power and the potential forits use to benefit some and disadvantage others. Fourth, there is a need to avoidprivileging actors at the local scale. Aspatiality is a feature of contemporary socialorganization and ‘community’ may often be multi-scalar. Fifth, if a new concept of‘community’ is to be inclusive of dynamism, multiplicity and aspatiality, it should berecognized that conflict and conflict resolution must be an accessory to CBEP.

A range of possible remedies follows these principles. In essence, it is beingsuggested that the approach to CBEP here needs to acknowledge the diversity oflocal actors, the multiple scales at which they operate and the importance ofmediating conflict and power differentials between and among local actors. It issuggested that the potential for unjust or inequitable outcomes needs to bedeliberately accounted for. Four possible remedies are proposed: (1) the use of aflexible definition of ‘community’ based on its observable characteristics and asappropriate to the natural resource problem being addressed; (2) maintenance of anexplicit conflict resolution capacity in order to mediate between diverse and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

competing actors; (3) the ‘active’ facilitation of the expression of views from allinterests; and (4) maintenance of the role of formal institutions in resourcemanagement to perform mediation functions and to account for the values andinterests of actors at wider scales.

Equity

Decentralized approaches to policy and planning, including community-basedresource management, are often said to be more democratic means of managingnatural resources (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Cortner & Moote, 1999). According tothis view, localizing planning and management overcomes the anti-democratic orinsensitive character of the centralized bureaucracy that typically has a pivotal rolein resource governance (Scott, 1998). The centralized state, in this discourse, iscommonly accused of being insensitive to the interests of local actors, and dismissiveof the role of indigenous knowledge in planning.

However, some have presented empirical evidence in support of an argumentthat the practice of CBEP has tended to marginalize the interests of certain socialgroups while others empowering others with political and financial resources(Leach et al., 1999; Nursey-Bray, 1999). This expresses a long known patternidentified by Myrdal (1968) that decentralized programs are often little more thanschemes for funneling resources into the hands of local elites while providing aconvenient means of maintaining central control (Blair, 1996; Li, 1996). CBEPprograms can therefore result in inequalities in the distribution of financial andother resources.

The relatively recent claim that community-based approaches to resourcemanagement represent a more democratic form of natural resource managementcontradicts both considerable empirical experience and strong theoretical arguments.Political scientists, McConnell (1966) and Mansbridge (1983) (see also Ehrenberg,1999) in particular have demonstrated the equity problems associated withparticipatory governance. Most importantly, McConell (1966) showed howlocalized, participatory efforts can serve to buttress the position of local elites,enforce conformity, and eliminate difference in political processes. By contrast, theimpersonality of centralized bureaucracy enables it to limit arbitrariness and ensureprocedural fairness (Ehrenberg, 1999). McConnell found that locating decisionmaking at the local or community level increases homogeneity and increases theimportance of the local distribution of power, thereby enhancing the potential forinequality.

Inequitable distribution of resources and access in CBEP programs has beenidentified as a major problem in a number of cases (Sarin, 1995; Lane, 2003).However, there is considerably more empirical evidence for inequitable resourcedistribution and access in participatory efforts in the field of urban and regionalplanning. This broader literature frequently shows that in participatory efforts,some interests are under-represented while others have privileged access to policy-makers. This renders planning processes inequitable (Amy, 1987; Beatley et al.,1994).

Ensuring greater equity in planning ought to be considered one of the mostcompelling reasons for pursuing CBEP. The promise of enhanced democracy in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

planning is one of the hallmarks of community-based and other decentralizedapproaches (Gibson et al., 2000). Equity, as it is used here, has two dimensions. Itrefers to both equity of resource distribution and to equity of access to decisionmakers and decision-making forums. The development of the theoretical rationaleand practical application of CBEP appears to have neglected a broader literature inthe area of public participation in urban and regional planning which highlights thedifficulties of ensuring equity in participatory processes. It also ignores thinkingabout the operation of democracies that goes back as far as James Madison thatsuggests that the dangers to democracy get larger as the unit of political organizationgets smaller (Mayberry-Lewis, 1997).

Understanding and responding to the potential for inequality requires, first andforemost, a concept of ‘community’ that is inclusive of multiplicity and differenceand, therefore, subject to the exercise of power. Second, it must be recognized thatparticipatory and political abilities are rarely distributed uniformly; some actorswill be relatively less articulate and influential. A third principle that might point topossible remedies is recognition that, where power differentials exist across multipleactors, the likelihood of unequal distribution of resources is high. Fourth, it mustbe remembered that equality and democracy form an important part of the raisond’etre of CBEP. The design of CBEP programs therefore needs to includemechanisms to ensure equality of access so as to maximize the democraticcharacter of the program.

In circumstances where access to funding and other resources is competitive andplanning activities involve diverse resource claimants with differing capabilities, anumber of possible remedies follow from these principles. First, it may be necessaryto use ‘facilitators’ specifically to assist less articulate or influential claimants developapplications for funding and to conceive of practical projects likely to be supportedby the wider program. It may be necessary to assist the less articulate directly.Second, it may be useful to ‘weight’ applications from less articulate or historicallydisadvantaged stakeholders in order to ensure they are effective participants inCBEP planning programs. Third, it is suggested that it is essential for plannersworking in CBEP to develop a better understanding of local social relations, rightsand entitlements, and to use that knowledge to target the disadvantaged andinstigate institutional reform. As John Forester (1989) so persuasively argued inPlanning in the Face of Power, planners need to dispense with antiquated concepts ofcommunity that mask difference and power and work with multiple actors to ensurefairness.

Community Capacity

In CBEP programs, planning activities are typically conducted by a consortium oflocal interests who create a relatively formal entity such as a watershed, suburb,district or other locality-based organization to organize their activities. Thesecommunity-based environmental planning organizations (CBEPOs) enjoy varyinglevels of support, control and capacity to meet their goals, although many arerecipients of direct programmatic support from government. Others may bespontaneously formed within the community or arise from the evolution of short-term protest groups or from the amalgamation of existing stakeholder groups.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The capacity of community groups to be effective in managing environmentalresources cannot be taken for granted. There are a number of assumptions aboutcommunity capacity that are not universally tenable. First, that the group has thenecessary human, social and economic capital to undertake necessary tasks in aneffective fashion. Second, that they can perform effectively within appropriatetimeframes, given the urgency of existing environmental problems. Third, thatcommunity groups have the jurisdictional authority to intervene in resourcemanagement across multiple tenures. On public lands, such as National Parks,state agencies have existing and overriding legislative authority; on private lands theability of community organizations to intervene is limited. A final assumption is thatcommunity organizations are widely perceived as having the legitimacy to act. Giventhat these groups are private organizations whose representative claims are usuallycontested and often not widely accepted, it is problematic to assume that they areperceived as legitimate agents of planning.

To become effective managers of the environment, and to intervene effectively inenvironmental problems, community organizations require considerable social,organizational and ecological knowledge and capability (Cortner & Moote, 1999).Therefore, effective ‘civic environmentalism’ requires significant collective learningat the local level and depends on ‘social capital’ for success (Duane, 1997). Giventhat CBEPOs involve collective action, collective learning is needed to develop newknowledge, insights, perspectives and capacities. Ebrahim & Ortolano (2001) adoptan experiential learning model (see Leeuwis, 2000; Kolb, 1984) for analysing theevolution of an NGO in the water sector in India, noting in this context that thereare three main types of learning: learning by doing, exploring or imitation.Learning requires feedback processes whereby the outcomes of experiences lead tochanges in understanding and values, stimulus-response loops. Constraints on thespeed and effectiveness of the learning process include the cognitive capacities ofthe group members, the perceptual frames (preconceptions) and adaptability of themembers, emergent leadership, group dynamics and the quality of informationavailable.

For CBEPOs, two distinct areas of learning are required. First, CBEPOs mustlearn how to work as a group; they must undertake basic organizational functions,resolve conflicts, create external links and take action as a group. This is known as‘process’ learning. Second, CBEPOs must also undergo ‘substantive’ learning. Thatis, they have to learn how to influence the resource management process; thisrequires understanding of the resource issues and processes, governmental processesand the techniques to make a difference.

As noted above, the deliberate expansion of the role of CBEPOs arises fromthe failures of top-down centralized planning. Debate on the theoretical andempirical evidence for these failures can be traced at least as far back as thework of Lindblom (1965), Majone & Wildavsky (1978) and Rondinelli (1983)among others. The key point here is that reaching decisions and making plansdepend on sufficient participation and ‘social learning’. Social learning does notrefer to the technically rational approach to problem solving, but rather thedevelopment of an organizational process that can effectively engender therequisite participation as well as the development of a collective knowledge ofthe system. This is not just a political problem of achieving a consensus but is


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

also a ‘technical’ issue inasmuch as the group needs to develop goals and themeans of achieving them.

The writings of Habermas (1981) and his notion of communicative action (asdistinct from instrumental and strategic action) are an important reference here.Habermas’ work has been translated into the concepts of communicative action andcollaborative planning (Forester, 1989; Healey, 1997). Most importantly:

this type of action distinguishes itself from instrumental and strategic action inthat the co-ordination of action does not arise from an egocentric goal-orientedcalculation by self-interested actors, but from an open process of argumentationin which any claims (including normative ones) are subject to critical debate.Thus the notion of social learning is closely affiliated with that ofcommunicative action and improved communication. (Leeuwis, 2000, p. 957)

Intra- and inter-organizational interaction, communication, and collaboration arealso said to develop stores of social capital (Duane, 1997). Putnam (1993) conceivedsocial capital as being networks of reciprocal exchange, shared norms and trust. Heshowed how social capital was, in turn, a predictor of co-operation andcollaboration in a given institutional context that would ultimately enhance andmaintain institutional performance over time. Effective CBEPOs are those thatdevelop social capital within, as well as across the institutional environment in whichthey work. This simultaneously maintains the organization and enhances its efficacyin a multi-lateral context.

Collective, organizational learning emerges then as crucial to the operationalrationale for CBEP. However, the literature provides instances in which inclusive,collective learning did not emerge. In their review, for instance, of western (US)watershed planning initiatives, Kenney et al., (2000, p. 436) catalogue a number ofconcerns, including the potentially inadequate representation of all interests, thesubordination of science and national interests to local stakeholder demands, thedifficulty of addressing divisive issues through consensus-led processes, and the highcosts of building effective collaborations. CBEP is, they conclude, an ‘‘exciting butstill largely incomplete experiment in resources management and problem solving’’(Kenney et al., 2000, p. 436). These sentiments echo other examinations of thecommunity-based mode of environmental planning (see, for instance, Napier, 1998).

Enhancing community learning and capacity is potentially a more difficult task.Theoretical work in this area has been taken up enthusiastically as both a normativedirection for planning and as an operational mode. Indeed, there are successfulexamples of collective social learning that have transformed conflict-ridden orpolarized planning contexts. However, even in Forester’s (1989) seminal andinfluential account of communicative planning, the potential for distortedcommunications to inhibit dialogue and social learning was a central concern.More recently, critiques of the communicative theory of planning have pivoted onthe continuing importance of ‘‘enmeshed nets of material and discursive power’’ thatcontinue to structure, thwart or distort the possibilities for collective learning andaction (Huxley & Yiftachel, 2000, p. 339).

While there may be substantial concurrence between theory and practice, the pathis not always smooth. Groups need to undergo a development process in which the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

group is consolidated, skills are learned, and targets are set. Typically, these stagesare:

. Initial mobilization and group formation: In this initial stage with key issues ofmembership, leadership, familiarization, the development of group protocols andfinancial and other resources occurs.

. Early developmental learning and implementation: In this stage, the group beginsto act, and the crucial work of capacity building of members and client groups,mostly through learning by doing occurs before the gradual emergence of tacticalplanning and strategic action.

. Functional maturity: In this next stage the group clarifies its purpose and possiblefeasible means of achieving them, conducts some experimental activities, andbegins to understand their resource and financial requirements.

. Persistence: In the final stage, the organization seeks to sustain its efficacy so as tomaintain the interests of its participants, obtain sufficient financial and othersupport to operate and to be adaptable to changing circumstances (Selin &Chavez, 1995: Bentrup, 2001; Florin et al., 1993).

What principles could be used to develop effective responses and remedies to theseissues? First, if community and other non-state actors are to be used as agents ofplanning, then it is necessary to think about both the process and substantivelearning of these groups. Second, because it is known that critical debate andargumentation are crucial to social learning, planners should foster inter- and intra-organizational interaction and communication as a means of assisting learning.Third, while it is common for group members and policy makers to expect significantresults in the short term, the time requirements and transaction costs of social andorganizational learning are high. For these reasons, short-term results or high levelsof capacity from immature groups are unlikely. Finally, the speed of the learningprocess is linked to the breadth of the group’s interests. Groups with narrowexpectations, perhaps as set out in policy or programmatic requirements, are likelyto learn more quickly than groups with broader expectations (see Born & Genskow,2001).

What might these principles mean for the practice of CBEP? First, plannersworking in this domain need to create the forums for inter-organizationalcommunication and, therefore, social learning. Planners can enhance processes oflearning by selecting activities that reinforce group learning and provide rewards forsuccess. Second, planners should recognize the ‘life cycle’ of community organiza-tions by fostering organizational learning in newer groups and only making heavierdemands of more established, capable organizations. Third, organizations will needassistance along the way to aid the learning process and build social capital; plannerscan support this by assisting processes of learning and providing resources foractivities that build capacity.

Ecological Scale and Function

CBEP, in both ‘theory’ and practice, provides a localized response to ecologicalproblems. The ecological model commonly employed by planners is one of small-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

scale, closed ecological systems that are linear and predictable (Leach et al., 1999). Incontrast, ecological theorizing has, over the past decade, increasingly emphasizedlarge, open-ended ecological systems characterized by non-linearity and unpredict-ability (Gunderson et al., 1995; Crossley, 1996). Ecological scientists now advocateresponses that are wider in scale, incorporating cognizance of the ecological systemsin which environmental problems are manifest, and an adaptive, experimentalresponse to ecological intervention.

The concept of an ecosystem as a predictable system in which change is linear orsuccessional has been a mainstay in ecological thought. It was a concept quicklyadapted by environmental planners (see, for example, Hammitt & Cole, 1987; Lucas,1992). It is a model that has been under sustained challenge since Botkin posited analternative view in Discordant Harmonies (1990). The new orthodoxy in environ-mental management is to understand ecosystems as uncertain and unpredictable,non-linear and open-ended. Whereas earlier thinking held that human-inducedecological change could be rectified through restorative efforts that would restore thesystem to equilibrium, current thinking regards ecosystem response to surpriseevents as non-linear, uncertain and unpredictable (Zimmerer, 2000). Instead ofevolutionary change occurring through a series of reasonably predictable stages, theecology manifest in any area at any time is a product of unique events in the historyof that system and the unique and unpredictable responses of the system to thechange. In addition, ecological systems co-evolve with management and intervention(Gunderson et al., 1995).

The new ecology has two key implications for environmental planning. First,the unpredictable, disequilibrious character of ecosystems is in part responsiblefor the new mantra of environmental managers: adaptiveness. Environmentalmanagers must now be adaptive to surprise events and changes, recognize thattheir interventions are themselves potential sources of (unpredictable) ecologicalchange, and that their efforts are experiments in ecological intervention (Crossley,1996). Therefore, environmental planning must shift from seeking to achieve long-range prescriptions with fixed objectives to a more flexible approach in whichgreater emphasis is placed on monitoring ecological change, and flexibility intactics and targets (Beatley, 2000). CBEP has potentially much to offer here. Partof the attractiveness of utilizing communities as an agent of planning is that,being closer to the problem, they are more likely to be able to adapt todiscernable changes.

Second, the changes in ecological theory have implications for the scale ofplanning because they place heightened emphasis on the systemic dimensions ofecological function rather than locally perceived manifestations of an ecologicalproblem. This suggests that planning responses need to be wider in scale, focusing onthe indicators of system health, such as the viability of ecological populations, andusing planning tools effectively on a system-wide basis in addition to locally targetedinterventions.

Pritchard & Sanderson (2002, p. 150) argue that since ‘‘ecological change occurs inthe patchy, cross-scale manner . . . there is no single right scale for management’’.CBEP, almost by definition, is an approach to responding to environmentalproblems that is consistently small in scale and local in character. Pritchard andSanderson (2002) capture the central dilemma here superbly:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

The real challenge is responding to systems that are both cross-scale anddynamic, where the nature of cross-scale influences in the linked ecological-economic-social system changes over time, creating fundamental problems forthe division of responsibility between centralized and decentralized agents. (p.150)

This critique is, at this point, an entirely theoretical one; empirical research thatsupports or contradicts these propositions is limited. To some extent, this problemreflects a wider dilemma in the field. One of the endemic problems in CBEP is lackof authoritative evidence for planning success or failure in ecological or otherterms. The reasons for this relate to the topical breadth of planning, and to thetime lag between implementation and measurable ecological change (Leach et al.,2002).

While the implications of these revisions to ecological theory have been taken upfor other disciplines, the implications for planning have been poorly explicated. Themost important response can be seen in the development of the field of ‘ecosystemmanagement’ (Grumbine, 1994), an interdisciplinary field that also responds todeclining faith in modernist science and the need to incorporate stakeholders andtheir knowledge in decision making. It is in the area of ecosystem management, thatthe emergence of the call for adaptive management can be located.

In terms of a planning principle that flows from this critique, it is suggested thatsince ecological functioning and change are multi-scalar, environmental planningneeds also to function (concurrently) at multiple scales (Beatley, 2000). Whileempowering local communities might have appeal for localized problems such as,say, soil erosion, it is unlikely to assist in environmental issues manifest at widerscales, such as biodiversity conservation where other scales of analysis are required.For some issues, a wider, strategic gaze is needed to identify the character of theproblem and what might be done about it. Environmental planning in a givenjurisdiction needs to simultaneously harness the energy and knowledge of localities,while maintaining the regulatory and policy capabilities of central government. Forthese reasons, the concept of ‘subsidiarity’ is important: it is necessary to think aboutprecisely which kinds of environmental planning activities might be appropriatelylocated at the local scale and which require a national or provincial capability (Laneet al., 2004).

Two possible remedies might be considered in relation to CBEP programs. First,the disadvantages of the localized focus of CBEP can be ameliorated (and largelyretain the advantages) by ensuring that local initiatives and programs articulate withenvironmental management agenda at wider scales. Such a response, located firmlyin the heart of the tension between designing ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ programs,requires programmatic design that enables local action and response within aframework in which objectives at wider scales are also respected. In other words,environmental planning needs to become multi-scalar. Second, CBEP (as well asother forms of environmental planning) needs to be operationalized within aframework and ethic that maximizes flexibility and adaptiveness. Operationally, thiscan be achieved by shifting from long-range fixed targets, to a more diverse set ofgoals and methods, and a significantly greater emphasis on monitoring ecologicalchange as a response to planned interventions.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Technical and Indigenous Knowledge

An important ingredient in the turn towards more decentralized environmentalplanning, including CBEP, co-management, collaborative planning, and in therationale for participation in planning more generally, is the need to complementscientific knowledge with other forms of knowledge (Berkes et al., 1998). Whilethere has been a chorus of voices calling for the inclusion of other forms ofknowledge, two dilemmas are observable. First, can community-based approachesthat are premised on harnessing indigenous knowledge and local energy also retaintechnical (scientific) fidelity in their response to environmental problems? Second,how are different, even competing, knowledges reconciled in a single planningdecision or process?

Western scientific knowledge and analysis dominates natural resource manage-ment even in developing countries with strong remnant traditional societies. Thismanagement paradigm experiences serious weaknesses. First, the scientific approachis reductionist and very demanding on formal data acquisition and instrumentalknowledge about the relationship between resource management practices andresource outcomes. Second, the scientific approach carries an image of objectivity ofanalysis when in fact values are inherent throughout the process—from problemdefinition, data acquisition to solutions—depending as they do on the values of thescientific practitioners and their policy context, and on the limitations of quantitativescience. Third, the limitless array of problems, time pressures and localities thatenvironmental management encounters, puts almost impossible demands onscientific bases for policy and action. Fourth, there is a tendency to ignore or atleast dismiss the importance of locally relevant indigenous knowledge in themanagement of natural resources (Scott, 1998).

CBEP offers the possibility of extending the reach of science and overcoming itsinherent biases and limitations by incorporating other forms of knowledge aslegitimate, harnessing local assistance and energy, and incorporating the ideas andwisdom of local people (Berkes et al., 1998; Warburton, 1998; Kruger & Shannon,2000).

Many community-based, ‘bottom-up’ planning processes are based on thesepremises, i.e. the need to democratize the science and generate solutions based onlocal knowledge and participation. While this may lead to improved managementoutcomes (and especially improved social learning), there is a significant risk that theresulting programs will be technically flawed, perhaps creating further difficulties.The problems are potentially multiple and include: inaccurate or incomplete datacollection, decision making based on past experiences that have limited predictivepower when the circumstances and threats are unprecedented, the technical solutionsposited may be flawed—ineffective, inefficient, short-term or localized, and theremay be difficulties in ensuring the translation or articulation of local action withbroader regional and even global concerns.

As Foreman (1998) suggests, the role and use of science is itself caught up in apolitical dynamic:

The central political project of ecopopulism is the amplification andempowerment of the collective voice of ordinary citizens, a stance that remains


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

skeptical not only of corporate power but also of its perceived handmaidens inscience and technology. From this perspective, science and scientific findingsmay be helpful but are just as likely to provide a distraction or, worse yet,ammunition for the enemy. That is why grassroots environmental activistsregularly counsel communities . . . to be wary of science in general andinstitutional epidemiologic analysis in particular. (p. 60)

This has created in environmental planning a ‘‘wide chasm indeed between amanagerial language emphasizing scientific expertise as a legitimating force inpolicymaking and a communitarian alternative espousing direct citizen action andinfluence as primary’’(Williams & Matheny, 1995, p. 69).

Taking a synoptic view, the empirical literature provides a dichotomy:promotion of indigenous knowledge on the one hand, and lamenting the lack ofscientific rigor in decision making on the other. While the contours of the problemshave been documented from various angles, ‘‘no one appears to have a clear senseof how the two halves of the policy whole should be put together’’ (Foreman,1998, p. 61).

Indigenous knowledge is the subject of a huge literature in the social sciencesand particularly anthropology. Writers such as Levi-Strauss (1962) andFeyerabend (1999) observe that while both indigenous and western-scientificknowledge are based on observation, in the former the construction of theknowledge is holistic, territorially oriented and concrete, whereas western scienceis abstract, reductionist and separates the human from the natural. In Seeing Likea State, James C. Scott (1998) draws on Plato and Aristotle to distinguishtechnical knowledge or techne, and indigenous knowledge or metis. ‘‘Techne ischaracterized by impersonal, often quantitative precision and a concern withexplanation and verification’’ he explains, while metis is concerned with personal,experiential knowledge and practical results (1998, p. 320). For Scott, thescientific ‘measurement’ (of a landscape) is a process of rendering it legible;however, the scientific lens provides only for selective vision, and the crucialelements of that landscape, including people and their customary practices arethus rendered illegible (1998). Technical knowledge simultaneously sharpens ourfocus and obscures our vision.

The planning principle here is probably obvious. Both scientific and indigenousknowledge have a role to play in environmental planning. Romanticizing orvalorizing either is problematic. What remedies might apply? To the extent thattwo kinds of knowledge are implicated in CBEP, an appropriate remedial responseto the problems identified here might lie in restructuring the way in which ‘inquiry’occurs in planning. Instead of a dichotomized process of social learning on the onehand and formally structured (scientific) research into the physical and socio-economic environment on the other, planning inquiry might be more effectivelystructured as a co-ordinated process in which collective learning also involveslearning about the physical and socio-economic environment; a process in whichthese processes of learning occur concurrently and are mutually reinforcing or atleast articulating. Fischer (2000) has advocated such an approach and shown howit would assist and inform environmental decision-making. He calls this approach‘civic discovery’.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Parochialism

Community organizations are most likely to respond to immediate and observableenvironmental problems such as traffic, noise, flooding or soil erosion. This is thepower of local action. Unfortunately, the causes of resource management problemsare often complex, uncertain and systemic; therefore the solutions may lie beyondthe locality. Moreover, the problems may take decades to be resolved and may evenbe intractable. Responding in a tactically and strategically savvy manner toenvironmental problems requires sophisticated substantive skills as well as a widergaze.

Most resource management problems have differential impacts on sectionalinterest groups in the community. It is difficult to measure the magnitude ofparochial or sectional interests compared with the ‘public interest’ in any decision. Inmulti-level federal and municipal systems there will be conflict about thegeographical distribution of these costs and benefits. Two well-known ‘syndromes’are associated with the management of distributional aspects of planning decisions.First, there is the ‘pork-barrel’, the case where expenditure and other decisions aremade to the benefit of local interests that are not in the national or public interest.Second, there is the NIMBY case where local pressure groups oppose decisions theyperceive as undesirable but which are possibly in the national or public interest. Ineither case, there is rarely concurrence between the perspective of parochial interestgroups and that of agencies seeking to understand and act in the public interest.Kenney et al. (2000) describe the problem in this way:

a reliance on consensus discredits value differences, ensures that zero-sumproblems are not addressed, encourages ‘lowest common denominator’decisions, and provides few due process protections. (p. 401)

They conclude that ‘‘the views of distant stakeholders should have equal weight indecisions involving public resources. Public officials should make decisions aboutpublic resources’’ (Kenney et al., 2000, p. 401).

Scale is the crucial concept here: scale at which the problem is perceived and atwhich a response is instigated. An important conundrum associated with scale inenvironmental planning is that regionally beneficial decisions may have adverseconsequences locally, while locally beneficial decisions may adversely impact theenvironment at wider scales. Writing about growth management efforts in the US,Bollens (1992) has highlighted the unwillingness or inability of local governments todeal with growth issues beyond municipal boundaries. Bollens’ work classified the‘mismatches’ between the scale at which regulation occurred and the level of impact.He observed a category of decisions where harmful regional effects were notconsidered in local decisions (e.g. traffic or environmental degradation) and anotherin which local communities blocked unwanted uses beneficial to the wider region(e.g. affordable housing, waste management facilities or roads).

Individual and collective stakeholders tend to think ‘parochially’. For immaturegroups, this can be explained by insufficient substantive knowledge or a lack ofappreciation of the wider framework in which environmental decisions are made.However, the perseverance of parochial thinking as groups mature requires an


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

alternate explanation. Iris Marion Young (1990) is instructive here. She shows howinterest group pluralism makes no distinction between the assertion of selfishinterests and normative policy claims. This ‘‘strategic conception of policy discussionfosters political cynicism’’ by ensuring that interests groups act to win policy contests(by any means) rather than promoting the public deliberation of normative or publicvalues (1990, p. 72).

The short term and parochial focus of community-based environmental planningeffort has been highlighted by a number of researchers. Leach and others (1999)regard it as one of the major shortfalls of the approach. In Napier’s (1998)comprehensive study of soil conservation efforts in the mid-west of the US, theparochial focus of farmers and local groups is a major restraint on the capacity ofcommunity-based conservation to deliver major improvements in land management.Reviews of the national experiment in CBEP being undertaken in Australia, theNatural Heritage Trust, have highlighted the ephemeral character of groupsreceiving financial assistance and therefore the short-term benefits of their workand also the lack of a wider, strategic direction in their work (see CIE & CSIRO,1999).

Theoretically, community groups engaged in environmental planning learn theskills and develop the social networks to become more effective long-term players innatural resource management. ‘Social learning’ can ensure that the work ofcommunity groups is not short term and, as they develop their understanding of thebreadth and interconnectedness of environmental problems, become less parochial(Leeuwis, 2000).

Blair (1996) in his analysis of decentralization and common property resourcemanagement problems in South Asia noted that there are indeed conditions wherecommunity-based local user groups are appropriate and effective. These occur whereit is feasible to control access to the resource and to avoid ‘free riders’, where also thestakeholders have a clear and accurate perception of the environmental linkagesinvolved, and where they are motivated to obtain the benefits only possible from co-operative local control (Blair, 1996). These conditions may be met in the case of localcommunity forests, small scale irrigation and local grasslands, but are not met formany other complex environmental resources (such as river basins or coastal zones)or for public infrastructure such as roads, where at least one of these conditions doesnot hold. From this analysis it is possible to identify the effective scope ofappropriate CBEP programs.

There are a number of planning principles that follow from this analysis thatmight be used to develop remedies to the potential parochialism of the CBEPapproach. First, the principle of subsidiarity is again important: it is necessary tothink about the effective scope of CBEP, recognize that local responses may beappropriate for some problems but that a wider gaze (and response) may be neededfor other environmental problems. CBEP is unlikely to be the best planning responsefor all problems. Therefore, there is a need to vest planning agency at theappropriate scale of governance. Second, it must be recognized that for manyenvironmental planning problems there is a public interest as well as local interests.The notion of a public interest has tended to fall from view as a more devolved,deliberative approach has been pursued to environmental management in which theparticular ‘interests’ of stakeholders are paramount; it is suggested that the notion of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

a public interest in planning needs rejuvenation. Third, and again to hint at theappropriate scope of CBEP, environmental planning activities need to have bothshort and long-term time horizons, and should be concurrently operational at localand wider scales.

It is further suggested that a range of possible remedies follow from theseprinciples. First, by linking ‘bottom-up’ planning efforts with the ‘top-down’establishment of strategic and regional criteria and priorities, planning in thecommunity-based mode might be less parochial in focus and therefore deliver atwider scales. This may be enhanced by financial equalization or compensation forthe mismatch in the geographic distribution of winners and losers (multi-locality userpays). In pursuing such a strategy, the frequent dichotomization of ‘bottom-up’ and‘top-down’ has to be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced appreciation of thepossible contributions of planning at both ends of the continuum. Second, lessparochial planning might result if, when accrediting community groups for financialand other assistance, preference is given to groups that demonstrably co-ordinatewith neighboring groups and institutions. This enables the community-based modeto articulate at wider scales. Third, planners should assiduously seek to providecommunity groups with information and technical support that enables them tolearn about the systemic dimensions and implications of their work is a means ofassisting such groups to think regionally (even globally) while acting locally.

Conclusion

This paper has developed a critical conceptual and operational review ofcommunity-based environmental planning based on a diverse, internationalliterature. The authors hope the paper will not be read as a jeremiad: instead, it ishoped that its constructive intent is discernable. In summary terms, it is suggestedthat CBEP potentially offers a constructive way for citizens to respond toenvironmental issues in their localities. This potential needs to be understood,however, in the context of the realities and complexities of environmentalgovernance in contemporary democratic settings. The multiple, overlapping (andoften competing) formal and informal institutions engaged in resource managementoperate and interact at multiple political scales. As they interact, they re-fashion theinstitutions themselves and, in so doing, forge environmental management outcomesthat rarely conform to formal prescriptions. It is in this multi-scalar, dynamic and a-systemic context that CBEP operates. To complicate matters, the substantiveenvironmental problems being pursued are multi-scalar. In such a context, the roleof CBEP is limited, not universal.

Therefore, it is suggested that vesting (environmental) planning agency in localcommunities should not mean abandoning environmental planning activities atwider scales. Moreover, it is suggested that a state planning capability needs to beretained, both to enable planning responses at wider scales and to mediate amongdivergent interests involved in planning at the local level. Indeed, as Abers (2000) hasdemonstrated, so much of the potential of grass roots participation and actiondepends on the enabling and nurturing functions of the state.

Beyond these conceptual matters, the practice of CBEP potentially entails a hostof operational dilemmas and problems. As the literature on community participation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

in a host of contexts over more than a generation demonstrates, the concepts ofparticipation, equity and democracy are difficult to realize. In terms of the critiquepresented here, it is suggested that: (1) enabling ‘community’ action yet respectingdiversity and difference; (2) achieving widespread, yet equitable participation; (3)ensuring that community ‘delivers’ as an agent of planning; and (4) developing adeliberative process that both respects and utilizes indigenous and scientificknowledge in planning, represent an exceedingly difficult set of operationalchallenges. The authors have attempted here to discern planning principles thatflow from these operational difficulties and posit some possible remedies. Thesuggestions obviously do not constitute an exhaustive checklist: the contexts—institutional, socio-cultural and ecological—in which CBEP is practiced are far toodiverse for that. Instead, the agenda has been to contribute to the process of refiningand improving the practice of CBEP.

References

Abers, R. (2000) Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil (London: Lynne Rienner

Publishers).

Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C. C. (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural

resource conservation, World Development, 27(4), pp. 629 – 649.

Agrawal, A. & Ribot, J. (1999) Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and

West African Cases, The Journal of Developing Areas, 33, pp. 473 – 502.

Alexander, E. R. (1994) The non-Euclidean mode of planning: what is it to be? Journal of the American

Planning Association, 60(3), pp. 372 – 376.

Amy, D. J. (1987) The Politics of Environmental Mediation (New York: Columbia University Press).

Arnstein, S. R. (1969) Ladder of citizen participation, Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35, pp.

216 – 224.

Bauman, Z. (2001) Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World (London: Polity Press).

Beatley, T. (2000) Preserving biodiversity: challenges for planners, Journal of the American Planning

Association, 66(1), pp. 5 – 20.

Beatley, T., Brower, D. J. & Lucy, W. H. (1994) Representation in comprehensive planning: an analysis of

the Austinplan process, Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(2), pp. 185 – 196.

Bentrup, G. (2001) Evaluation of a collaborative model: a case study analysis of watershed planning in the

intermountain west, Environmental Management, 27(5), pp. 739 – 748.

Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Colding, J. (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press).

Blair, H. W. (1996) Democracy, equity and common property resource management in the Indian

subcontinent, Development and Change, 27, pp. 475 – 499.

Bollens, S. A. (1992) State growth management: intergovernmental frameworks and policy objectives,

Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, pp. 454 – 466.

Born, S. E. & Genskow, K. D. (2001) Toward Understanding New Watershed Initiatives: A Report from the

Madison Watershed Workshop (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison).

Botkin, D. (1990) Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (Oxford: Oxford

University Press).

Breckenridge, L. P. (1999) Nonprofit environmental organizations and the restructuring of institutions for

ecosystem management, Ecology Law Quarterly, 25(4), pp. 692 – 706.

CIE & CSIRO (Centre for International Economics and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organization) (1999) Midterm review of the Natural Heritage Trust: Bushcare Program

(Canberra: Centre for International Economics and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organization).

Carr, D. S. & Halvorsen, K. (2001) An evaluation of three democratic, community-based approaches to

citizen participation: surveys, conversations with community groups, and community dinners, Society

and Natural Resources, 14, pp. 107 – 126.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Colvin, R. A. (2002) Community-based environment protection, citizen participation, and the Albany Pine

Bush Preserve, Society and Natural Resources, 15, pp. 447 – 454.

Cortner, H. J. & Moote, M. A. (1999) The Politics of Ecosystem Management (Washington DC: Island

Press).

Crossley, J. W. (1996) Managing ecosystems for integrity: theoretical considerations for resource and

environmental managers, Society and Natural Resources, 9(5), pp. 465 – 481.

Duane, T. P. (1997) Community participation in ecosystem management, Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, pp.

771 – 797.

Ebrahim, A. & Ortolano, L. (2001) Learning processes in development planning: a theoretical overview

and case study, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, pp. 448 – 463.

Ehrenberg, J. (1999) Civil Society: A Critical History of an Idea (New York: New York University Press).

Feyerabend, P. K. (1999) Knowledge, Science, and Relativism: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3, ed. J.

Preston (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment (Durham: Duke University Press).

Florin, P. A., Mitchell, R. & Stevenson, J. (1993) Identifying training and technical assistance

needs in community coalitions: a developmental approach, Health Education Research, 8(3), pp.

417 – 432.

Foreman Jr., C. H. (1998) Blended rationality and democracy: an elusive synthesis for environmental

policy reform, Science Communication, 20(1), pp. 56 – 61.

Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Friedmann, J. (1973) Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning (New York: Doubleday

Anchor).

Friedmann, J. (1993) Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning, Journal of the American Planning

Association, 59(4), pp. 482 – 485.

Friedmann, J. (1994) The utility of non-Euclidean planning, Journal of the American Planning Association,

60(3), pp. 377 – 379.

Gibson, C. C., McKean, M. A. & Ostrom, E. (2000) Explaining deforestation: the role of local institutions,

in: C. C. Gibson, M. A. McKean & E. Ostrom (Eds) People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and

Governance, pp. 1 – 26 (London: The MIT Press).

Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S. & Light, S. S. (1995) Barriers broken and bridges built: a synthesis, in: L.

H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling & S. S. Light (Eds) Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and

Institutions, pp. 489 – 533 (New York: Columbia University Press).

Gray, G. J., Enzer, M. J. & Kusel, J. (2001) Understanding community-based forest management: an

editorial synthesis, in: G. J. Gray, M. J. Enzer & J. Kusel (Eds) Understanding Community-Based Forest

Ecosystem Management, pp. 1 – 23 (New York: Hawarth Press Inc).

Grumbine, R. E. (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), pp. 27 – 38.

Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. (The Theory of Communicative Action, trans.

by T. McCarthy) (Boston: Beacon Press).

Hammitt, W. E. & Cole, D. N. (1987) Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (New York: John

Wiley & Sons).

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London: MacMillan

Press).

Huxley, M. & Yiftachel, O. (2000) New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative turn in

planning theory, Journal of Planning Education & Research, 19(4), pp. 333 – 342.

Hyman, E. L. & Stiftel, B. (1988) Combining Facts and Values in Environmental Impact Assessment:

Theories and Techniques (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).

Kellert, S. R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S. & Lichtenfeld, L. L. (2000) Community natural resource

management: promise, rhetoric, and reality, Society and Natural Resources, 13, pp. 705 – 715.

Kemmis, D. (1990) Community and the Politics of Place (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press).

Kenney, D. S., McAllister, S. T., Caile, W. H. & Peckham, J. S. (2000) The New Watershed Sourcebook: A

Directory and Review of Watershed Initiatives in the Western United States (Boulder: University of

Colorado Natural Resources Law Center).

Kingsley, G. T. (1996) Perspectives on devolution, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), pp.

419 – 426.

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development

(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Kruger, L. E. & Shannon, M. A. (2000) Getting to know ourselves and our places through participation in

civic social assessment, Society & Natural Resources, 13(5), pp. 461 – 478.

Lane, M. B. (2003) Participation, decentralization, and civil society: indigenous rights and democracy in

environmental planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), pp. 360 – 373.

Lane, M. B., McDonald, G. T. & Morrison, T. (2004) Decentralisation and environmental management in

Australia: a comment on the prescriptions of the Wentworth Group, Australian Geographical Studies,

42(1), pp. 102 – 114.

Leach, M., Mearns, R. & Scoones, I. (1999) Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in

community-based natural resource management, World Development, 27(2), pp. 225 – 247.

Leach, W. D., Pelkey, N. W. & Sabatier, P. A. (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative

policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington,

Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 21(4), pp. 645 – 670.

Leeuwis, C. (2000) Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: towards a

negotiation approach, Development and Change, 31(5), pp. 931 – 959.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1962) The Savage Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Li, T. M. (1996) Images of community: discourse and strategy in property relations, Development and

Change, 27, pp. 501 – 527.

Li, T. M. (2002) Engaging simplifications: community-based resource management, market processes and

state agendas in upland Southeast Asia, World Development, 30(2), pp. 265 – 283.

Lindblom, C. E. (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment (New

York: Free Press).

Lovell, C., Mandondo, A. & Moriarty, P. (2002) The question of scale in integrated natural resource

management, Conservation Ecology, 5(2), pp. 25 – 49.

Lucas, P. H. C. (1992) Protected Landscapes: A Guide For Policy Makers and Planners (London: Chapman

& Hall).

Majone, G. & Wildavsky, A. (1978) Implementation as evolution, Policy Studies Review, 2, pp. 103 – 117.

Mansbridge, J. (1983) Beyond Adversary Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Mayberry-Lewis, D. (1997) Indigenous Peoples, Ethnic Groups, and the State (Boston: Allyn and Bacon).

McConnell, G. (1966) Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).

Moore, C. M. (2001) What is community? in: P. Brick, D. Snow & S. Van De Wetering (Eds) Across the

Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative Conservation and the American West, pp. 71 – 76

(Washington DC: Island Press).

Myrdal, G. (1968) Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations (London: Allen Lane, Penguin

Press).

Napier, T. L. (1998) Impacts of voluntary conservation initiatives in the Darby Creek watershed of Ohio,

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53(1), pp. 78 – 84.

Nursey-Bray, M. (1999) Community histories and participation in environmental management, in: S.

Dovers (Ed.) Australian Environmental History: Essays and Cases, pp. 165 – 191 (Melbourne: Oxford

University Press).

Pritchard, L. & Sanderson, S. E. (2002) The dynamics of political discourse in seeking sustainability, in: L.

H. Gunderson & C. S. Holling (Eds) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural

Systems, pp.147 – 172 (Washington DC: Island Press).

Putnam, R. D. (1993)Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton NJ: Princeton

University Press).

Rondinelli, D. A. (1983) Development Projects as Policy Experiments: An Adaptive Approach to

Development Administration (New York: Routledge).

Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis (Chichester: Wiley).

Sarin, M. (1995) Regenerating India’s forests: reconciling gender equity with joint forest management, IDS

Bulletin, 26(1), pp. 83 – 91.

Scheberle, D. (2000) Moving towards community-based environmental management, American Behavioral

Scientist, 44(4), pp. 565 – 580.

Scott, J. C. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed

(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Selin, S. & Chavez, D. (1995) Developing a collaborative model for environmental-planning and

management, Environmental Management, 19(2), pp. 189 – 195.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Talen, E. (2000) The problem with community in planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 15(2), pp. 171 –

183.

US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1999) EPA’s Framework for Community-Based

Environmental Protection. EPA 237-K-99-001 (Washington DC: US EPA).

Warburton, D. (Ed.) (1998) Community and Sustainable Development: Participation in the Future (London:

Earthscan Publications).

Western, D., Wright, M. R. & Strum, S. C. (Eds) (1994) Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-

based Conservation (Washington DC: Island Press).

Williams, B. A. & Matheny, A. R. (1995) Democracy, Dialogue, and Environmental Disputes: The

Contested Languages of Social Regulation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Wondolleck, J. M. & Yaffee, S. L. (2000) Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural

Resource Management (Washington DC: Island Press).

Young, I. M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Young, I. M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Zimmerer, K. S. (2000) The reworking of conservation geographies: non equilibrium landscapes and

nature-society hybrids, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(2), pp. 356 – 369.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

49 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Community-based Environmental Planning: Operational Dilemmas, Planning Principles and Possible Remedies