Challenges to the co‐management of biodiversity in a reflexive modernity. (13th April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bardsley, Douglas K; Bardsley, Annette M; Moskwa, Emily; Weber, Delene; Robinson, Guy M
• Is Part Of: Geographical research. Volume 59:Number 3(2021)
• Page Start: 362
• Page End: 377
• Publication Date: 2021-04-13
• Subjects: biodiversity conservation -- co‐management -- engagement -- governance -- reflexivity -- South Australia; Geography -- Research -- Periodicals; Geography -- Australasia -- Periodicals; Human geography -- Periodicals; Physical geography -- Periodicals; 304.2072
• DOI: 10.1111/1745-5871.12468
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1745-5863

Abstract

Abstract: The marginalisation of people from natural areas has dominated conservation approaches in post‐colonial societies such as Australia. Yet the approach is limited, in part because people are also excluded from co‐managing their local environments, an effect that raises important questions about the future of conservation in a reflexive era where account must also be taken of how to manage risks such as bushfires. To address the complexity of social processes that influence conservation, new forms of co‐management between governments and community stakeholders are evolving but do not always achieve their participatory aims. In this article, discrepancies between perceptions of conservation governance and the responsibilities and activities of the South Australian Government are examined by reference to original research involving a residential survey and a follow‐up focus group discussion with local community and non‐profit environmental organisations. Findings suggest that local environmental groups are knowledge‐rich and strong relationships exist between local conservation actors and government officers, but those partnerships receive only limited support. In addition, opportunities for co‐management between government and non‐governmental environmental organisations are hindered by insufficient acknowledgement within government of the importance of unique, actionable local knowledge; an inability to effectively coordinate activities across and between government and non‐government actors; and an unwillingness to engage with stakeholders in a manner that develops and maintains trust.