...their successful management requires actions across a multiplicity of tenures, both public and private. Public participation, often involving multiple publics, then becomes essential to meet societal demands for inclusion in decision making regarding public goods, such as national forests, and the "public good," as well as enabling collective action where it is needed to achieve on-ground outcomes (e.g., in agricultural catchments where landholders need to work together to effect catchment-wide changes across numerous properties).

Public participation in environmental management and the factors contributing to its success and failure have been the focus of intense research attention for several decades (Bingham, 1986; Crowfoot & Wondolleck, 1990; Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987; Webler & Tuler, 2001). Critical factors have been identified and categorized as participant-, process-, context-, and substance-related (Bingham, 1986). The participant-related factors are of direct relevance to representation and include the identification and involvement of all affected interests, numbers and types of parties or people involved, and direct involvement of decision makers (often government officers). The process-related success factor of maintenance of a good representative-constituency relationship is also relevant. Representation is a critical feature of public participation, and of democratic processes more generally, because participation may be limited by sheer numbers or the distances involved. As such, representatives are needed to act on the public's behalf.

Representation has a related but separate history of investigation, spanning many centuries, but has only in recent times been a central consideration in democratic thought (Dahl, 1989). Much of this research uses logical argument and theorising to explore the requirements of representation in democratic societies. Another related approach taken by Lane and McDonald (2005) and Moore (2005) has assessed if those affected by decision making associated with NRM have been properly represented, using principles derived from theories of democracy. This study takes a different, novel approach, using the views and voices of respondents to identify the ideal qualities of representatives and then exploring current practice using these qualities.

As such, this article has two aims, realized through accessing the views of those involved in groups making decisions about NRM. The first is to determine the ideal qualities of representatives. The second is to explore, using these qualities, how well representation is meeting the expectations of those involved in decision making. Groups involved in making decisions about NRM in Australia at a number of different spatial scales provide the focus for this study.

Decision making involving the public occurs at multiple spatial and/or administrative scales, whether it is associated with natural resources, community development or provision of services such as education and health. Scale is acknowledged as both socially and politically constructed, with social relations an integral consideration (Bulkeley, 2005). The spatial and administrative scales of participatory decision making have intrigued many researchers, particularly those interested in sustainable development and environmental dispute resolution. Smaller scales, especially regional (i.e., subnational), have been advocated by those working in sustainable development (Dore & Woodhill, 1999; Ribot, 2004). Successful dispute resolution has been linked on many occasions to smaller scales because there are fewer people to bring to consensus (Bingham, 1986) and they may be more attached to their "place" and hence more committed to resolution and implementation of decisions. Given the centrality of representation in participatory decision making, it seems critical to gain an understanding of how representation may differ, in ideal and practice, between scales.

Australia provides an ideal location for researching representation and scale, with decision making in NRM providing the research context. This country is facing rapidly degrading natural resources, with agricultural practices shouldering much of the blame (Wentworth Group, 2002). As such, the Australian Government has committed significant amounts of funding and policy attention to moving agricultural landholders toward more sustainable practices regarding their soils, water and vegetation. This attention has been directed at four, nested spatial scales--state or province, region, land conservation district (subregional; shire or county), and subcatchment (the smallest scale). Above the state level, the Australian Commonwealth Government provides policy advice and funding, but because the states have responsibility for environmental matters (Bates, 1995), the national government has an advisory and directive role rather than a direct implementation function in NRM.

Methods

A case study approach was used to guide the design and execution of this study (Yin, 1994). The case studies were located within four spatial or administrative scales--state, regional (subnational), land conservation district (shire or county), and subcatchment (Table 1). The research was undertaken in the state of Western Australia, where these scales collectively capture all the levels of decision making for NRM in Australia, excluding the Commonwealth Government who has a less direct role. The state group, the Soil and Land Conservation Council, provides a forum for developing a whole-of-government and community approach to NRM policy development. Regional groups are charged with implementing Australian Government policy while at the same time representing their communities and overseeing implementation of NRM activities (Moore & Rockloff, 2006).

Two different types of regional groups were included--one formed through government-led regionalization (South-West Regional Partnership Group, Central Agricultural Regional Partnership Group) and the other through community-led regionalism (Blackwood Basin Group, Avon Working Group) (Dore & Woodhill, 1999) (Table 1). Both are typical of this scale of environmental decision making in Australia and elsewhere (Jennings & Moore, 2000). Land conservation district committees have held responsibility for many years for land conservation activities at a shire level, while subcatchment groups have had an even smaller scale focus and responsibilities for coordinating and achieving sustainable on-ground actions through the implementation of farm and subcatchment plans.

Ten cases were selected to cover the four spatial scales (two cases per scale where possible) and to provide within scale replication to support the external validity of the results. Replication at the state scale was not possible because the other state-level NRM group in Western Australia was closed to observers and the researchers. Each case centered on a decision considered and made by the group, specified collectively by each group with the first author, with the case concluding once the decision was reached. This allowed respondents' reflections on representation to be provided from the perspective of real decision making resulting in an outcome.

This study relied on systematic replication design (Yin, 1994) with all 10 cases investigated simultaneously. Multiple forms of evidence ensured construct validity and reliability, and allowed for triangulation and comparison across cases (Yin, 1994). Evidence included transcribed interviews, observation notes taken during group meetings and tours, and documents. Documents were both public (official agenda and meeting notes, policy and strategy papers, media articles, letters) and private materials (internal group documents). A total of 77 people, about half the group members (Table 1, column 4), were interviewed. Of these, 79 percent were community members and 21 percent from government departments. Interviewees included the full range of group members: farmers, local community members, local government representatives, state government staff, industry members, farming organization representatives, conservationists, corporate business people, nongovernment organization representatives, and community landcare coordinators. Women were interviewed in all groups except for one government-led regional group where there were no current women members. Women were generally well represented through committed individuals who frequently held executive positions in groups (e.g., chairperson, secretary, coordinators). There was no type of person or member that was not represented in those participants interviewed.

Interviewees were asked a number of questions related to participation in NRM decision making. None referred specifically to representation. Respondents were asked general questions about themselves (why they had joined the group, their participation in it, and their future involvement) and about the group itself (their views of the decision-making process and outcome, especially issues or problems hindering success and satisfaction of ideals, and future directions of the group) (Rockloff, 2004). Because representation was mentioned in the first interviews,...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Policy Studies Journal
Comparison of DOE and Army advisory boards: application of a conceptua..., November 01, 2006

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.