Search

Despite the popularity and rhetoric of collaborative approaches, the successes of such initiatives are not widespread and remain elusive. Some commentators argue that without ‘the noise of participation’, a return to centralised governance should be reconsidered. Whilst this conclusion may be premature given the lack of rigorous analysis of collaborative approaches, it calls for a closer examination of contexts and processes that are conducive to the success of collaborative initiatives. This paper evaluates the scope of collaborative watershed management and planning in the Howard River Catchment in northern Australia. The findings depict the challenges of collaborative planning in a nested hierarchy with multiple institutions. The existing institutional apparatus can potentially constrain the collaborative initiatives to water planning. They include the norms of agency authority, administrative inflexibility and power structures in a nested institutional hierarchy. Delegating decision making responsibility to decentralized structures should be backed up by the development of the capacity of such structures. Considerable transaction costs exist in overlaying collaborative approaches across a nested hierarchy of multiple institutions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

For some environmental assets in rural areas, the landholders who are having the biggest impact are people with small holdings and an emphasis on lifestyle rather than commercial gains from their land. This paper aims to better understand the motivations and likely responses to policy for lifestyle landholders in Australia, in order to assess which policy mechanisms, if any, are likely to be most efficiently used to influence their land management. Through face-to-face interviews, we find that lifestyle landholders have important differences from commercial farmers, including much smaller properties, a stronger interest in environmental outcomes, a lack of land-management skills and a lack of time for land-management activities. From the perspective of environmental policy programs, engaging with lifestyle landholders is likely to involve higher transaction costs, and there are likely to be higher learning and transition costs per unit area. A framework for selection of policy tools is modified to take account of these findings. It is concluded that the prospects for worthwhile public investments in land-use changes by lifestyle landholders are lower than for commercial landholders. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]