Search

Natural Resource Management (NRM) and Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) have been guiding frameworks in Australia for a number of decades. Recently, NRM and ESD have become central to climate change mitigation. In this paper, we explore the psychological paradoxes that function within climate change settings, with particular attention devoted to the way that research and development reinforces these paradoxes by advocating for participatory forms of inquiry. Paradox emerges in NRM at psychological, institutional, and organisational levels. Paradoxes are also features of different forms of democracy such as neoliberal and participatory democracy. Although NRM, ESD and climate change are often conceptualised as distinct issue domains, these policy areas are fundamentally interconnected in both theory and in practice. This interconnection between these policy and research settings, reflections on paradox, and the experience of incorporating community psychology into the paradoxical settings of NRM and climate change are captured in this paper.

Policy development and implementation should be fundamental for community psychologists in their endeavors to create social change. Policy necessarily is engaged at broad social and political levels, but it is mediated through communities and individuals, and thus appealing for our discipline. We argue that there are increasing opportunities for social input in liberal democracies with the growing awareness of the need to consider social factors in policy. Public participation is one aspect of policy development, but it can be problematic and can disempowered communities, especially disadvantaged communities. Using the framework of the ‘third position’, a case study of attempts to ameliorate institutional oppression of Australian Aboriginal people through policy change is described. Structural reform to community engagement is described in terms of empowerment and capacity building. Power relationships are deconstructed to allow understandings of the dynamics of policy change, and the broader implications for community psychological praxis are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]