走向共治:对南澳大利亚共治的优势、挑战和前进道路的评价

IF 3.4 2区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Ariane Gienger, Melissa Nursey-Bray
{"title":"走向共治:对南澳大利亚共治的优势、挑战和前进道路的评价","authors":"Ariane Gienger,&nbsp;Melissa Nursey-Bray","doi":"10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent decades have been marked by a transition from exclusionary to collaborative and community-based conservation. This transition has been underpinned by the aim to enhance the field’s contribution to human coexistence and environmental sustainability. Yet while the language of collaboration is now firmly entrenched in the global conservation rhetoric, collaborations too often remain restricted to community participation in pre-determined programs at local scales. Using South Australia as a case study, we illustrate this restriction and its implications in the context of co-management between the state and Aboriginal nations. Specifically, we draw on co-management legislation, agreements and reports, observations of co-management meetings of the Ngaut Ngaut and Gawler Ranges Parks co-management boards as well as interviews with co-management board and committee members, policy makers and park rangers. We illustrate that collaboration only exists within park management planning and does not extend to the design and administration of the legislative framework under which it occurs. As this restriction disproportionately affects the realisation and realisability Aboriginal nations’ aspirations, we propose a transition from co-management of protected areas to co-governance of the entire framework moving forward. We further highlight similar power and knowledge imbalances within the new conservation paradigm more broadly and make the case for an expansion of current forms of collaboration to conservation policy and practice on all scales.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12497,"journal":{"name":"Geoforum","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 104296"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards co-governance: An evaluation of co-management advantages, challenges and ways forward in South Australia\",\"authors\":\"Ariane Gienger,&nbsp;Melissa Nursey-Bray\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Recent decades have been marked by a transition from exclusionary to collaborative and community-based conservation. This transition has been underpinned by the aim to enhance the field’s contribution to human coexistence and environmental sustainability. Yet while the language of collaboration is now firmly entrenched in the global conservation rhetoric, collaborations too often remain restricted to community participation in pre-determined programs at local scales. Using South Australia as a case study, we illustrate this restriction and its implications in the context of co-management between the state and Aboriginal nations. Specifically, we draw on co-management legislation, agreements and reports, observations of co-management meetings of the Ngaut Ngaut and Gawler Ranges Parks co-management boards as well as interviews with co-management board and committee members, policy makers and park rangers. We illustrate that collaboration only exists within park management planning and does not extend to the design and administration of the legislative framework under which it occurs. As this restriction disproportionately affects the realisation and realisability Aboriginal nations’ aspirations, we propose a transition from co-management of protected areas to co-governance of the entire framework moving forward. We further highlight similar power and knowledge imbalances within the new conservation paradigm more broadly and make the case for an expansion of current forms of collaboration to conservation policy and practice on all scales.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12497,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geoforum\",\"volume\":\"162 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104296\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geoforum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001671852500096X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoforum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001671852500096X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近几十年来,从排他性到合作性和以社区为基础的保护已经发生了转变。加强该领域对人类共存和环境可持续性的贡献是这一转变的基础。然而,虽然合作的语言现在已经在全球保护修辞中根深蒂固,但合作往往仍然局限于社区参与地方范围内预先确定的项目。以南澳大利亚州为例,我们说明了这一限制及其在国家与土著民族共同管理的背景下的影响。具体来说,我们借鉴了共同管理的立法、协议和报告、恩戈特恩戈特和高勒山脉公园共同管理委员会共同管理会议的观察,以及对共同管理委员会和委员会成员、政策制定者和公园护林员的采访。我们说明,合作只存在于公园管理规划中,而不扩展到合作所依据的立法框架的设计和管理。由于这种限制不成比例地影响了土著民族愿望的实现和可实现性,我们建议从保护区的共同管理过渡到整个框架的共同治理。我们进一步强调了在更广泛的新保护范式中类似的权力和知识失衡,并提出了将当前合作形式扩展到所有规模的保护政策和实践的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards co-governance: An evaluation of co-management advantages, challenges and ways forward in South Australia
Recent decades have been marked by a transition from exclusionary to collaborative and community-based conservation. This transition has been underpinned by the aim to enhance the field’s contribution to human coexistence and environmental sustainability. Yet while the language of collaboration is now firmly entrenched in the global conservation rhetoric, collaborations too often remain restricted to community participation in pre-determined programs at local scales. Using South Australia as a case study, we illustrate this restriction and its implications in the context of co-management between the state and Aboriginal nations. Specifically, we draw on co-management legislation, agreements and reports, observations of co-management meetings of the Ngaut Ngaut and Gawler Ranges Parks co-management boards as well as interviews with co-management board and committee members, policy makers and park rangers. We illustrate that collaboration only exists within park management planning and does not extend to the design and administration of the legislative framework under which it occurs. As this restriction disproportionately affects the realisation and realisability Aboriginal nations’ aspirations, we propose a transition from co-management of protected areas to co-governance of the entire framework moving forward. We further highlight similar power and knowledge imbalances within the new conservation paradigm more broadly and make the case for an expansion of current forms of collaboration to conservation policy and practice on all scales.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geoforum
Geoforum GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
201
期刊介绍: Geoforum is an international, inter-disciplinary journal, global in outlook, and integrative in approach. The broad focus of Geoforum is the organisation of economic, political, social and environmental systems through space and over time. Areas of study range from the analysis of the global political economy and environment, through national systems of regulation and governance, to urban and regional development, local economic and urban planning and resources management. The journal also includes a Critical Review section which features critical assessments of research in all the above areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信