Knowledge Production and Use in Collaborative Environmental Governance: a Case Study of Water Allocation Planning in South Australia

dc.contributor.advisorde Loe, Rob
dc.contributor.advisorSmithers, John
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Brent
dc.date.accessioned2011-09-13T19:09:46Z
dc.date.available2011-09-13T19:09:46Z
dc.date.copyright2011-09
dc.date.created2011-09-09
dc.date.issued2011-09-13
dc.degree.departmentDepartment of Geographyen_US
dc.degree.grantorUniversity of Guelphen_US
dc.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophyen_US
dc.degree.programmeGeographyen_US
dc.description.abstractBy permitting the integration of multiple forms of knowledge through joint fact-finding, it is suggested that collaborative governance approaches can produce more holistic and place-based understandings of environmental problems and help to alleviate conflict among stakeholders over the knowledge that is used to make decisions. Despite the central role of knowledge in collaborative processes, research in the collaborative environmental governance field to-date has provided limited practical insight into what they can and cannot achieve or how processes should be structured and run to produce successful outcomes related to knowledge production and use. This study seeks to address this gap in the literature through three specific research objectives: (1) to develop a theoretical framework for analyzing knowledge production and use in collaborative environmental governance; (2) to use the framework to analyze knowledge production and use in a real-world collaborative environmental governance process; and (3) to offer recommendations for designing or adapting collaborative environmental governance processes to better achieve the goals of collaboration related to knowledge production and use. A multiple case study approach was used to analyze knowledge production and use in a collaborative water allocation planning process in South Australia. The findings affirm that a number of theorized process and outcome criteria associated with successful knowledge production and use are achievable in practice. Despite limited evidence that local actors were involved directly in producing knowledge within the processes that were examined, the findings showed that participants in at least one of the cases were able to achieve a high level of understanding and acceptance of the knowledge used to base policy decisions, as well as to build social capital among scientists and local participants. This paradox draws attention to limits of current theories in the collaborative environmental governance literature for designing and implementing successful collaboration and offers important insights for evaluating collaborative processes. The study also provides a preliminary set of recommendations for structuring and executing collaborative processes to achieve successful outcomes related to knowledge production and use. While the findings of this study relate most directly to the water allocation planning system in South Australia, they are also transferable to other collaborative institutions, particularly those that are nested within a more traditional top-down system of governance.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10214/2981
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Guelphen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/*
dc.subjectenvironmental governanceen_US
dc.subjectknowledge productionen_US
dc.subjectcollaborationen_US
dc.subjectlocal knowledgeen_US
dc.subjectSouth Australiaen_US
dc.subjectcase studyen_US
dc.titleKnowledge Production and Use in Collaborative Environmental Governance: a Case Study of Water Allocation Planning in South Australiaen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Taylor_Brent_201109_PhD.pdf
Size:
1.12 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
PhD thesis PDF
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
317 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: