The ability of community based natural resource management to contribute to development as freedom and the role of access

B-Tier
Journal: World Development
Year: 2019
Volume: 120
Issue: C
Pages: 91-104

Authors (10)

Addison, Jane (not in RePEc) Stoeckl, Natalie (University of Tasmania) Larson, Silva (not in RePEc) Jarvis, Diane (James Cook University of North...) Bidan Aboriginal Corporation, (not in RePEc) Bunuba Dawangarri Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC, (not in RePEc) Ewamian Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC, (not in RePEc) Gooniyandi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC, (not in RePEc) Yanunijarra Ngurrara Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC, (not in RePEc) Esparon, Michelle (not in RePEc)

Score contribution per author:

0.201 = (α=2.01 / 10 authors) × 1.0x B-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

Ribot’s access constraints mediate the generation of development benefits from community based natural resource management and co-management systems and programs. Context-specific access constraints also interact with diverse understandings of what constitutes development to create benefits that are non-linear through time, multi or uni-level, prone to hysteresis, socially mediated, vary through space and experienced quite differently by different social actors. In hybridized State-community governance arrangements, this complexity results in ongoing tensions and entanglements as different social actors seek to leverage available opportunities to overcome or circumvent short or longer-term access constraints in pursuit of their understanding of development. In turn, this complexity makes it difficult to understand the full suite of potential development benefits generated by community based natural resource management or co-management structures. Here, we explore potentially competing conceptualisations of development, and the contribution of community based natural resource management to these understandings of development. Using Australia’s Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs to inform this exploration, we show that development is primarily conceptualised as ‘control, leadership, empowerment and independence,’ in line with Sen’s development as freedom, by the Indigenous groups involved in these programs. State actors understand development in ways that more closely align with Sen’s functionings, or a capability list – for example, the relative uptake of jobs and training. Despite this potential mismatch, some Indigenous groups have been able to leverage opportunities available to them, including those provided by the programs, to overcome access constraints to their understandings of ‘freedom’. We conclude by offering suggestions as to how community based natural resource management programs could be improved.

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:eee:wdevel:v:120:y:2019:i:c:p:91-104
Journal Field
Development
Author Count
10
Added to Database
2026-01-25