 |
Participating in Conservation? Governing on the Ground in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
9
What these two problems illustrate is, at some level, very simple: participation is problematic.
But it also has major consequences for the design and implementation of conservation and development
projects. Project and local approaches are multiple and interactive; development initiative and response
must be considered as a fluid process that will require adjustment and re-adjustment along the way. To
help illustrate the complexity of these layers, I propose a multi-dimensional typology of participation that
factors in both project design and local responses:
FIGURE 1.4: Defining Local Involvement in Development (DeMotts)
Local Contexts
Sabotage: Active interference with project goals. May include poaching in apark, trying to convince other residents not to cooperate with the project orspreading rumors, stealing or vandalizing resources, protesting, and relatedactions.Ignore: No attention to the project or refusal to participate/get involved.Passive Engagement: Residents are informed and attend meetings orworkshops and have informal discussions among themselves, but they are notsharing thoughts and concerns with the project.Participate: Local input is offered to the project actively and both formal andinformal discussions take place. May involve local residents being employedon the project and committees that can influence the project.Control: Decisions rest at the local level, and project is not designed orimplemented without local agreement and input.
Project Approaches
Manipulation: Trying to limit or eliminate local influence over projectoutcomes, or to shape local views into a desirable form. Includes makingpromises about project benefits and convincing local people that their viewsare wrong.Inform: Telling local residents what is happening with a project that hasalready been designed.Consult: Asking local residents for concerns, and ideas, but no guarantee thatinput will be taken into account when making project decisions.Partnership: Negotiations and feedback mechanisms are in place, and localpeople are treated as equals in the process and influence project outcomes.Empowerment: Project form and implementation belongs with local people,with outside agents advising and providing resources.
|
| | Authors: DeMotts, Rachel. |
|
| |
|
|
9
What these two problems illustrate is, at some level, very simple: participation is problematic.
But it also has major consequences for the design and implementation of conservation and development
projects. Project and local approaches are multiple and interactive; development initiative and response
must be considered as a fluid process that will require adjustment and re-adjustment along the way. To
help illustrate the complexity of these layers, I propose a multi-dimensional typology of participation that
factors in both project design and local responses:
FIGURE 1.4: Defining Local Involvement in Development (DeMotts)
Local Contexts
Sabotage: Active interference with project goals. May include poaching in a
park, trying to convince other residents not to cooperate with the project or
spreading rumors, stealing or vandalizing resources, protesting, and related
actions.
Ignore: No attention to the project or refusal to participate/get involved.
Passive Engagement: Residents are informed and attend meetings or
workshops and have informal discussions among themselves, but they are not
sharing thoughts and concerns with the project.
Participate: Local input is offered to the project actively and both formal and
informal discussions take place. May involve local residents being employed
on the project and committees that can influence the project.
Control: Decisions rest at the local level, and project is not designed or
implemented without local agreement and input.
Project Approaches
Manipulation: Trying to limit or eliminate local influence over project
outcomes, or to shape local views into a desirable form. Includes making
promises about project benefits and convincing local people that their views
are wrong.
Inform: Telling local residents what is happening with a project that has
already been designed.
Consult: Asking local residents for concerns, and ideas, but no guarantee that
input will be taken into account when making project decisions.
Partnership: Negotiations and feedback mechanisms are in place, and local
people are treated as equals in the process and influence project outcomes.
Empowerment: Project form and implementation belongs with local people,
with outside agents advising and providing resources.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
