Hybridity of Representation: Insights from River Basin Management Planning in Scotland

The relationship between governance and representation is examined using the development of river basin management plans (RBMPs) in Scotland as a case study. We used a longitudinal ethnographic approach to explore the (1) remit and rationale for representation choices; (2) representative characteristics and claims; and (3) influence of nonparticipating interests on representatives. The invite-only ‘advisory group’ members represent a network of state, private, and third-sector interests. The members make claims to represent others on the basis of authority, accountability, shared identity, and epistemic values. These claims are made for specific although often multiple and overlapping constituencies. These representation claims suggest that representative, rather than traditional, legitimacy is being defended. However, members were also concerned about how the RBMP advisory groups coexisted with traditional and direct democratic processes. The results need to be considered within the overall system of environmental governance within Scotland, the UK, and Europe. The findings are relevant to multiple fields of environmental management, including protected area management and coastal management.

[1]  Bob Jessop,et al.  Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government and governance , 1997 .

[2]  Chris Tollefson,et al.  SYMPOSIUM OVERVIEW: CONCEPTUALIZING NEW GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS , 2012 .

[3]  Partnership and Role Perception, Three Case Studies on the Meaning of Being a Representative in Rural Partnerships , 2009 .

[4]  J. Flint,et al.  Communities, places and institutional relations: assessing the role of area-based community representation in local governance , 2001 .

[5]  Gary Alan Fine,et al.  Tiny Publics: Small Groups and Civil Society* , 2004 .

[6]  Sybille van den Hove,et al.  A Rationale for Science-Policy Interfaces , 2007 .

[7]  Andrew Rehfeld.  Towards a General Theory of Political Representation , 2006, The Journal of Politics.

[8]  Anders Esmark.  Democratic Accountability and Network Governance — Problems and Potentials , 2007 .

[9]  E. Sørensen,et al.  Theories of democratic network governance , 2007 .

[10]  David M. Konisky,et al.  What are we Gaining from Stakeholder Involvement? Observations from Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes , 2001 .

[11]  M. Lockwood.  Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[12]  Andreas Neef,et al.  Water, Politics and Development: Framing a Political Sociology of Water Resources Management , 2008 .

[13]  R. Leuven,et al.  Stakeholder Value Orientations in Water Management , 2010 .

[14]  Sonia Royo,et al.  What is Driving the Increasing Presence of Citizen Participation Initiatives? , 2010 .

[15]  I. Borowski.  Social Learning Beyond Multistakeholder Platforms: A Case Study on the Elbe River Basin , 2010 .

[16]  John R. Parkins,et al.  Public Participation as Public Debate: A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management , 2005 .

[17]  J. Murdoch,et al.  Mediating the ‘National’ and the ‘Local’ in the Environmental Policy Process: A Case Study of the CPRE , 2003 .

[18]  T. Koontz,et al.  Stumbling Forward: The Organizational Challenges of Building and Sustaining Collaborative Watershed Management , 2007 .

[19]  T. Koontz,et al.  Research Note A Typology of Collaborative Watershed Groups: Citizen-Based, Agency-Based, and Mixed Partnerships , 2003 .

[20]  K. Blackstock,et al.  ‘Recruitment’, ‘Composition’, and ‘Mandate’ Issues in Deliberative Processes: Should we Focus on Arguments Rather than Individuals? , 2005 .

[21]  K. Blackstock.  Between a rock and a hard place: incompatible objectives at the heart of river basin planning? , 2009, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[22]  A. Reeves,et al.  Just the Usual Suspects? Partnerships and Environmental Regulation , 2004 .

[23]  J. O'Neill.  Representing People, Representing Nature, Representing the World , 2001 .

[24]  Will Medd,et al.  Making Water Work: Intermediating between Regional Strategy and Local Practice , 2008 .

[25]  Stefan Rummens.  Staging Deliberation: The Role of Representative Institutions in the Deliberative Democratic Process , 2012 .

[26]  The Problem With Trust: Insights from Advisory Committees in the Forest Sector of Alberta , 2010 .

[27]  G. Parker,et al.  Reshaping Spaces of Local Governance? Community Strategies and the Modernisation of Local Government in England , 2006 .

[28]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Situated legitimacy: Deliberative arenas and the new rural governance , 2006 .

[29]  N. Mauthner,et al.  `Knowledge Once Divided Can Be Hard to Put Together Again' , 2008 .

[30]  Graeme Sherriff,et al.  Getting Involved in Plan Making: Participation and Stakeholder Involvement in Local and Regional Spatial Strategies in England , 2010 .

[31]  Jouni Paavola,et al.  Governance for Sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ Analysis of Environmental Decisionmaking , 2003 .

[32]  J. Dryzek,et al.  Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy , 2001 .

[33]  Beatrice Hedelin,et al.  Criteria for the assessment of planning processes for sustainable river basin management : Illustration by two cases: The EU water framework directive and ongoing water planning processes in Sweden , 2008 .

[34]  Christopher M. Weible,et al.  An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Stakeholder Analysis: Understanding the Political Context of California Marine Protected Area Policy , 2006 .

[35]  Anil Graves,et al.  Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.