Desenvolvimento de capacidade de resiliência na governança costeira da Tasmânia

Prévia do material em texto

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean and Coastal Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
An assessment for developing resilience capacity of Tasmanian coastal
governance
Javad Jozaeia,∗, Michael Mitchella,b
aGeography and Spatial Science Discipline, School of Technology, Environments and Design, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
b Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Coastal governance
Resilience thinking
Social-ecological systems
Resilience capacity
Adaptability
Transformability
Panarchy
A B S T R A C T
Scholars argue that conventional environmental governance approaches have not been effective in reversing or
slowing the deterioration of coupled social-ecological systems (SESs). Recent research suggests that resilience
thinking offers a useful framework to analyse problems in SESs and could help improve the effectiveness of
associated governance systems. Much of the available literature explores this from a theoretical perspective,
identifying advantages from resilience thinking to improve governance of SESs. This paper builds on this lit-
erature, creating a set of attributes that are used to assess the specific challenges of a particular multi-level
Tasmanian coastal governance context, and thus clarify where intervention responses are best directed. In this
context, a low level of resilience capacity was apparent across the entire governance system. At the national
level, we determined that knowledge management and sharing processes, and the diversity of expertise were the
only attributes contributing to resilience capacity, with other attributes insufficiently developed to support any
level of resilience. The performance was similarly poor at the Tasmanian state level, with leadership, adaptive
planning, organisational flexibility and a supportive legislation framework at critically low capacity. Inter-or-
ganisational attributes also required significant improvement. On the other hand, a regional natural resource
management body and two coastal local governments demonstrated attributes supportive of resilience capacity,
including aspects related to leadership, transparent decision-making, stakeholder engagement, organisational
learning, knowledge sharing and flexibility. These findings confirm that resilience thinking can offer practical
suggestions for how to improve governance of this, particularly challenging context.
1. Introduction
Coastal areas are transition spaces where land and marine ecosys-
tems interact, and have become significant foci for ecological, social,
economic, cultural, and political concerns. Like all social-ecological
systems (SESs), coastal areas are influenced by multiple social and
environmental drivers of change. In coastal areas, these drivers include
sea level rise, coastal inundation, erosion, population growth, human
development and climate change (Kay and Alder, 2005; Moser et al.,
2012; Nobre, 2011; Valiela, 2006). In the last few decades, a variety of
management-oriented instruments have been developed to respond to
coastal problems including Integrated Coastal Zone Management plans
(ICZM), shoreline management plans and marine spatial planning.
ICZM – as a set of guidelines, principles, instruments and methods that
informs sustainable coastal development – has emerged in response to
the inconsistency of management activities in coastal areas (Clark,
1995; Fabbri, 1998; Harvey and Caton, 2010; Soriani et al., 2015).
Management, however, can be understood as the practical operation
of decision-making that is determined by an overarching regime or
context. Governance emerged as the preferred term to convey the
complex relations determining this overarching regime (Dietz et al.,
2003). It refers to the “interactions among structures, processes and
traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised,
how decisions are taken, and how citizens and other stakeholders have
their say” (Graham et al., 2003, ii). Research exploring governance has
become particularly pertinent as institutional arrangements move away
from decision-making, policy development, planning and management
led by government towards a regime of lean government and multiple
actors in society increasingly sharing power with governments in de-
cision-making and program delivery (Stoker, 1998). Management is
also perceived as having a semantic association with command-and-
control decision-making mindsets, whereas governance has become
associated with collaboration, adaptive capacity and devolution of
control and responsibility.
The restrictions and limitations of a management-oriented mindset
in addressing complex social and political problems have been widely
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.06.014
Received 27 October 2017; Received in revised form 8 June 2018; Accepted 14 June 2018
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: javad.jozaei@utas.edu.au (J. Jozaei).
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
Available online 19 June 2018
0964-5691/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
lord_
Sublinhado
Uma avaliação para desenvolver a capacidade de resiliência da governança costeira na Tasmaniana
lord_
Realce
nullOs estudiosos argumentam que as abordagens convencionais de governança ambiental não foram eficazes em reverter ou retardar a deterioração dos sistemas sócio-ecológicos acoplados (SESs). Pesquisas recentes sugerem que o pensamento de resiliência oferece uma estrutura útil para analisar problemas em SESs e pode ajudar a melhorar a eficácia dos sistemas de governança associados.
lord_
Realce
Grande parte da literatura disponível explora isso de uma perspectiva teórica, identificando vantagens do pensamento de resiliência para melhorar a governança dos SESs. Este artigo baseia-se nesta literatura, criando um conjunto de atributos que são usados ​​para avaliar os desafios específicos de um contexto de governança costeira da Tasmanian em vários níveis e, assim, esclarecer onde as respostas de intervenção são melhor direcionadas.
lord_
Sublinhado
Nesse contexto, um baixo nível de capacidade de resiliência foi evidente em todo o sistema de governança.
lord_
Sublinhado
No nível nacional, determinamos que os processos de gestão e compartilhamento de conhecimento e a diversidade de conhecimentos eram os únicos atributos que contribuíam para a capacidade de resiliência, com outros atributos insuficientemente desenvolvidos para suportar qualquer nível de resiliência. O desempenho foi similarmente ruim no nível estadual da Tasmânia, com liderança, planejamento adaptativo, flexibilidade organizacional e uma estrutura de legislação de apoio com capacidade criticamente baixa.
lord_
Sublinhado
Essas descobertas confirmam que o pensamento de resiliência pode oferecer sugestões práticas de como melhorar a governança desse contexto particularmente desafiador.
lord_
Realce
nullAs áreas costeiras são espaços de transição onde os ecossistemas terrestres e marinhos interagem e se tornaram focos significativos para preocupações ecológicas, sociais, econômicas, culturais e políticas. Como todos os sistemas socioecológicos (SESs), as áreas costeiras são influenciadas por múltiplos fatores sociais e ambientais de mudança.
lord_
Realce
Nas áreas costeiras, esses fatores incluem aumento do nível do mar, inundação costeira, erosão, crescimento populacional,nulldesenvolvimento e mudança climática
lord_
Realce
Nas últimas décadas, vários instrumentos orientados para a gestão foram desenvolvidos para responder a problemas costeiros, incluindo planos de gestão integrada da zona costeira (ICZM), planos de gestão da linha costeira e ordenamento do espaço marítimo.nullICZM
lord_
Realce
lord_
Realce
A administração, no entanto, pode ser entendida como a operaçãoprática da tomada de decisão que é determinada por um regime ou contexto abrangente. null
lord_
Realce
nullA governança emergiu como o termo preferido para transmitir as relações complexas que determinam esse regime abrangentenullnullRefere-se às “interações entre estruturas, processos e tradições que determinam como o poder e as responsabilidades são exercidos,nullcomo as decisões são tomadas e como os cidadãos e outras partes interessadas podem opinar ”
discussed in the scholarship. Soriani et al. (2015) identify the draw-
backs of application of ICZM in dealing with social and political com-
plexity in the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea area. Research indicates
that management systems are more concerned about technical issues
and finer scale implementation to achieve a particular outcome
(Armitage et al., 2012; Ludwig, 2001; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Issues such as
insufficient appreciation of the complexity of social-ecological systems
(SESs), uncertainties associated with social and environmental drivers
of change, and domination of command-and-control approaches create
particular challenges for effective decision-making, policy develop-
ment, planning and management involving coastal areas (Craig and
Ruhl, 2010; Kay and Alder, 2005; Nobre, 2011). Thissen (2010) in-
dicates that a responsive coastal planning and management system
should allow for representation of multiple stakeholder interests and
cross-scale interactions, address scale mismatches, and accommodate
the complexity of SES dynamics and uncertainty of changes.
With the recognition of the drawbacks of conventional environ-
mental management approaches and the need for more collaborative
attitudes in environmental decision-making, scholars have identified
requirements for incorporating the concept of governance into en-
vironmental research and practice (Armitage et al., 2012; Ludwig,
2001; Pelling, 2010). New forms of environmental governance have
emerged as a response to political, economic, social and ethical con-
siderations in environmental decision-making and policy development
(Adger et al., 2003; Holley et al., 2011; Lockwood et al., 2010). Over
the last few decades, variants of devolved, multi-level and polycentric
governance have been widely recommended as a response to environ-
mental and natural resource issues, including biodiversity conservation
(Lockwood et al., 2014; Mitchell et al., 2015), terrestrial and marine
protected areas (Lockwood, 2010; Lockwood et al., 2012), natural re-
source management (Clement, 2010), fisheries management (Allison
et al., 2012; Jentoft, 2007), and coastal decision-making (Milligan &
O'Riordan, 2007).
Rather than investigate the practical, managerial operations that
underpin decision-making processes related to coastal governance, this
paper therefore explores the potential that the concept of resilience and
the framing of resilience thinking could deliver an appropriate mindset
to establish a more effective environmental and coastal governance
regime (Armitage and Johnson, 2006; Benson and Garmestani, 2011;
Walker and Salt, 2006). We use resilience thinking to identify a set of
attributes that might offer directions towards more effective environ-
mental and coastal governance arrangements through improved con-
sideration of system complexity, change and uncertainty, and cross-
scale interactions (Berwick, 2007; Duxbury and Dickinson, 2007;
Hopkins et al., 2011). We use these attributes to evaluate the over-
arching regime determining the processes and mechanisms of coastal
governance in Tasmania, and thus offer directions for where interven-
tions are required.
The next section (Section 2) introduces the concept of resilience and
the framing of resilience thinking, and uses this to establish a set of
attributes for coastal governance regime with improved in-built resi-
lience capacity. We then outline the methods used to analyse Tasma-
nian coastal governance (section 3), and introduce the Tasmanian case
study and its governance arrangements (Section 4). The findings (Sec-
tion 5) are presented in three subsections: assessment of the importance
of attributes for each of the key governance actors; assessment of the
performance by each actor against these attributes; and what this
means in terms of the resilience capacity of the Tasmanian coastal
governance regime. This allows us to discuss broad strategies needed to
foster improved resilience capacity (Section 6).
2. Resilience thinking and the design of a set of attributes for
resilience-based coastal governance
Since Holling (1973) introduced the concept of resilience to the field
of ecology, the idea has become a favoured approach in addressing
multi-disciplinary contexts including urban planning (Alberti and
Marzluff, 2004; Cartalis, 2014), disaster management (Boin et al.,
2010), and coastal planning and development (Flood and Schechtman,
2014; Kaltenborn et al., 2017). During this time, resilience has evolved
from a concept indicating an intrinsic property or feature of a system
(Gunderson, 2000), to an approach for social-ecological assessment
within a sustainability paradigm (Carpenter et al., 2001; Walker, 2005;
Walker et al., 2004), and finally to an overarching “frame of mind”
(Walker and Salt, 2012) and a “higher order thinking” (Fazey, 2010)
that complements and could potentially replace the sustainability ap-
proach (Benson and Craig, 2014).
Conventional definitions of resilience concern the quality of re-
sponses that a complex self-organising system develops to adapt to
drivers of change, as well as the capacity to bounce back and maintain
its identity (Carpenter et al., 2001; Holling, 1986, 2001). In this respect,
Holling (1996) discusses a distinction between system “resilience” and
“stability”, where stability is a system's capacity to recover and return
to its near equilibrium state after a disturbance, and resilience illus-
trates a system's “persistence” to maintain its identity and function
(Gunderson, 2000; Holling, 1996).
Attempts to incorporate the concept of resilience in social-ecological
analysis commenced in the early 2000s (Berkes et al., 2000; Carpenter
et al., 2001; Holling, 2001). At that time, the notion of social-ecological
resilience evolved from ecological resilience and was explained through
heuristics such as the adaptive cycle and adaptive capacity (Carpenter
et al. 2001, 2005; Folke, 2006; Walker et al., 2002). Social-ecological
resilience aims to deliver a better understanding of system complexity
and dynamics, reduce vulnerability, and enhance the adaptability of an
SES to the uncertainty of drivers of change (Berkes et al., 2003; Folke
et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2004).
With increasing recognition of the inevitability or desirability of
fundamental system change, the idea of transformation and “bouncing
forward” has also been incorporated into resilience definitions (Folke
et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2004). To respond to the requirement for a
more holistic, flexible and effective approach for dealing with drivers of
social and environmental change and uncertainty, Walker and Salt
(2006) coined the term “resilience thinking” to challenge the conven-
tional fragmented thinking style in environmental and natural resource
management, and indicate requirements for a broader, holistic and
more inclusive “frame of mind”. Since then, resilience thinking has
been widely appreciated as a useful overarching approach in environ-
mental research and practice (Benson and Craig, 2014; Folke et al.,
2010; Xu et al., 2015).
This framing of resilience thinking integrates the ideas of SES
complexity (Cote and Nightingale, 2012), adaptability and transform-
ability (Folke et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2004), and adaptive cycle and
panarchy (Garmestani et al., 2009; Gunderson and Holling, 2001).
Rather than “resilience” as a quantifiable “property of a system”, or a
specific capacity to achievea particular and planned outcome, “resi-
lience thinking” addresses capacities, rationales, mechanisms and pro-
cesses that enable adaptive and transformative decision-making in a
governance system (Benson and Craig, 2014; Janssen et al., 2007;
O'Connell et al., 2015; Walker and Salt, 2006). A number of terms have
been used to indicate modes of governance that accord with resilience
thinking, including adaptive governance (Dietz et al., 2003; Duit et al.,
2010; Walker et al., 2004); resilient governance (Termeer et al., 2011);
resilience governance (Walker, 2005) and resilience-based governance
(Garmestani and Benson, 2013).
Research suggests that governance design for environmental and
coastal SES can usefully be framed by resilience thinking (Sutton-Grier
et al., 2015; Walker and Salt, 2012). The term adaptive governance
could cause semantic confusion by giving exclusive emphasis to a re-
quirement for adaptability and undermine the potential need to address
system transformability. Resilient governance implies a mode of gov-
ernance that is resilient in the face of change, rather than having the
capacity to respond appropriately to change. This paper, therefore,
J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
131
lord_
Realce
Durante esse tempo, a resiliência evoluiu de um conceito que indica uma propriedade ou característica intrínseca de um sistema (Gunderson, 2000)nullnull para uma abordagem de avaliação sócioecológica dentro de um paradigma de sustentabilidade (Carpenter et al., 2001; Walker, 2005; Walker et al., 2004)nullnull e, finalmente, a um “estado de espírito” abrangente (Walker and Salt, 2012) e um “pensamento de ordem superior” (Fazey, 2010) que complementa e poderia substituir a abordagem de sustentabilidade (Benson e Craig, 2014).
lord_
Realce
As definições convencionais de resiliência dizem respeito à qualidade das respostas que um sistema complexo de auto-organização desenvolve para se adaptar aos fatores de mudança, bem como a capacidade de se recuperar e manter sua identidade
lord_
Sublinhado
nullNesse sentido, Holling (1996) discute uma distinção entre sistema de “resiliência” e “estabilidade”, onde estabilidade é a capacidade de um sistema de se recuperar e retornar ao seu estado de equilíbrio após uma perturbação, e a resiliência ilustra a “persistência” de um sistema para manter sua identidade e função
establishes a set of attributes to identify how to establish ‘resilience-
based governance’; i.e., a mode of governance where resilience thinking
is adopted as the main framework for decision-making, resulting in
collective and collaborative mechanisms that embrace the complexity
and dynamics of SESs and deliver responsive strategies that enhance
SES resilience, adaptability and transformability.
2.1. Identification of attributes for resilience-based coastal governance
We reviewed the literature to identify attributes contributing to the
development of resilience-based coastal governance. These attributes
should address the key features of the coastal SESs including resilience,
adaptability, transformability and panarchy; good governance criteria
such as polycentricity, fairness, collaboration and power relations; and
the uncertainty of interacting environmental, social, economic and
political drivers of change. The literature review, together with a pre-
analysis of case study coastal SESs, led to the nomination of 16 key
attributes, as shown in Table 1.
3. Methods
A qualitative research design was adopted given the complex
characteristics and features of the research concepts. Qualitative re-
search attempts to deal with the problem of “complexity” rather than
“complicatedness” and aims to evaluate different interpretations of
complex phenomena (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Robinson, 1998). A
combination of inductive and deductive reasoning systems was de-
ployed to conceptualise a resilience-based coastal governance ar-
rangement and explain its features and characteristics (Bryman, 2015;
Walton, 2014).
Triangulation of methods and a mixed method approach were used
to collect data from multiple sources, thereby increasing the richness of
the data and reliability of the findings (Bryman, 2015; Pierce, 2008).
The methods used to study the case study governance arrangements
were a literature review, an online survey, and semi-structured inter-
views. Documents were reviewed to analyse the dynamics of the Tas-
manian coastal governance including the main influential governance
Table 1
Attributes for resilience-based Tasmanian coastal governance.
Organisational attributes Description Sources
Knowledge acquisition processes Processes to collect or generate knowledge from a range of disciplines and sources, including
scientific, political, economic, social, cultural, traditional and local knowledge
Dietz et al., 2003
Hahn et al., 2006
Knowledge management processes Processes that store and deliver knowledge, while controlling quality and ensuring currency Lockwood et al., 2010
Mitchell et al., 2015
Knowledge sharing processes Processes that ensure knowledge is shared with other actors Elbakidze et al., 2010
Berkes 2009
Diversity of expertise Availability of personnel skilled in environmental, social and economic matters of relevance to the
coastal zone
Armitage and Plummer
2010
Lengnick-Hall and Beck
2005
Organisational flexibility The ability of organisational structures and processes to change in response to changing internal or
external conditions
Folke et al., 2005
Mitchell et al., 2015
Duit et al., 2010
Armitage et al., 2012
Organisational learning The capacity of the institution to learn from previous experience, as well as from consideration of
plausible futures, challenges and response options
Armitage et al., 2012
Pahl-Wostl 2009
Lengnick-Hall and Beck
2005
Leadership for change (entrepreneurial
leadership)
Leadership on coastal issues that promotes innovation and identifies strategies that take advantage of
new opportunities
Lengnick-Hall and Beck
2005
Leadership for securing outcomes Leadership that works to secure wide political and community support for coastal management
strategies, and resources to implement these strategies
Folke et al., 2005
Olsson et al., 2006
Lockwood et al., 2012
Transparent decision-making processes Decision-making processes for coastal issues that allow stakeholders to see what decisions are being
made, as well as the rationales for these decisions
Lockwood et al., 2012
Armitage et al., 2012
Stakeholder engagement processes Engagement processes for coastal issues that use appropriate methods to allow and encourage all
stakeholders to contribute to decision-making
Lebel et al., 2006
Brondizio et al., 2009
Folke et al., 2005
Conflict resolution mechanisms Mechanisms that provide effective means to address conflicts within the organisation, and with
external stakeholders
Folke et al., 2005
Lockwood et al., 2012
Dietz et al., 2003
Supportive legislation Legislation relevant to the coast that establishes goals, processes, and standards while allowing
flexibility to respond to change – legislation is established by state and federal governments only
Mitchell et al., 2015
Garmestani and Benson
2013
Folke et al., 2005
Adaptive planning and management Processes that set measurable objectives, identify and implement strategies to achieve these
objectives, monitor outcomes, adjust knowledge base on evidence from monitoring, and foster
improved performance over time
Folke et al., 2002, 2005
Walker 2005
Lockwood et al., 2010
Chaffin et al., 2014
Inter-organisational attributes
Organisational cooperation and
coordination
Processes and agreements that foster connections, cooperation and coordination across multiple
levels and scales of coastal governance – includes links at relevant governance levels with NGOs,
community groupsand the business sector
Duit et al., 2010
Folke et al., 2005
Mitchell et al., 2015
Lockwood et al., 2010
Lockwood 2010
Organisational partnerships Collaborative arrangements with other authorities and stakeholder organisations that address coastal
issues – includes partnership links at relevant governance levels with NGOs, community groups and
the business sector
Duit et al., 2010
Folke et al., 2005
Mitchell et al., 2015
Distribution of power Arrangements that distribute power across multiple levels and scales of coastal governance – assessed
between local, regional, state and federal governance levels
Folke et al., 2005
Armitage et al., 2012
Lockwood et al., 2012
J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
132
lord_
Realce
Atributos da governança costeira da Tasmânia baseada em resiliência.
lord_
Realce
nullProcessos de aquisição de conhecimento: nullnullProcessos para coletar ou gerar conhecimento de diversas disciplinas e fontes, incluindo conhecimento científico, político, econômico, social, cultural, tradicional e local
lord_
Realce
Processos de gestão do conhecimento:nullnullProcessos que armazenam e fornecem conhecimento, enquanto controlam a qualidade e garantem a moeda
lord_
Realce
Processos de compartilhamento de conhecimento:nullnullProcessos que garantem que o conhecimento seja compartilhado com outros atores
lord_
Realce
Diversidade de expertise:nullnullDisponibilidade de pessoal especializado em questões ambientais, sociais e econômicas relevantes para a zona costeira
lord_
Realce
nullFlexibilidade Organizacional:nullnullA capacidade de mudanças nas estruturas e processos organizacionais em resposta a mudanças nas condições internas ou externas
lord_
Realce
Aprendizagem Organizacional:nullnullA capacidade da instituição de aprender com a experiência anterior, bem como a partir da consideração de futuros, desafios e opções de resposta plausíveis
lord_
Realce
Liderança para mudança (liderança empreendedora): nullnullLiderança em questões costeiras que promove a inovação e identifica estratégias que aproveitamnullNovas oportunidades
lord_
Realce
Liderança para garantir resultados:nullnullLiderança que trabalha para garantir amplo apoio político e comunitário às estratégias de gestão costeira e recursos para implementar essas estratégias
lord_
Realce
Processos transparentes de tomada de decisão:
Processos de tomada de decisão para questões costeiras que permitem aos interessados ​​ver quais decisões estão sendo tomadas, bem como as justificativas para essas decisões
lord_
Realce
Processos de engajamento das partes interessadas:nullnullProcessos de engajamento para questões costeiras que usam métodos apropriados para permitir e encorajar todas as partes interessadas a contribuir para a tomada de decisõe
lord_
Realce
Mecanismos de resolução de conflitos:nullnullMecanismos que fornecem meios efetivos para abordar conflitos dentro da organização e com partes interessadas externas
lord_
Realce
Legislação de apoio:nullnullLegislação relevante para o litoral que estabelece metas, processos e padrões, ao mesmo tempo em que permite flexibilidade para responder à mudança - a legislação é estabelecida apenas pelos governos estadual e federal
lord_
Realce
Planejamento e gerenciamento adaptativo:nullnullProcessos que estabelecem objetivos mensuráveis, identificam e implementam estratégias para atingir esses objetivos, monitoram os resultados, ajustam a base de conhecimento sobre evidências do monitoramento e promovem melhor desempenho ao longo do tempo
lord_
Realce
Atributos interorganizacionaisnullCooperação organizacional enullcoordenação:nullnullProcessos e acordos que fomentam conexões, cooperação e coordenação em vários níveis e escalas de governança costeira - incluem vínculos em níveis relevantes de governança com ONGs, grupos comunitários e o setor empresarial
lord_
Realce
Parcerias Organizacionais:nullnullAcordos de colaboração com outras autoridades e organizações de partes interessadas que lidam comnullquestões - inclui laços de parceria em níveis de governança relevantes com ONGs, grupos comunitários enullo setor empresarial
lord_
Realce
Distribuição de poder:nullnullArranjos que distribuem poder entre múltiplos níveis e escalas de governança costeira - avaliadosnullentre os níveis de governança local, regional, estadual e federal
lord_
Realce
Os atributos mapeados na tabela 1, fazem parte da literatura e devem abordar as principais características dos SESs costeiros, incluindo resiliência, adaptabilidade, capacidade de transformação e panarquia; bons critérios de governançanullcomo policentrismo, justiça, colaboração e relações de poder; enulla incerteza de integraçãonull ambiental, social, econômica e denullimpulsionadores políticos da mudança.
lord_
Realce
Uma pesquisa qualitativa foi adotado dadas as complexas características e conceitos envolvidos na pesquisa
levels/organisations, mechanisms of their influence, and key social and
environmental drivers of change. Scholarly literature was analysed to
identify key attributes of resilience capacity and their utility for in-
forming the development of resilience-based governance.
An online survey was used to obtain expert judgements on the sig-
nificance attributes identified through the literature review, as well as
assess the performance of Tasmanian coastal governance against these
attributes. The online tool, Survey Monkey, was used to implement the
survey. A multi-page questionnaire was created in the Survey Monkey
environment, one attribute to a page. Each page contained a brief ex-
planation of the attribute, and two related question sets. The first asked
participants to identify the importance of each attribute for developing
resilience-based coastal governance in Tasmania or improving its resi-
lience capacity. The six response options ranged from “Not Important”
to “Very Important”, as well as an “I do not know/Not applicable”
option. The second question asked participants to assess the perfor-
mance of key organisations against the attributes. These organisations
were the Australian Government Department of the Environment and
Energy (DEE); the Tasmanian State level agencies Department of
Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE),
Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC) and Tasmanian Planning
Commission (TPC); the intra-state natural resource management (NRM)
body, NRM South; and Clarence, Huon Valley, and Kingborough local
governments. The six response options ranged from “Very Poor” to
“Desirable” as well as an “I do not know/Not applicable” option.
Survey participants were selected on the basis of having relevant
experience and knowledge of Tasmanian coastal systems, including
representatives from Tasmanian Government agencies, local govern-
ments, the private sector, academia and non-government organisations
(NGOs). Potential participants were sent an email inviting their parti-
cipation, a survey information sheet and a link to the online survey. Out
of 200 potential participants, 91 accepted the invitation and responded
to the survey: a 45% response rate.
Finally, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted to
validate the results of the literature review and survey (Yin, 2011). A
series of non-leading open-ended questions were developed to elicit the
features and requirements of a resilience-based governance arrange-
ment in Tasmania and consider the concepts of resilience, adaptability,
transformability and panarchy. The application of questions was flex-
ible to allow adjustment, prompting and probing during each interview.
Twenty-three interviews were completed, each taking from 45 to
160min. Overall, 1765min of interviews were conducted, and inter-
view audio files were imported into and transcribed with NVIVO 10
software. After the contents of transcriptions were approved by each
interviewee,interview data were thematically coded in NVIVO 10, and
the results analysed.
4. Tasmanian coastal governance system
The purpose of this section is to introduce the Tasmanian coastal
case study context and to offer a brief overview of its governance re-
gime and the key organisations with influence over that regime. We
provide minimum detail on the mechanisms and instruments used to
exert their influence as these, their history and their limitations have
been widely discussed elsewhere (e.g. Clark and Johnston, 2017;
Harvey and Caton, 2010; Kriwoken et al., 2006; Lockwood and
Harwood, 2017; Prahalad and Kriwoken, 2010).
The 68,401 km2 island of Tasmania is the southern-most state in the
Commonwealth of Australia. Tasmania's coast supports a wide range of
natural, cultural, social and economic services and activities including
ecosystem protection, commercial and recreational fishing, aqua-
culture, recreation and urban development. Almost 75 per cent of the
Tasmanian population (of around 509,000), and a variety of infra-
structure and industries are located on, or near the coast (Department
of Climate Change, 2009). The Tasmanian coastal area encompasses a
diverse range of sensitive ecosystems such as coastal wetlands, dune
systems, estuaries, saltmarshes and flora and fauna that rarely are found
in mainland Australia (DPIPWE, 2014). These systems are under sub-
stantial pressure from social and environmental drivers of change, in-
cluding climate change, sea level rise and inappropriate human devel-
opment (Department of Environment and Planning, 1991). Research
shows incapacity of Tasmanian environmental and coastal governance
to address these complex issues, and delivering effective strategies to
respond to them (Prahalad and Kriwoken, 2010).
Tasmanian coastal governance is a complex and multi-level ar-
rangement with roles and responsibilities shared amongst multiple or-
ganisations across scales and through different instruments. Key gov-
ernance levels and organisations are the Australian Government,
Tasmanian State Government, regional (intra-state) NRM bodies, local
governments (councils), NGOs, community groups and private land-
holders and industries. Each governance level and organisation has a
particular influence on processes of coastal decision-making, policy
development, planning and management through a variety of statutory
and non-statutory mechanisms.
The Australian Government is mainly responsible for international
and national scale decision-making and policy development, with DEE
the most influential department at this scale (Lockwood and Davidson,
2010). This level of government does not have a significant statutory
influence on coastal issues. Its influence is mostly exerted through its
leadership role in developing national-level policies, guidelines and
directions, providing financial and technological support to other le-
vels, and developing an appropriate knowledge base by supporting
research and implementation programs (Clark and Johnston, 2017).
The Australian Government has established processes, policies,
strategies and programs aimed at improving coastal management and
governance (Harvey and Caton, 2010), through numerous inquiries
including those undertaken in 1991, 1993 and 2009. The 1991 inquiry
found that fragmented decision-making process and conflicts among
stakeholders' values and interests exacerbated problems associated with
coastal governance, and proposed a national-scale coastal management
strategy in collaboration with the states and local governments
(Australian Government, 1991; Harvey and Woodroffe, 2008). The
Labor Government's 1993 inquiry led to the development of the first
national-level coastal policy in 1995, subsequently replaced with the
Australian Oceans Policy (AOP) by the newly elected Howard govern-
ment in 1998 (Harvey and Caton, 2010; Vince et al., 2015). Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) was adopted as the national ap-
proach in 2006, seeking to establish a holistic national-scale vision,
appropriate evaluation mechanisms, and enhanced collaboration,
partnership and participation (Natural Resource Management
Ministerial Council, 2006; Australian Government, 2009). While ICZM
has been seen elsewhere as necessary for effective climate change
adaptation (Flood and Schechtman, 2014), its application in Australia
has been constrained (Clark and Johnston, 2017). The 2009 inquiry
again emphasised the challenges in delivering effective governance for
coastal areas across Australia, recommending the federal government
take the lead to nurture and establish an agreed approach across all
tiers of government (Australian Government, 2009).
The State Government has direct jurisdiction for managing coastal
areas and is thus the main body of government to define and administer
coastal zone policies and laws, particularly through its agencies DPAC,
DPIPWE and TPC. The State Government also influences coastal out-
comes through its role in developing non-statutory guidelines, plans
and programs. DPAC is a Tasmanian Government agency with a lea-
dership role in state-level decision-making, strategic planning and
policy development. This agency is responsible for delivering statutory
policies, including the Tasmanian State Coastal Policy (TSCP), which
came into effect in 1996. DPIPWE administers the primary environ-
mental and natural resource legislation related to Tasmanian coastal
areas. Also, this organisation delivers a range of directions and guide-
lines for coastal conservation and development such as the Tasmanian
Coastal Works Manual (DPIPWE, 2014). TPC is an independent agency
J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
133
lord_
Realce
nullA ilha de 68.401 km² da Tasmânia é o estado mais meridional da Commonwealth da Austrália.nullnull A costa da Tasmânia apóia uma ampla gama de serviços e atividades naturais, culturais, sociais e econômicas, incluindo proteção do ecossistema, pesca comercial e recreativa, aquicultura, recreação e desenvolvimento urbano.nullnullQuase 75% da população da Tasmânia (cerca de 509.000) e uma variedade de infra-estruturas e indústrias estão localizados na costa ou perto dela (DCC, 2009)nullnullnullA área costeira da Tasmânia engloba uma gama diversificada de ecossistemas sensíveis, tais como zonas húmidas costeiras, sistemas de dunas, estuários, sapais e flora e fauna que raramente são encontrados na Austrália continental (DPIPWE, 2014). nullnullEsses sistemas estão sob pressão substancial de fatores sociais e ambientais de mudança, incluindo mudanças climáticas, aumento do nível do mar e desenvolvimento humano inadequado (Departamento de Meio Ambiente e Planejamento, 1991).
lord_
Realce
A governança costeira da Tasmânia é um arranjo complexo e multinívelnullcom papéis e responsabilidades compartilhados entre múltiplas organizações em escalas e através de diferentes instrumentos. Os principais níveis e organizações de governança são o Governo Australiano, o Governo do Estado da Tasmânia, órgãos regionais (intra-estaduais) de NRM, governos locais (conselhos), ONGs, grupos comunitários e proprietários e indústrias privadas. Cada nível de governança e organização tem uma influência particular nos processos de tomada de decisões costeiras, desenvolvimento de políticas, planejamento e gestão por meio de uma variedade de mecanismos estatutários e não estatutários.
lord_
Realce
nullO governo australiano é o principal responsável pela tomada de decisões e pelo desenvolvimento de políticas em escala internacional e nacional, sendo que o DEE é o departamento mais influente nessa escala (Lockwood e Davidson, 2010).
lord_
Realce
O governo australiano estabeleceu processos, políticas, estratégias e programas destinados a melhorar a gestão e a governança costeira (Harvey e Caton, 2010), por meio de inúmeras investigações, inclusive as realizadas em 1991, 1993 e 2009.
lord_
Realce
nullOinquérito de 1991 constatou que o processo de tomada de decisão fragmentada e os conflitos entre os valores e interesses das partes interessadas exacerbaram os problemas associados à governança costeira e propuseram uma estratégia de gestão costeira em escala nacional em colaboração com os governos estaduais e locais.
lord_
Realce
O inquérito do governo trabalhista de 1993 levou ao desenvolvimento da primeira política costeira em nível nacional em 1995, posteriormente substituída pela política australiana de oceanos (AOP) pelo recém-eleito governo de Howard em 1998.
lord_
Realce
O inquérito de 2009 enfatizou novamente os desafios em fornecer governança efetiva para áreas costeiras em toda a Austrália, recomendando que o governo federal assuma a liderança para nutrir e estabelecer uma abordagem acordada em todos os níveis de governo (Governo Australiano, 2009).
lord_
Realce
O Governo do Estado tem jurisdição direta para administrar áreas costeiras e é, portanto, o principal órgão de governo a definir e administrar políticas e leis da zona costeira, particularmente através das suas agências DPAC, DPIPWE e TPC.
and the peak statutory planning organisation in Tasmania, responsible
for reviewing policy when directed. The main influence of TPC on
coastal governance originates from its roles in guiding the delivery of
the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). The RMPS is a
state-wide statutory system for environmental decision-making, in-
cluding land use planning, pollution control and policy development.
The main statutory policy document related to Tasmanian coastal
areas is the TSCP. Technical and legal issues concerning the area to
which the policy applies led to the definition of the coastal zone, under
the State Coastal Policy Validation Act 2003, as State waters and all
land to a distance of one kilometre inland from the high-water mark.
Concerns persisted, however, regarding the failure of the policy to ad-
dress challenges such as climate change and sea level rise. To improve
validity and currency of TSCP, in 2008 DPAC submitted a new draft
policy, but this was rejected by the TPC in 2011 because of its lack of
strategic approach, inadequate consideration of long-term provisions,
lack of emphasis on developing an appropriate information system,
insufficient clarity about evaluation and monitoring procedures, and a
lack of provisions to address climate change impacts and sea level rise.
Following this rejection, the Tasmanian Government initiated a new
coastal policy framework in 2012, aiming to adopt a more strategic
approach to coastal zone planning and management. The process is still
ongoing, and a new coastal policy has not yet been finalised. Regardless
of its weaknesses and strengths, and in the absence of a more recent
coastal policy framework, the 1996 TSCP remains the main framework
for the Tasmanian coastal zone.
In Australian governance arrangements, local government (or
council) roles and responsibilities are regulated under state laws and
regulations. Tasmania has 29 Local Government Areas including 20
with a coastal zone. At a local level, councils are responsible for land
use planning, and for addressing coastal management issues through
their role in developing and implementing local level plans and pro-
grams. Finally, Within the Tasmanian State, NRM organisations have a
leading role in planning and guiding implementation of natural re-
source management. The three Tasmanian regional NRM bodies have
developed regional strategic plans that include objectives and actions
for managing coastal areas.
5. Results
As defined in Section 2, resilience-based coastal governance is a
type of arrangement that is capable of undertaking resilience thinking
(and its underpinning notions) as an overarching frame of mind shaping
the process of coastal decision-making and policy development.
Therefore, resilience capacity is not the capacity of a governance re-
gime to create “resilient” outcomes, but the capacity of its key actors to
consider resilience thinking principles in the governance process. Our
evaluation sought views on the importance of each attribute, and then
to offer an assessment of how well key governance actors were per-
forming. The latter included an assessment of inter-agency perfor-
mance.
5.1. Importance assessment of attributes
In the online survey, respondents were asked for their views on the
importance of the 16 nominated attributes in Table 1 for developing
resilience-based coastal governance in Tasmania. Importance was rated
using a five-point scale from Not Important to Very Important. Of the
16 attributes, 14 were considered by survey participants to be Very
Important or Important, with only two considered Moderately Im-
portant (distribution of power between the Australian Government and
regional NRM bodies, and between the Tasmanian Government and
regional NRM bodies) (detailed results are provided as supplementary
material).
The importance value of each attribute varied across governance
levels. Thematic analysis from the interviews suggested that the degree
of importance depends on a number of factors including: the influence
of the governance level in the process of coastal governance, roles and
responsibilities at different levels, and the condition of the interactions
between a focal organisation with others. For example, because the
Tasmanian Government is the body most responsible for developing
coastal legislative frameworks, the attribute supportive legislation was
given a higher importance value at this level compared with the Federal
Government level.
Organisational learning was seen as Very Important for all govern-
ance levels and could be considered as the most significant attribute in
improving resilience capacity. On the other hand, organisational flex-
ibility was not seen as Very Important at any level. The findings also
suggest that leadership for change is more important at the federal and
state government levels than for regional and local organisations. Thus,
in the process of developing resilience-based coastal governance, im-
proving the capacity of leadership for change at higher-level organi-
sations could be more influential and a higher priority. The Tasmanian
Government was seen as the most influential body regarding coastal
governance with the greatest number of Very Important attributes (11).
Local government had the next level of influence (5 attributes rated as
Very Important) (for detailed results, see supplementary material).
Interview analysis confirmed the relevance of most of the nomi-
nated attributes in developing resilience-based Tasmanian coastal
governance. Although the interview questions did not directly address
any specific attributes, thematic analysis highlighted the requirements
for leadership support; cross-scale communication and collaboration
(flow of information, knowledge and experience across scales); stake-
holder engagement processes; enhanced knowledge system (including
knowledge acquisition, management and sharing processes); fairer
distribution regime of power, accountability and liability; and suppor-
tive legislative frameworks.
5.2. Performance assessment of the attributes
To identify how the governance arrangements could be improved,
we then evaluated the performance by each of the key organisations
involved in the coastal governance regime. Survey respondents were
asked to rate performance with regard to each attribute for each or-
ganisation. The rating options were converted to a performance scale
with numeric values ranging from Very Poor (=0) to Desirable (=5),
enabling an average score of performance to be calculated. Table 2 lists
the attributes that were seen as very poor, poor or marginal. More
detailed results are available as supplementary material. Generally,
NRM South, Clarence and Kingborough Councils were considered
better-performing than otherorganisations. In these three organisa-
tions, no attribute was found to be marginal or poorly performing. By
contrast, all agencies at the state and federal levels received an overall
marginal average score for their performance (ranging from 1.7 to 2).
DPIPWE had a slightly better ranking than the others.
At the Australian Government level, no attribute was in the sa-
tisfactory or desirable performance range. Attributes related to
knowledge systems (knowledge acquisition, management and sharing
processes) and diversity of expertise performed better than other at-
tributes. At this level, the following attributes performed poorly: or-
ganisational flexibility, supportive legislation, leadership for change
and leadership for securing outcomes.
At the state level, supportive legislation was regarded as poorly
performing, which is particularly significant given that the attribute at
this level was considered to be Very Important. The TPC performed
poorly in organisational flexibility, adaptive planning and manage-
ment, leadership for change and leadership for securing outcomes.
Although overall performance at a local level was marginal, the
performance regime for each council was different. Clarence and
Kingborough Councils were considered to be better performing than
Huon Valley, and had no low performing attributes. The overall per-
formance of NRM South was evaluated as satisfactory, with no
J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
134
lord_
Sublinhado
Avaliação de importância de atributos
lord_
Realce
nullNa pesquisa on-line, os entrevistados foram questionados sobre suas opiniões sobre a importância dos 16 atributos indicados na Tabela 1 para o desenvolvimento da governança costeira baseada em resiliência na Tasmânia. nullImportância foi avaliada usando uma escala de cinco pontos de Não Importante para Muito Importante.
lord_
Realce
Dos 16 atributos, 14 foram considerados pelos participantes da pesquisa como Muito Importante ou Importante, com apenas dois considerados Moderadamente Importantes (distribuição de poder entre o governo australiano e órgãos regionais de NRM e entre o governo da Tasmânia e órgãos regionais de NRM)
lord_
Realce
A entrevista confirmou que os atributos mais significativos são:nullnullfluxo de informaçãonullnullconhecimento e experiência através de escalasnullnullprocessos de engajamento de stakeholdersnullnullmelhor sistema de conhecimento (incluindo aquisição de conhecimento, gerenciamento e compartilhamento de processos)nullnullregime de distribuição de poder, prestação de contas e responsabilidade mais justanullnullquadros legislativos de apoio.
attributes rated with marginal or poorer performance.
The interview findings confirmed the survey results on poor per-
formance against the attributes, particularly with reference to federal
and state agency performance. Lack of supportive legislative frame-
work, poor leadership, lack of clarity of decision-making, policy de-
velopment and planning, lack of cross-sectoral and cross-scale com-
munication and collaboration and inappropriate public engagement
process were among the most frequent weaknesses identified by inter-
viewees. The Australian Government was seen as having the inadequate
leadership to support resilience capacity, particularly in relation to
delivering financial, technological and knowledge support to other
tiers. A prevailing risk-averse mindset, the domination of short-term
political and economic attitudes, the lack of openness to change, and
the domination of command and control approaches were identified as
potential causes for this low leadership capacity.
Interview analysis suggested the main reasons for the unsatisfactory
performance of federal and state government agencies were: being in a
state of denial (regarding climate change and sea level rise), lack of a
holistic and long-term vision, lack of fit and scale mismatches in coastal
decision-making and the dominance of a risk-averse mindset. A con-
siderable number of interviewees indicated that a major drawback of
Tasmanian coastal governance was poor leadership from the state
government to deliver a clear, valid and state-wide coastal policy.
5.3. Evaluation of Tasmanian coastal governance resilience capacity
By combining the importance and performance assessment of each
of the resilience-based governance attributes, we can determine the
Table 2
Attributes respondents rated as having low-performance levels for key actors in the Tasmanian coastal governance regime.
Governance level and organisation Very Poor or Poor performance Marginal performance Average performance level
Federal:
DEE
Organisational flexibility
Supportive legislation
Leadership for change and securing outcomes
Knowledge acquisition processes
Transparent decision-making processes
Adaptive planning and management
Organisational learning
Conflict resolution mechanisms
Stakeholder engagement processes
1.7
State:
1. DPIPWE
Supportive legislation Organisational learning
Stakeholder engagement processes
Transparent decision-making processes
Organisational flexibility
Adaptive planning and management
Leadership for change and securing outcomes
Conflict resolution mechanisms
2
2. DPAC Adaptive planning and management
Supportive legislation
Knowledge acquisition, management and sharing processes
Diversity of expertise
Transparent decision-making processes
Organisational flexibility
Stakeholder engagement processes
Conflict resolution mechanisms
Organisational learning
Leadership for change and securing outcomes
1.7
3. TPC Organisational flexibility
Adaptive planning and management
Leadership for change and securing outcomes
Supportive legislation
Conflict resolution mechanisms
Diversity of expertise
Knowledge acquisition, management and sharing processes
Organisational learning
Stakeholder engagement processes
1.7
Regional:
NRM South
2.6
Local:
1. Clarence
2.8
2. Kingborough 2.7
3. Huon Valley Adaptive planning and management Organisational learning,
Knowledge acquisition, management and sharing processes
Stakeholder engagement processes
Leadership for change and securing outcomes
Transparent decision-making processes
Conflict resolution mechanisms
Diversity of expertise
Organisational flexibility
1.7
Scores are ranked according to survey results, with Very Poor or Poor having a mean score≤1.5 and Marginal having a mean score> 1.5 and≤ 2. Attributes rated
with better performing results are listed in supplementary material.
DEE=Department of the Environment and Energy; DPIPWE=Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment; DPAC=Department of Premier and
Cabinet; TPC=Tasmanian Planning Commission; NRM = Natural Resource Management.
Table 3
Classification of resilience capacity.
Level of organisational performance
Desirable Satisfactory Average Marginal Very poor or poor
Level of attribute Importance Very Important Desirable Adequate Marginal Pre-resilience No Resilience
Important Desirable Adequate Marginal Pre-resilience No Resilience
Moderately Important Desirable Adequate Adequate Marginal No Resilience
J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
135
resilience capacity of the Tasmanian coastal governance regime and its
constituent actors. As shown in Table 3, our rating of resilience capacity
relies mostly on attribute performance assessments given that almost all
attributes were seen as having high importance. We used this classifi-
cation to rate the resilience capacity of each governance actor, enabling
us to suggest where improvements need to be directed to help build
capacity (see Table 4).
We also offer a description for each level of resilience capacity, as
follows:
Desirable resilience capacity: A coastal governance arrangement
and its constituent actors with this level of resiliencecapacity can de-
liver proactive and effective responses for systems adaptability and
transformability. It is an arrangement that is not risk-averse and em-
braces changes and uncertainty.
Adequate resilience capacity: A governance arrangement and its
actors with this level of resilience capacity supports a proactive
adaptability. However, system transformability is not proactive and
needs substantial enhancement to survive unforeseen radical changes
and shocks. Transformative responses are likely to be simple, delayed
and reactive.
Marginal resilience capacity: In a coastal governance arrange-
ment with this level of resilience capacity, adaptive responses are
mostly inadequate and reactive. Transformative capacity does not exist
or is very low. The system fails to provide appropriate responses to
transformational drivers and risks prolonged crises and problematic
recovery if transformational changes occur.
Pre-resilience capacity: A coastal governance arrangement at this
level does not have any recognisable level of resilience capacity.
Governance actors may deliver a basic level of adaptation, but adapt-
ability is fragile, and the system could easily fail to adapt to incremental
changes even in the short term. In a governance arrangement with this
level of resilience, system transformability is not considered.
No resilience capacity: There is no capacity for governance ar-
rangements or actors at this level to frame responses that are adaptive
or transformative to changes affecting the coastal SES.
The results in Table 4 indicate that organisations at local and re-
gional levels showed a higher resilience capacity than the those at
federal and state levels. For example, around 75 per cent of the attri-
butes at Clarence and Kingborough Councils and NRM South supported
at least an adequate level of resilience. The rest of the attributes at these
organisations were at a marginal level. Overall, it is highly concerning
to note that over half the attributes (55%) had pre- or no resilience
Table 4
Level of resilience capacity supported by each attribute across scales.
Number of attributes listed against resilience capacity levels
Desirable Adequate Marginal Pre-
resilience
No
Resilience
Overall
assessment
1
(< 1%)
27
(21%)
30
(23%)
58
(45%)
14
(11%)
DEE 0 0 3
(25%)
6
(50%)
3
(25%)
Attributes offering no resilience: Leadership for change and securing outcomes,
Organisational flexibility
Attributes offering pre-resilience: Knowledge acquisition processes, Transparent
decision-making processes, Organisational learning, Adaptive planning and
management, Conflict resolution mechanisms, Stakeholder engagement processes
Attributes offering marginal resilience: Knowledge management and sharing
processes, Diversity of expertise
DPAC 0 0 0 11
(92%)
1
(8%)
No resilience: Adaptive planning and management
Pre-resilience: All other attributes
DPIPWE 0 0 3
(25%)
9
(75%)
0
Pre-resilience: All attributes except for those listed below (marginal resilience)
Marginal resilience: Knowledge management and sharing processes, Diversity of
expertise
TPC 0 0 1
(8%)
7
(59%)
4
(33%)
No resilience: Leadership for change and securing outcomes, Adaptive planning and
management, Organisational flexibility
Pre-resilience: Diversity of expertise, Conflict resolution mechanisms, Knowledge
acquisition, management and sharing processes, Organisational learning,
Stakeholder engagement processes
Marginal resilience: Transparent decision-making processes
NRM South 9
(75%)
3
(25%)
0 0
Marginal resilience: Adaptive planning and management, Conflict resolution
mechanisms, Knowledge management processes
Adequate resilience: All other attributes
Clarence Council 1
(8%)
8
(67%)
3
(25%)
0 0
Marginal resilience: Adaptive planning and management, Organisational flexibility,
Conflict resolution mechanisms
Adequate resilience: Knowledge acquisition, management and sharing processes,
Organisational learning, Transparent decision-making processes, Stakeholder
engagement processes, leadership for securing outcomes, Diversity of expertise
Desirable resilience: Leadership for change
Kingborough
Council
0 9
(75%)
3
(25%)
0 0
Marginal resilience: Adaptive planning and management, Organisational flexibility,
Conflict resolution mechanisms
Adequate resilience: All other attributes
Huon Valley
Council
0 0 0 11
(92%)
1
(8%)
No resilience: Adaptive planning and management
Pre-resilience: All other attributes
Supportive
legislation
0 0 0 0 2
(100%)
No resilience: At both relevant levels: Australian Government and Tasmanian
Government
Distribution of
power
0 1
(20%)
3
(60%)
1
(20%)
0
Pre-resilience: Between Tasmanian and local governments
Marginal resilience: Between regional NRM agency and three levels of
government
Adequate resilience: Between Australian and Tasmanian governments
Organisational
cooperation
and
coordination
0 0 6
(40%)
7
(47%)
2
(13%)
Table 4 (continued)
Number of attributes listed against resilience capacity levels
Desirable Adequate Marginal Pre-
resilience
No
Resilience
No resilience: Between Tasmanian Government and (1) community groups and (2)
NGOs
Pre-resilience: Between Australian Government and (1) regional NRM, (2)
Tasmanian Government; between Tasmanian Government and (1) local
governments and (2) business sector; between regional NRM and business sector;
between local governments and (1) business sector and (2) NGOs
Marginal resilience: Between regional NRM and (1) Tasmanian government, (2)
local governments, (3) community groups and (4) NGOs; between local
governments and (1) community groups and (2) other local governments
Organisational
partnerships
0 0 5
(42%)
6
(50%)
1
(8%)
No resilience: Between Tasmanian Government and NGOs
Pre-resilience: Between Australian Government and Tasmanian Government;
between Tasmanian Government and (1) local governments and (2) business
sector; between regional NRM and business sector; between local governments and
(1) business sector and (2) NGOs
Marginal resilience: Between regional NRM and (1) Australian, (2) Tasmanian,
and (3) local governments and (4) NGOs; between local governments and other
local governments
J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
136
capacity, and that only 22 per cent of the attributes contributed to an
adequate or a higher level of resilience.
At the Australian Government level, none of the attributes sup-
ported an adequate or a higher level of resilience capacity. Half of the
attributes were at a pre-resilience level, including: transparent decision-
making processes, organisational learning, conflict resolution mechan-
isms, and adaptive planning and management. Despite significant im-
portance of leadership at higher levels of governance, leadership for
change and securing outcomes was not seen as supporting any level of
resilience capacity at the Australian Government level. Interview ana-
lysis confirmed that the main influence of the Australian Government
on Tasmanian coastal governance is through non-statutory instruments
such as by providing technical and financial support to develop re-
search and implementation projects. However, the majority of the in-
terviewees indicated inadequate leadership support from the Federal
Government is a key driver for the low resilience capacity of the
Tasmanian coastal governance.
Although the State Government was particularly influential in
coastal governance, attribute performance did not support an appro-
priate level of resilience capacity. Except for transparent decision-
making processes at the TPC, which supported a marginal level of re-
silience, the rest of the attributes at DPaC and TPC were at pre-resi-
lience or no resilience levels. DPIPWEhad a slightly higher resilience
capacity compared with the other two agencies.
Interview analysis identified an unsatisfactory situation in relation
to the availability of a supportive State legislative framework. This si-
tuation could raise other concerns such as lack of clarity in decision-
making processes and uncertainties over the allocation of liability for
any problems that arise from planning decisions. Interviewees fre-
quently expressed the view that, due to the lack of clear and over-
arching guidelines and directions from the State Government (such as a
coherent and functional coastal policy), coastal planning and decision-
making was ad-hoc rather than systematic.
NRM South's perceived performance on 75 per cent of the attributes
supported an adequate level of resilience. Adaptive planning and
management, conflict resolution mechanisms, and knowledge man-
agement processes were at a marginal level. At a local government
level, attribute performance at Clarence and Kingborough Councils
were significantly better than at Federal and State levels. On the other
hand, Huon Valley Council's performance was seen as being lower than
for the other two councils, with all attributes at the pre-resilience level
or lower. Finally, on an inter-organisational scale, attribute perfor-
mance was also viewed as being unsatisfactory, with organisational
cooperation, coordination and partnerships supporting a marginal or
lower level of resilience.
The interview analysis confirmed the low resilience capacity of
Tasmanian coastal governance particularly in regard to system trans-
formability. The results suggested that the major drawback of
Tasmanian coastal governance, especially on a local scale, is driven by
lack of leadership and supportive legislative and regulatory frame-
works. For example, most of the local government participants in-
dicated that due to lack of leadership support, unclear legislation fra-
mework and a prevailing risk-averse attitude, the process of coastal
decision-making is litigious and risky. As a consequence, one inter-
viewee claimed: “at the moment doing nothing is the best option”.
6. Discussion
Our findings suggest that all 16 attributes are viewed as important
for developing resilience-based coastal governance in Tasmania.
However, the relative importance value of each attribute varied ac-
cording to organisational roles and influence on coastal governance
processes, and the position of each organisation in the Tasmanian
coastal governance panarchy. Some attributes were more dependent on
the context of application than others. For example, due to the sole
responsibility of Tasmanian Government on framing state-level
legislation and statutory policy documents, a supportive legislative
framework was more dependent on the Tasmanian State Government,
compared with other attributes such as organisational flexibility and
learning. In addition, state and local levels had the most number of
Important and Very Important attributes, indicating a higher level of
influence of these two levels on the processes of coastal governance.
The evaluation identified an overall unsatisfactory performance of
key actors in the governance regime against the attributes, and con-
sequent low resilience capacity of the entire Tasmanian coastal gov-
ernance system. Less than 30 per cent of the attributes were seen as
contributing to an adequate or a higher level of resilience capacity. The
attribute regimes were particularly poor in relation to adaptive plan-
ning and management, leadership for change and securing outcomes,
and organisational flexibility. In general, the local and regional orga-
nisations showed a higher resilience capacity compared with the State
and Federal Governments.
At a State level, the unsupportive attributes regime at the TPC, as
the peak Tasmanian planning body, indicated a potentially defective
state planning system. The perception that TPC lacks resilience capacity
indicates weaknesses of the Tasmanian planning system in delivering
adaptive, collaborative and fair planning procedures. Despite the major
leadership role of DPIPWE in coastal decision-making and manage-
ment, the associated attributes were viewed as being at a pre-resilience
level. The inflexibility of DPIPWE's structure suggested that this agency
has a low capacity to respond to future and plausible scenarios of
change. The interview analysis suggested that the deficiencies of State-
level organisations are due to inadequate cross-sectoral and cross-scale
collaboration and communication, lack of political will and support,
domination of the neoliberal paradigm and risk-averse attitudes in the
State level decision-making system, and an unsupportive legislative
framework.
The absence of an appropriate legislative or policy framework (such
as effective state-wide coastal policy), lack of leadership support and
political will, and poor organisational communication and collabora-
tion were the major drawbacks of Tasmanian coastal governance. A
governance regime with a low level of legal and political support, lack
of clarity in the decision-making process, imbalanced power relations
and organisational isolation encourages a risk-averse attitude in deci-
sion-makers and consequently undermines the capacity for innovation,
novelty and entrepreneurship (Kahneman, 2011; Sunstein, 2005; Taleb,
2012).
While NRM South and Kingborough and Clarence Councils were
seen as supporting at least an adequate level of resilience capacity,
Huon Valley Council's performance was seen as less effective. The in-
terview analysis suggests that the lower resilience capacity at Huon
Valley Council could be due to a lack of financial resources, inadequate
human expertise, a lower level of leadership for change at a local level
and less priority of environmental and coastal issues in the Council's
agenda.
The findings suggested a synergic interaction between attributes,
whereby the attributes tend to reinforce each other in improving resi-
lience capacity of the entire system. For example, it is likely that robust
leadership (both for change and securing outcomes) would influence
performance against other attributes and increase the system's resi-
lience capacity. The role of leadership (especially from higher levels of
governance) in supporting research and implementation projects,
which assist establishing a quality knowledge system, is significant. In
addition, leadership for change and securing outcomes could support a
polycentric distribution of power and strengthen panarchial relation-
ships across the governance system (Folke et al., 2005; Mitchell et al.,
2015).
For example, some interview participants pointed out that the
strong leadership at Clarence Council had a significant influence on
improving the Council's resilience capacity. A well-developed leader-
ship at Clarence Council enhanced capacity in relation to other attri-
butes such as stakeholder awareness and engagement, and a quality
J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
137
knowledge system. The proactive leadership at Clearance Council also
enabled them to bypass the State level bureaucracy and directly access
Federal resources to fund the Impacts on Clarence Coastal Areas pro-
ject. However, the higher importance and lower performance level of
leadership at the Federal and State levels compromise the leadership
capacity at a local scale and adversely affects resilience capacity of the
entire coastal governance system. Improving leadership capacity in
organisations at all levels can be a catalytic first step for enhancing a
system's adaptability and transformability.
The procedure for developing the capacity to improve resilience-
based Tasmanian coastal governance is not a matter of ‘one size fits all’,
but should involve multi-scalar capacity building that considers present
opportunities and accountsfor future requirements. Developing resi-
lience-based Tasmanian coastal governance is a shared responsibility
between organisations across sectors and scales. However, because the
State and Federal level agencies had significantly lower resilience ca-
pacity compared with the local and regional organisations, the strate-
gies and actions should be particularly focused on these two levels and
associated organisations. In this respect, priority should be given to
improving the performance associated with attributes which have the
highest levels of importance and influence.
A resilience-based arrangement allows for a degree of organisational
autonomy while establishing robust connections within and between
organisations at all governance levels. Such a panarchical system re-
cognises that the outcomes of the adaptive cycle, at each level, influ-
ence other levels decision-making processes. As the findings revealed,
the existing Tasmanian governance arrangements are fragmented and
disconnected. So, enhancing the level of organisational collaboration
and communication through establishing partnered plans and programs
is a key consideration in enhancing resilience capacity.
The process of resilience capacity improvement is not deterministic
and prescriptive and should allow for novelty and innovation. The
findings emphasised the importance of proactive leadership for change
to develop resilience-based coastal governance. As was manifest in in-
terview participant opinions (especially at a local scale), risk-averse
leadership reactively expects the flow of resource and information from
other levels. However, leadership for change can find or create me-
chanisms to proactively enhance availability and accessibility of re-
sources. Some interview participant noted the Clarence and
Kingborough Councils' contributions and argued that stronger bottom-
up leadership from local organisations, community groups and NGOs
would increase entrepreneurial capacities throughout the system.
Attributes related to knowledge systems (including knowledge ac-
quisition, management, and sharing processes) and providing resources
(including financial and human resources) to support research and
implementation activities were amongst the main foci of the resilience
development strategies. The findings showed that, despite the low di-
rect influence of the Federal Government, this level of governance
could significantly contribute to the development of resilience-based
Tasmanian coastal governance through delivering national level po-
licies and guidelines as well as providing knowledge, financial and
technical resources to other tiers of governance.
Adaptive learning was another important attribute in the process of
forming a resilience-based governance arrangement. As Ostrom et al.
(1999) argue, the domination of rapid and radical drivers of change
makes the traditional way of learning (which is learning from past
experiences) more difficult. So, in an era of rapid and radical change,
adaptive learning should emphasise enhancing the ability to acknowl-
edge uncertainty and respond to emergent properties through im-
proving the capacity for novelty, innovation and generating wisdom in
the decision-making process, rather than an exclusive reliance on the
accumulation of experiential information and knowledge. This form of
learning requires encouraging transformational decisions, particularly
at lower levels of governance.
Finally, the findings revealed that civil institutions, including
community groups and NGOs, are important pillars of resilience-based
coastal governance. The existing coastal governance system in
Tasmania does not adequately facilitate public awareness, engagement
and empowerment in the process of coastal decision-making and policy
development. To improve resilience capacity of coastal governance,
public and local communities should be aware of the potential impacts
of coastal decisions, have free access to data and information and be
empowered to proactively engage in the governance process.
7. Conclusion
Walker and Salt (2012) argue that although resilience science is not
new, applying resilience thinking in the real world is still in its infancy.
While the theoretical advantages (and the drawbacks) of incorporating
resilience thinking into environmental and coastal decision-making,
policy development, planning and management have been largely ar-
gued in the scholarship, the availability of practical data and in-
formation on the structure, processes and mechanisms of the in-
corporation is limited. Without these practical data, systematic
evaluation and monitoring of applying resilience thinking in SES gov-
ernance is difficult, if not impossible. This study responded to the need
for more research with a focus on connecting theory with im-
plementation and applying the underpinnings of resilience thinking in
real-world situations.
The current study applied the framing of resilience thinking in a
social science context. The research identified features of a governance
arrangement that adopts resilience thinking as the main framing
through which real-world solutions regarding coastal SESs can be
identified in the context of environmental and social uncertainty. Our
approach is reformist allowing information to be garnered about the
requirements for incorporating resilience thinking into the practice of
coastal governance in Tasmania, and thus offering a practical process
for evaluating, monitoring and improving the resilience capacity of
governance arrangements.
We identified 16 key attributes that could inform the assessment
and development of resilience-based coastal governance. The attributes
encompassed the fundamental features of resilience thinking and good
governance criteria including: panarchy, adaptive cycle, stakeholder
engagement, flexibility, polycentricity, leadership and adaptive plan-
ning and adaptive management.
Establishing resilience-based coastal governance or enhancing its
resilience capacity should emphasise processes to improve cross-scale
communication and collaboration, enhance leadership capacities to
embrace change and uncertainty, develop quality knowledge systems
and adaptive learning capacity, and increase public participation and
engagement mechanisms in coastal governance. Although the social
and environmental factors that influence the dynamics of coastal SESs
vary from one place to another, the nature of coastal problems and
governance approaches have numerous similarities on a global scale
(Adger et al., 2005; Glaser et al., 2012; Moser et al., 2012). Thus, we
suggest that the proposed attributes could have potential utility to
guide the design of developing resilience-based coastal governance re-
gardless of the geographical context of the application. These implica-
tions encompass the application of the attributes on an international
scale (such as coastal conventions, treaties, and agreements), national
scale, state or provincial level (such as other Australian states or similar
jurisdictions worldwide), and catchment or local scales.
Acknowledgements
First and the most, we would like to sincerely thank Drs Michael
Lockwood and Lorne Kriwoken for supervising this research. Without
their support and guidance accomplishing this research would not have
been possible. Appreciation is also extended to Dr Beverly Clark at the
School of Geography and Environmental Studies, Flinders University,
for her generous support in providing working space during the latter
stages of the research. Our special thanks to all the survey and interview
J. Jozaei, M. Mitchell Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 130–140
138
lord_
Sublinhado
nullSem esses dados práticos, a avaliação sistemática e o monitoramento da aplicação do pensamento de resiliência na governança da SES são difíceis, se não impossíveis
lord_
Sublinhado
nullNossa abordagem é reformista,