The legitimacy of collaborative planning : setting water resource limits in Otago and Canterbury, New Zealand : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Resource and Environment Planning at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Loading...
Date
2014
DOI
Open Access Location
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Massey University
Rights
The Author
Abstract
Water resource management and planning in New Zealand has been a contested
issue, typified by polarised positions, fragmented communities and costly court battles.
Conventional top-down water planning processes have become characterised by
conflicting science and opposing viewpoints. Over recent decades, a new form of
planning and decision making has emerged where stakeholders and communities work
collaboratively to resolve diverse perspectives and values and achieve communityaccepted
policy outcomes. These collaborative processes have gained momentum
and become more widespread in recent years, however, so too has the level of scrutiny
and the call to evaluate their effectiveness. Given the growing application of
collaborative approaches in New Zealand it is timely to consider their legitimacy.
This research aims to assess the legitimacy of collaborative planning in the context of
setting water resource limits. It develops an assessment framework founded on the
principles of input, throughput and output legitimacy and employs a comparative case
study approach to examine two regional council limit-setting processes – a
conventional council-led approach in Otago, and a collaborative community-driven
approach in Selwyn Waihora, Canterbury. Through a participant survey, complimented
by a document analysis, the research examines the strengths and weaknesses of
these differing approaches against the legitimacy principles and identifies the elements
that promote or challenge legitimacy claims.
The research results indicate the collaborative Selwyn Waihora limit-setting process
was perceived to be more legitimate than the top-down Otago planning approach. The
Selwyn Waihora process performed relatively well against input and throughput
legitimacy criteria, demonstrating that collaboration enables better local input, more
buy-in and greater opportunities for information sharing and deliberation. It facilitates
greater understanding of others views and a sense of commitment to involving and
engaging the community. It also enhances problem-solving and innovation capability
and the likelihood that common ground can be realised. The research does, however,
indicate that while the Selwyn Waihora process was also more legitimate in terms of
output criteria, the ratings for both the outcome effectiveness and the reflection of
community input in the outcome were low given it was promoted as a communitydriven
process.
Description
Keywords
Water resource management, Water resource planning, Collaborative planning, Collaborative management, Water resources, Canterbury, Water resources, Otago