Community-Centred Environmental Discourse: Redefining Water Management in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia

Amanda Shankland
{"title":"Community-Centred Environmental Discourse: Redefining Water Management in the Murray Darling Basin, Australia","authors":"Amanda Shankland","doi":"10.1007/s10806-024-09926-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Australian government's response to the Millennium Drought (1997–2010) has been met with praise and contestation. While proponents saw the response as timely and crucial, critics claimed it was characterized by government overreach and mismanagement. Five months of field research in farm communities in the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) identified two dominant discourses: administrative rationalism and a local community-based discourse I have termed community-centrism. Administrative rationalism reflects the value of scientific inquiry in service to the state and is the dominant research-based problem-solving model used by water and natural resource agencies (Dryzek in The politics of the earth: environmental discourses, Oxford University Press, 2013; Colloff and Pittock in Aust J Water Resour, 23(2):88–98, 2019). Community-centrism was identified through discussions with farmers and represents a bottom-up approach to environmental planning and management that seeks to incorporate local knowledge, planning, and direct participation. This investigation reveals how discourses define problems and policy choices. While market-based government interventions were likely necessary to address the crisis in the MDB, community-centred responses could have enhanced the government’s capacity to respond to problems. This paper argues that the long-term sustainability of water management in the Basin will require a reorientation on the part of farmers, academics, and governments to develop a community-centred approach to water policies impacting agriculture.</p>","PeriodicalId":501152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-024-09926-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Australian government's response to the Millennium Drought (1997–2010) has been met with praise and contestation. While proponents saw the response as timely and crucial, critics claimed it was characterized by government overreach and mismanagement. Five months of field research in farm communities in the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) identified two dominant discourses: administrative rationalism and a local community-based discourse I have termed community-centrism. Administrative rationalism reflects the value of scientific inquiry in service to the state and is the dominant research-based problem-solving model used by water and natural resource agencies (Dryzek in The politics of the earth: environmental discourses, Oxford University Press, 2013; Colloff and Pittock in Aust J Water Resour, 23(2):88–98, 2019). Community-centrism was identified through discussions with farmers and represents a bottom-up approach to environmental planning and management that seeks to incorporate local knowledge, planning, and direct participation. This investigation reveals how discourses define problems and policy choices. While market-based government interventions were likely necessary to address the crisis in the MDB, community-centred responses could have enhanced the government’s capacity to respond to problems. This paper argues that the long-term sustainability of water management in the Basin will require a reorientation on the part of farmers, academics, and governments to develop a community-centred approach to water policies impacting agriculture.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以社区为中心的环境论述:重新定义澳大利亚墨累达令盆地的水资源管理
澳大利亚政府应对千年旱灾(1997-2010 年)的措施受到了赞扬和质疑。支持者认为应对措施及时而关键,而批评者则认为其特点是政府越权和管理不善。我在墨累达令盆地(MDB)的农场社区进行了五个月的实地研究,发现了两种主流话语:一种是行政理性主义,另一种是以当地社区为基础的话语,我称之为社区中心主义。行政理性主义反映了为国家服务的科学探索的价值,是水和自然资源机构使用的基于研究的主流问题解决模式(Dryzek,载于《地球政治:环境话语》,牛津大学出版社,2013 年;Colloff 和 Pittock,载于《Aust J Water Resour》,23(2):88-98, 2019 年)。社区中心主义是通过与农民的讨论确定的,代表了一种自下而上的环境规划和管理方法,旨在纳入当地知识、规划和直接参与。这项调查揭示了话语如何定义问题和政策选择。虽然以市场为基础的政府干预可能是解决多米尼加共和国危机所必需的,但以社区为中心的应对措施本可以增强政府应对问题的能力。本文认为,盆地水资源管理的长期可持续性需要农民、学者和政府重新定位,制定以社区为中心的影响农业的水资源政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Three Injustices of Adaptation Finance - A Relational Egalitarian Analysis Interspecies Justice within a Normative Sustainable Development Framework–Animal-Friendly Energy Systems as a Test Case Value-Able Valuers: Anthropogenic Climate Change and Expanding Community to the “Radically Other” When Cows Become Heroes: The Construction of Animal Subjectivity and Environmental Sustainability in the Swedish Organic food Sector Correction: Farming non-typical sentient species: ethical framework requires passing a high bar
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1