IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i12p3387-d241117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Rizwana Alam

    (School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
    Society for Urban Ecology, 5020 Salzburg, Austria)

  • Jon C. Lovett

    (School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

Abstract

Green spaces in cities are under pressure from increasing population, urbanization, and development, making governance of these common pool resources a complex and multi-dimensional process. Governance of urban green spaces can be improved by participatory approaches. However, many developing countries do not have the institutional structures and policies that promote the participation of a range of non-state actors, and green spaces are often removed from public access by regulatory slippage or elite capture for parks and gardens. This paper uses discourse analysis to explore the perspectives of the key stakeholders for public participation in the planning and management of green spaces in Lahore. The study employs Q-methodology to reveal four discourses: ‘Efficient Management’, ‘Anti/Pro-Administrative’, ‘Leadership and Capacity building’, and ‘Decentralization or Elite capture’. The most significant and dominant discourse of ‘Efficient Management’ shows stakeholders’ preferences towards developing new institutional arrangements at the local level through engaging citizens. The two discourses ‘Leadership and Capacity building’ and ‘decentralization or elite capture’ are also in favor of changing the power dynamics in the system at certain levels by using different strategies. However, the status quo-oriented administrative discourse serves as a barrier, resisting change at any level. The results of this study suggest a need for policy reforms to develop a conducive environment in which all the stakeholders can be engaged through different collaborative and co-management schemes, in order to achieve economically efficient, ecologically sustainable and socially equitable, urban green spaces in Lahore.

Suggested Citation

  • Rizwana Alam & Jon C. Lovett, 2019. "Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3387-:d:241117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3387/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3387/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    2. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    3. Krueger, Anne O, 1990. "Government Failures in Development," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 9-23, Summer.
    4. Dennis A. Rondinelli & James S. McCullough & Ronald W. Johnson, 1989. "Analysing Decentralization Policies in Developing Countries: a Political‐Economy Framework," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 20(1), pages 57-87, January.
    5. Ostrom,Elinor, 2015. "Governing the Commons," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107569782.
    6. Besley, Timothy & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2010. "Property Rights and Economic Development," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4525-4595, Elsevier.
    7. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    8. Atack, Iain, 1999. "Four Criteria of Development NGO Legitimacy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 855-864, May.
    9. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    10. Claudia Pahl-Wostl, 2007. "Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(1), pages 49-62, January.
    11. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2011. "An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3832-3844, June.
    12. Dryzek, John S. & Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 48-60, March.
    13. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    14. Howard, Rebecca J. & Tallontire, Anne M. & Stringer, Lindsay C. & Marchant, Rob A., 2016. "Which “fairness”, for whom, and why? An empirical analysis of plural notions of fairness in Fairtrade Carbon Projects, using Q methodology," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 100-109.
    15. Benjamin, Charles E., 2008. "Legal Pluralism and Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 2255-2276, November.
    16. Bratton, Michael, 1989. "The politics of government-NGO relations in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 569-587, April.
    17. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    18. Aisha Ghaus Pasha & Muhammad Asif Iqbal, 2002. "Non-profit Sector in Pakistan: Government Policy and Future Issues," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 41(4), pages 879-908.
    19. Hossein Azadi & Peter Ho & Erni Hafni & Kiumars Zarafshani & Frank Witlox, 2011. "Multi-stakeholder involvement and urban green space performance," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(6), pages 785-811.
    20. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Miettinen, Antti, 2000. "Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 205-223, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuki Arai & Maswadi & Shenny Oktoriana & Anita Suharyani & Didik & Makoto Inoue, 2021. "How Can We Mitigate Power Imbalances in Collaborative Environmental Governance? Examining the Role of the Village Facilitation Team Approach Observed in West Kalimantan, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Yannick Useni Sikuzani & Alex Mpibwe Kalenga & Jonas Yona Mleci & Dieudonné N’Tambwe Nghonda & François Malaisse & Jan Bogaert, 2022. "Assessment of Street Tree Diversity, Structure and Protection in Planned and Unplanned Neighborhoods of Lubumbashi City (DR Congo)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Zongxiang Wang & Tianhao Chen & Wei Li & Kai Zhang & Jianwu Qi, 2023. "Construction and Demonstration of the Evaluation System of Public Participation Level in Urban Planning Based on the Participatory Video of ‘General Will—Particular Will’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    2. Petrick, Martin & Gramzow, Andreas, 2012. "Harnessing Communities, Markets and the State for Public Goods Provision: Evidence from Post-Socialist Rural Poland," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(11), pages 2342-2354.
    3. Chankrajang, Thanyaporn, 2019. "State-community property-rights sharing in forests and its contributions to environmental outcomes: Evidence from Thailand's community forestry," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 261-273.
    4. Josemiguel Lana Berasain & Miguel Laborda Pemán, 2013. "El anidamiento institucional y su dinámica histórica en comunidades rurales complejas. Dos estudios de caso (Navarra, siglos XIV-XX)," Documentos de Trabajo de la Sociedad de Estudios de Historia Agraria 1307, Sociedad de Estudios de Historia Agraria.
    5. Simon Cornée & Madeg Le Guernic & Damien Rousselière, 2020. "Governing Common-Property Assets: Theory and Evidence from Agriculture," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(4), pages 691-710, November.
    6. Robert Wade & Geraint Ellis, 2022. "Reclaiming the Windy Commons: Landownership, Wind Rights, and the Assetization of Renewable Resources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, May.
    7. Harris,Colin & Cai,Meina & Murtazashvili,Ilia & Murtazashvili,Jennifer Brick, 2020. "The Origins and Consequences of Property Rights," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108969055.
    8. Brobbey, Lawrence Kwabena & Hansen, Christian Pilegaard & Kyereh, Boateng, 2021. "The dynamics of property and other mechanisms of access: The case of charcoal production and trade in Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James C.R. & Ware, Dan & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    10. Undargaa, Sandagsuren & McCarthy, John F., 2016. "Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 367-379.
    11. Haque, A.B.M. Mahfuzul & Visser, Leontine E. & Dey, Madan M., 2011. "Institutional Arrangements in Seasonal Floodplain Management under Community-based Aquaculture in Bangladesh," Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    13. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Hervé Charmettant & Yvan Renou, 2021. "Cooperative conversion and communalization: Closely observed interactions between the material and the mental," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(1), pages 55-77, March.
    15. Sommerville, Matthew & Jones, Julia P.G. & Rahajaharison, Michael & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1262-1271, April.
    16. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Martiskainen, Mari, 2020. "Hot transformations: Governing rapid and deep household heating transitions in China, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    17. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    18. Campbell, Bruce & Mandondo, Alois & Nemarundwe, Nontokozo & Sithole, Bevlyne & De JonG, Wil & Luckert, Marty & Matose, Frank, 2001. "Challenges to Proponents of Common Property Recource Systems: Despairing Voices from the Social Forests of Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 589-600, April.
    19. Ulybina, Olga, 2014. "Russian forests: The path of reform," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 143-150.
    20. Allaire, Gilles, 2013. "Les communs comme infrastructure institutionnelle de l’économie marchande," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 14.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:12:p:3387-:d:241117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.