Search

Refereed/Peer-reviewed A survey of residents in the Locarnese region of Canton Ticino, Switzerland was used to examine perceptions of exposure to environmental risk in the context of the deliberative Swiss planning system. There is a growing risk of wildfire in the region, and unless residents’ risk perceptions are understood and effectively integrated into decision making, confidence in environmental planning processes could erode. The research analyses how peri-urban residents conceptualise risk, place and environment, and how they perceive their influence over local planning outcomes. Descriptive and inferential statistics reveal high appreciation of lifestyle and amenity values, and support for firefighting services. While respondents recognise the increasing exposure to wildfires and landslides, it was the current level of urban expansion that was seen to be heightening risk at the interface between forests and settlements. Although Swiss deliberative governance arrangements offer citizens opportunities to be involved in decision making through official channels, respondents who were younger, of local background or who were less educated were particularly dissatisfied with their influence over planning. We discuss the implications of these findings for the distinctive Swiss planning system in the context of other countries’ ambitions to develop more effective, democratic environmental planning. In particular, the relative ease offered by popular referenda may be creating a disproportionate sense of citizen entitlement to be heard on local planning issues. Dialogues of risk reduction must continue to evolve between the population and government actors to encourage residents to engage more fully with relevant topics of risk for their region.

The marginalisation of people from natural areas has dominated conservation approaches in post-colonial societies such as Australia. Yet the approach is limited, in part because people are also excluded from co-managing their local environments, an effect that raises important questions about the future of conservation in a reflexive era where account must also be taken of how to manage risks such as bushfires. To address the complexity of social processes that influence conservation, new forms of co-management between governments and community stakeholders are evolving but do not always achieve their participatory aims. In this article, discrepancies between perceptions of conservation governance and the responsibilities and activities of the South Australian Government are examined by reference to original research involving a residential survey and a follow-up focus group discussion with local community and non-profit environmental organisations. Findings suggest that local environmental groups are knowledge-rich and strong relationships exist between local conservation actors and government officers, but those partnerships receive only limited support. In addition, opportunities for co-management between government and non-governmental environmental organisations are hindered by insufficient acknowledgement within government of the importance of unique, actionable local knowledge; an inability to effectively coordinate activities across and between government and non-government actors; and an unwillingness to engage with stakeholders in a manner that develops and maintains trust Refereed/Peer-reviewed

This paper reports on results from two major research projects conducted in South Australia. The first investigates adaptation to climate change in two of the state's major grain and sheep farming regions, using semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The second uses a postal questionnaire and an internet-based survey of residents in the peri-urban fringes of Adelaide, the state capital, to examine knowledge of and attitudes to climate change and resulting adaptations, especially in the context of increasing risk of wildfires. The research on adaptation to climate change in agriculture focused on formal institutions (e.g., government agencies) and communities of practice (e.g., farm systems groups). Both groups noted that farmers autonomously adapt to various risks, including those induced by climate variability. The types and levels of adaptation varied among individuals partly because of barriers to adaptation, which included limited communication and engagement processes established between formal institutions and communities of practice. The paper discusses possibilities for more effective transfers of knowledge and information on climate change among formal institutions, communities of practice, trusted individual advisors and farmers. Research in the peri-urban fringe revealed that actions taken by individuals to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change were linked to the nature of environmental values held (or ecological worldview) and place attachment. Individuals with a strong place attachment to the study area (the Adelaide Hills) who possessed knowledge of and/or beliefs in climate change were most likely to take mitigating actions. This was also linked to previous experience of major risk from wildfires. The paper concludes by discussing prospects for developing co-management for reducing the impact of climate change across multiple groups in rural and peri-urban areas. Refereed/Peer-reviewed