Towards deliberative and pragmatic co-management: a comparison between inshore fisheries authorities in England and Scotland

References

• Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C., 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27 (4), 629–649. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleby, T., 2013. Privatising fishing rights: the way to a fisheries wonderland? Public Law, 2, 481–497.
   Google Scholar
• Appleby, T. and Jones, P.J.S., 2012. The marine and coastal access act—a hornets’ nest? Marine Policy, 36 (1), 73–77. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armitage, D., et al., 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21 (3), 995–1004. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkes, F., 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspective from the bottom-up. In: E. Ostrom, et al, eds. The drama of the commons. Washington: National Academy Press, 293–322.
   Google Scholar
• Berkes, F. and Preston, G.R., 1991. Co-management: the evolution of the theory and practice of joint administration of living resources. Alternatives, 18 (2), 12–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohman, J., 2004. Realizing deliberative democracy as a mode of inquiry: pragmatism, social facts, and normative theory. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 18 (1), 23–43. doi:10.1353/jsp.2004.0002
   Google Scholar
• Borrini-Feyerabend, G., et al., 2004. Sharing power: learning by-doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world. Teheran: IIED, IUCN/CEESP, Cenesta.
   Google Scholar
• Bown, N., Gray, T., and Stead, S.M., 2013. Contested forms of governance in marine protected areas: a study of co-management and adaptive co-management. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspary, W.R., 2008. On Dewey, Habermas and deliberative democracy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4 (1), Article 10.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Standards in Public Life, 1995. The seven principles of public life. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life [ Accessed 4 June 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J., 2012. The public and its problems: an essay in political inquiry, edited and with an introduction by Rogers, M. L. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., 1987. The theory of communicative action, volume 2: lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. London: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., 1996. Between facts and norms. London: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Held, D., 2004. Global covenant: the social democratic alternative to the Washington consensus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W. et al. 2009. Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (Co-)Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda. Ecology and Society, 14 (1), 26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jentoft, S., McCay, B.J., and Wilson, D.C., 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 22 (4–5), 423–436. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00040-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marres, N., 2007. The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37 (5), 759–780. doi:10.1177/0306312706077367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAfee, N., 2004. Three models of democratic deliberation. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 18 (1), 44–59. doi:10.1353/jsp.2004.0007
   Google Scholar
• McCay, B.J. and Acheson, J.M., eds., 1987. The question of the commons: the culture and ecology of communal resources. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mikalsen, K.H. and Jentoft, S., 2001. From user-groups to stakeholders? The public interest in fisheries management. Marine Policy, 25 (4), 281–292. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00015-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [MMO] Marine Management Organisation. 2015. Appointment of inshore fisheries conservation authority members by the marine management organisation, information for candidates. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/347496/20140826_Information_for_candidates.pdf [ Accessed 4 June 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Pappas, G.F., 2008. John Dewey and the contemporary ‘Deliberative Turn’ in political theory. Southwest Philosophical Studies, 30, 71–78.
   Google Scholar
• Phillipson, J. and Symes, D., 2010. Recontextualising inshore fisheries: the changing face of British inshore fisheries management. Marine Policy, 34 (6), 1207–1214. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinkerton, E.W., ed., 1989. Cooperative management of local fisheries: new directions for improved management and community development. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plummer, R. and Baird, J., 2013. Adaptive co-management for climate change adaptation: considerations for the Barents region. Sustainability, 5 (2), 629–642. doi:10.3390/su5020629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plummer, R. and FitzGibbon, J., 2004. Co-management of natural resources: a proposed framework. Environmental Management, 33 (6), 876–855. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-3038-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomeroy, R.S. and Berkes, F., 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 21 (5), 465–480. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00017-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandström, A., Crona, B., and Bodin, Ö., 2014. Legitimacy in co-management: the impact of preexisting structures, social networks and governance strategies. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24 (1), 60–76. doi:10.1002/eet.v24.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Government, 2005. A strategic framework for inshore fisheries in Scotland. Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/03/20860/File-1 [ Accessed 4 June 2015]
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Government, 2010. Marine Scotland: report on social and economic objectives for a Scottish marine plan. Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/03/30180908/6 [ Accessed 4 June 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Inshore Fisheries Groups, 2013. Available from: http://ifgs.org.uk/files/8013/7716/0930/IFG_Mapping_2013.pdf [ Accessed 4 June 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Inshore Fisheries Groups, 2015. Welcome to the Scottish inshore fisheries groups [ online]. Available from: http://ifgs.org.uk/ [ Accessed 4 June 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg, P., 2001. The social construction of the ocean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D.C., Nielsen, J.R., and Degnbol, P., eds., 2003. The fisheries co-management experience. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I.M., 2000. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar