Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 99–107 | Cite as

Excluding to include: (Non)participation in Mexican natural resource management

  • Nicole D. Peterson


Participatory processes are often intended to encourage inclusion of multiple perspectives in defining management means and goals. However, ideas about the legitimacy of certain uses and users of the resources can often lead to exclusion from participation. In this way, participation can be transformed from a process of inclusion of various resource users to one of exclusion. Using a case study from a marine protected area in Loreto, Baja California Sur, Mexico, and drawing on work in deliberative democracy, I present a typology of how individuals and groups can be excluded from participation. External exclusion includes non-invitation and other means for keeping participation from occurring. Internal exclusion refers to exclusionary events during participatory meetings. This analysis suggests that participation needs to be recognized as a valuable but easily manipulated tool in the design of projects like natural resource management.


Participation Exclusion Natural resource management Marine protected areas Mexico 



I wish to thank the fishermen, park officials, and others in Loreto who are as much responsible for this research as I am, though not for its faults. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the support and comments of my fellow panelists at the American Anthropological Association Meetings in 2007, including Carla Roncoli, Renzo Taddei, Scott Lacy, and Kent Glenzer, as well as comments by two anonymous reviewers. Funding for field research in Mexico was generously provided by the University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States (UC MEXUS) and the UC San Diego Anthropology Department. Additional support was provided by the Center for US-Mexican Studies (CUSMEX), the Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies at UC San Diego, and the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University.


  1. Agrawal, Arun, and Krishna Gupta. 2005. Decentralization and participation: The governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development 33: 1101–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35: 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baiocchi, Gianpaolo. 2003. Participation, activism, and politics: The Porto Alegre experiment. In Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance, ed. Archon Fung, and Erik Olin Wright. New York: Verso Press.Google Scholar
  4. Botchway, Karl. 2001. Paradox of empowerment: Reflections on a case study from Northern Ghana. World Development 29: 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlsson, Lars, and Fikret Berkes. 2005. Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cleaver, Frances. 1999. Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development 11: 597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crosby, Harry. 1984. Antigua California: Mission and colony on the peninsular frontier, 1697–1768. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  8. Eversole, Robyn. 2003. Managing the pitfalls of participatory development: Some insight from Australia. World Development 31: 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geoghegan, Tighe, and Yves Renard. 2002. Beyond community involvement: Lessons from the insular Caribbean. Parks 12: 16–27.Google Scholar
  10. Gundersen, Adolf G. 2000. The Socratic citizen: A theory of deliberative democracy. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  11. Hanna, Susan. 2003. Transition in the American fishing commons: Management problems and institutional design challenges. In The commons in the new millenium: Challenges, adaptations, ed. N. Dolsak, and E. Ostrom. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jentoft, Svein. 2007. In the power of power: The understated aspect of fisheries and coastal management. Human Organization 66: 426–437.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan, Ilene M., and Bonnie J. McCay. 2004. Cooperative research, co-management and the social dimension of fisheries science and management. Marine Policy 28: 257–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kessler, Brianne L. 2004. Stakeholder participation: A synthesis of current literature. Santa Cruz, California: National Marine Protected Areas Center.
  15. Kumar, Sanjay. 2002. Does “participation” in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India. World Development 30: 763–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Michener, Victoria J. 1998. The participatory approach: Contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Development 26: 2105–2118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moore, Donald S. 1993. Contesting terrain in Zimbabwe’s eastern highlands: Political ecology, ethnography and peasant resource struggles. Economic Geography 69(4): 380–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Neil, Ann, and Don O’Neil. 2001. Loreto, Baja California, first mission and capital of Spanish California. Studio City: Tio Press.Google Scholar
  19. Parkins, John R., and Ross E. Mitchell. 2005. Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turn in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 18: 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peterson, Nicole D. 2005. Casting a wide net: Decision-making in a Mexican marine park. Ph.D. dissertation. La Jolla: University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  21. Pomeroy, Robert S., John Parks, Richard Pollnac, Tammy Campson, Emmanuel Genio, Cliff Marlessy, Elizabeth Holle, Michael Pido, Ayut Nissapa, Somsak Boromthanarat, and Nguyen Thu Hue. 2007. Fish wars: Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Marine Policy 31: 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pretty, Jules N. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23: 1247–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sen, Sevaly, and Jesper Raakjaer Nielsen. 1996. Marine co-management: A comparative analysis. Marine Policy 20: 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tuler, Seth, and Thomas Webler. 1999. Voices from the forest: What participants expect of a public participation process. Society & Natural Resources 12: 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Walley, Christine. 2004. Rough waters: Nature and development in an East African marine park. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wester, Philippus, Douglas J. Merrey, and Marna de Lange. 2003. Boundaries of consent: Stakeholder representation in river basin management in Mexico and South Africa. World Development 31: 797–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. White, Sara. 1996. Depoliticizing development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice 6: 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. World Bank. 2008. The World Bank participation sourcebook. Accessed 19 April 2008.
  29. Young, Iris Marion. 2002. Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyBarnard CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations