Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a new system of environmental governance

  • Papers
  • Published:
Environmentalist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Planning, the ‘visible hand’ of government, is the resource allocation sphere that has the potential to prevent destructive conflict over resources, by creating a long term, rational, ethics-based and participatory decision-making process. Other public decision-making systems (the market, legal and political arenas), by their very nature, cannot adequately protect the environment or ensure sustainable development. However, as presently conceived, Planning+ cannot do so either. Reform has been impeded by an ideological bias which defines Planning as diametrically opposed to the market, such that creative alternatives to the two systems of social choice have not been developed.

To address this problem, a new tri-partite structure of environmental governance is proposed. Based on an ecofeminist paradigm, it is primarily designed to constrain the potential for the abuse of power, and allow society to address environmental (ethical) as well as social (distributional) and economic (efficiency) issues. In a sense, it ‘rationalises’ the social decision-making system by re-aligning rights, wants and needs with the appropriate decision-making forum (representative democracy, the market and Planning respectively). The model exposes the need to redesign all these institutions so that they better correspond to their logical functions within the resource allocation system. However, this paper focuses on the Planning system itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Birkeland-Corro, J. 1988. Redefining the environmental problem.Environmental and Planning Law Journal,5, 109–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkeland, J. 1991. An ecofeminist critique of manstream environmental theory.The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy,8(2), 72–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkeland, J. 1992a. Planning for a sustainable society. Unpublished thesis, University of Tasmania, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkeland, J. 1992b. Tasmania: the story. In: Harding, R. (ed.),Ecopolitics v Proceedings. Centre for Liberal and General Studies, University of New South Wales, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkeland, J. 1993. Linking theory and practice. In: Gaard, G. (ed.),Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. Temple University Press, Pennsylvania, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J.B. 1989.For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, Boston, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekins, P. (ed.). 1986.The Living Economy, a New Economics in the Making. Routledge, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enloe, C. 1989.Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Unwin Hyman, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, G. 1992. The Black voices.The Age, 2nd April, p. 10.

  • Jackson, P.M. 1982.The Political Economy of Bureaucracy. Phillip Allen, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Connor, J. 1973.The Fiscal Crisis and the State. St Martin's Press, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickvance, C. 1982. Physical planning and market forces in urban development. In: Paris, C. (ed.),Critical Readings in Planning Theory. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repetto, R.C. 1988.The Forest for the Trees? Government Policies and Misuse of Forest Resources. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repetto, R.C. and Gillis, M. 1988.Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources. Cambridge University Press, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, M.L. 1992.Bionomics: The Inevitability of Capitalism. Futura Books, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saddler, H. 1991.Forestry as if Economics Mattered. A Study of the Economics of the Tasmanian Forestry Industry. Goshawk Publications, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Western, J.S. 1977. Planning and social planning. In: Western, J.S. and Wilson, P.R. (eds),Planning in Turbulent Environments, pp. 3–16. University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture, University of Tasmania, 7250, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia

    Janis Birkeland

Authors
  1. Janis Birkeland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Janis Birkeland was an attorney, architect and planner in San Francisco, USA. She now teaches at the Department of Architecture, University of Tasmania. This article is drawn from a longer 1990 paper ‘Myths and Realities of Planning and Resource Allocation” (Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania), which was presented at the Socialist Scholars' Conference, Melbourne, 18th July, 1991.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Birkeland, J. Towards a new system of environmental governance. Environmentalist 13, 19–32 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01905500

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01905500

Keywords

Search

Navigation