Reg Environ Change (2016) 16:353365

DOI 10.1007/s10113-014-0727-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Towards deliberative coastal governance: insights from South

Africa and the Mississippi Delta
Bruce Christopher Glavovic

Received: 26 February 2014 / Accepted: 10 November 2014 / Published online: 21 November 2014
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract Coastal sustainability is elusive in South Africa

and the Mississippi delta. These case studies and convergent
literatures demonstrate the merits of reconceptualising
coastal management as a transformative practice of deliberative governance. A normative framework is presented
that focuses attention on underpinning deliberative outcomes to enable governance actors and networks to build
cognitive, democratic, sociopolitical and institutional
capacity to transform unsustainable and maladaptive coastal
practices. But operationalising such intentions is complex
and contested and requires a volte-face in thinking and
practice. The South African and Mississippi delta experiences provide insights about how to develop a deliberative
praxis of coastal governance based on consideration of the
choice of process, timeliness, quality of process, equity and
representation, connections to the policy cycle, impact,
implementation and institutionalisation.
Keywords Coastal governance
Integrated coastal
management
Deliberation
Mississippi delta
South
Africa

Introduction
Experiences in South Africa and the Mississippi delta
illustrate the challenges of governing coasts sustainably in
the Anthropocenea proposed new geological era to signify the dominant influence human activities now have on
global biogeochemistry and the post-Holocene geological
B. C. Glavovic (&)
School of People Environment and Planning, Massey University,
Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
e-mail: b.glavovic@massey.ac.nz

record (Crutzen 2002; Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). Contemporary coastal practices are typically unsustainable, and
many communities face escalating disaster risk, compounded by climate change, especially at river mouths,
low-lying urbanised coasts and megacities, arctic communities and small island states (Nicholls et al. 2007; Moser
et al. 2012; Wong et al. 2014; Glavovic et al. in press). A
sea change in coastal governance thinking and practice is
necessary because the coast is the front line of the global
sustainability crisis (Glavovic 2013a). This article explores
the South African and Mississippi delta experiences and
draws on convergent governance literature, to consider
how a transformative practice of deliberative coastal governance might be conceptualised and what might be done
to operationalise such a practice.
This account builds upon long-term research conducted
by the author on South Africas coastal management
experience (see e.g. Glavovic 2006; Glavovic and Boonzaaier 2007; Glavovic 2008a; Glavovic and Cullinan
2009), and resilience and sustainability in the Mississippi
delta, with a focus on the recovery experience since Hurricane Katrina (see e.g. Glavovic 2008b, 2013b, 2014).
This longitudinal case study research has reviewed evolving experiences, policies and practices, informed by over
120 semi-structured interviews with key informants from
government, civil society, the private sector and research
community, and personal observations based on fieldwork
in South Africa (in 2004, 2005, 2009, 20132014) and the
Mississippi delta (in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010).

The South African coastal experience

The South African coastal experience reflects the sociopolitical narrative of the countrys transition from apartheid

123

354

to political emancipation and is shaped by the ongoing

struggle to meet basic needs and secure livelihoods. This
experience reveals the challenges inherent in building an
institutional framework for coastal management that is
locally relevant but grounded in global best practice.
The South African coast provides ecosystem goods and
services of immense value, but it has been subjected to
intensive use and disruption and negative impacts are
widespread (Palmer et al. 2011; Mead et al. 2013). Prevailing practices are often contested and unsustainable
(Aylett 2010), and hence the need for more effective
integrated coastal management (ICM) (Goble et al. 2014).
To compound matters, deep poverty and inequity are prevalent along the coast, and there is escalating risk in the
face of climate change (Celliers et al. 2013; Colenbrander
et al. 2014). The ICM challenge in South Africa boils down
to meeting the needs of coastal communities, especially
historically disadvantaged South Africans who continue to
live in the shadow of apartheid, whilst maintaining the
diversity, productivity and health of coastal ecosystems
that sustain coastal livelihoods (Wynberg and Hauck
2014).
South Africa promulgated the ICM Act on the 1
December 2009 to foster sustainable coastal development.
Developing and implementing this legislation are the
product of decades of dedicated coastal management effort
(Goble et al. 2014). Contemporary coastal management
efforts were preceded by long-standing traditional practices. With European colonisation, natural resource
exploitation intensified. Concern about unsustainable
practices led to a range of ad hoc nature conservation and
development control measures that grew in scope from the
middle of the last century. More focused attention on
coastal management grew in parallel with emerging environmental consciousness in the 1970s and 1980s. Coastal
management was then dominated by a discourse grounded
in science and administrative control, at a time when the
struggle against apartheid was intensifying. It was not until
the release of Nelson Mandela in 1990 and the transition to
a democratic dispensation that prospects for authentic
public participation in policy-making became a possibility.
After the first democratic elections in 1994, a slew of
policy initiatives took place and a coastal policy formulation process was initiated. It took many years and concerted effort by a small group of people, scattered in
government, civil society and the scientific community, to
make a case for ICM, build trust and carry out an
unprecedented participatory policy formulation process.
Albeit subject to much contestation, the policy process
stimulated extensive public engagement and deliberation
about coastal issues and policy options, with particular
attention focused on involving historically marginalised
black South Africans in the process. The resultant widely

123

B. C. Glavovic

supported coastal policy was approved by Cabinet and

released as a White Paper in 2000. Progress towards institutionalisation of the policy and effective implementation on the ground was, however, delayed by, among other
things, the governments broader environmental law
reform efforts and the struggle to deliver basic services to
historically disadvantaged South Africans. Nearly 10 years
later, after many iterations of draft legislation, the ICM Act
came into force; albeit with significant departures from the
White Paper upon which the Act was based. Notwithstanding notable achievements, the absence of an enabling
legislative framework for ICM retarded progress on the
ground in the first decade of the new millennium. This
experience shows that ICM is much more than a technical
undertaking. It is an inherently political process that seeks
to reconcile inherent tensions (e.g. between geographic
scales; short- and longer-term interests; stability and flexibility; and collaboration and conflict) and take into
account the centrality of power relationships and imbalances in coastal governance (Aylett 2010; Goble et al.
2014; Wynberg and Hauck 2014).
Thirty-five professionals and stakeholders involved in
coastal management were interviewed in December 2013
January 2014 to take stock of recent experience in implementing the ICM Act. Key informants included people
involved in coastal management at the local, provincial and
national level of government, as well as people from
environmental non-governmental organisations, professional consultancies and research organisations. Interviewees concur that the first 5 years of implementing the ICM
Act has been chequered, despite good intentions and concerted effort by many. The Western Cape has made significant progress in institutionalising provisions in the ICM
Act and is building capacity to fulfil its obligations. Little,
however, appears to have changed on the ground in the
Eastern Cape and Northern Cape, where ICM capability
remains nascent at best. ICM in KwaZuluNatal has
regressed according to many involved in coastal management in that province. The relatively well-capacitated
metropolitan councils, notably Cape Town City and Durban (eThekwini municipality), have made significant
advances in ICM notwithstanding the scale of the challenges they face. With few exceptions, capacity to give
effect to the intentions of the White Paper and ICM Act is
inadequate at district and local municipal levels and in
coastal areas under tribal authority. Paradoxically, at a time
when the need is pressing to devolve responsibility to
lower tiers of government through provisions in the ICM
Act, and contrary to the White Paper, there has been a trend
towards centralised control by Government, with generally
weak inter-governmental partnerships and inadequate
capability building at lower tiers of government. Moreover,
the governmentcivil societyprivate sector collaboration

Towards deliberative coastal governance

that evolved through the formulation of the White Paper

has not been sustained let alone extended. Much attention
has been focused on working out how to implement the Act
in practice and to resolve legal inconsistencies, culminating
in amendments to the ICM Act being proposed and disseminated for public comment at the start of 2014.
This experience, especially since the White Paper was
released, underscores key considerations for advancing
sustainable coastal development in South Africa that have
relevance for coastal governance more generally. Establishing a legally binding institutional foundation for ICM is
considered crucial, but it is a challenging and long-term
undertaking. Despite the clear people-centred sustainability
focus of the White Paper and ICM Act, coastal management provisions and practices in South Africa are typically
narrowly framed as an environmental concern that is
widely seen to be an obstacle to economic development
that meets the pressing needs of South Africans. Environmental professionals and coastal managers welcome the
ICM Act, but government officials without this background, and many others in the private sector and civil
society, consider the ICM Act to be unnecessarily complicated and bureaucratic, imposing prescriptions, plans
and obligations that are seen to be burdensome and antithetical to the interests of coastal communitiesespecially
those who are poor and destitute and which are difficult to
enforce given capacity constraints. There appears to be a
compelling need to realign ICM with the dominant political
agenda in the countrynamely meeting the needs of
communities and fostering sustainable livelihoods through
prudent development of the valuable resources of the coast
and by maintaining the ecological integrity of coastal
ecosystems. Although the ICM Act is internationally
recognised as a progressive and sophisticated legal
framework (e.g. it was shortlisted for the 2012 World
Future Policy Award), it seems mismatched for large
regions of the coast that have inadequate ICM capacity.
Fundamental reforms may be needed to construct a legislative and institutional architecture that matches the widely
divergent cultures and governance capabilities found along
the coast. Embarking on such systemic reform requires,
among other things, strengthened intra-governmental
partnerships and institutional capacity building, especially
at the local level where ICM is practiced. Reconciling the
inevitable tensions between governance stability and flexibility, short- and long-term interests, collaboration and
conflict, and between centralised control and devolution of
responsibilities, is expected to be an ongoing challenge.
Strengthening governmentcivil societyprivate sector
partnerships is considered crucial. The ICM Act has provisions to support this endeavour, but much remains to be
done to give effect to these intentions. Recognising the
value of ecosystems goods and services as foundational for

355

sustainable coastal livelihoods and development remains a

compelling motivation for ICM. In addition, it is increasingly evident that coastal risk is escalating; it is already a
catalyst for action and a complementary rationale for
effective ICM. Severe coastal storms along large stretches
of the coast in 2007 were a stimulus for promulgating the
ICM Act, and the prospect of sea-level rise reinforces the
need to implement the Act. With people and associated
development concentrated along the coast, mainly in urban
centres, coastal risk in an era of climate change assumes
increasing importance and underscores the value of ICM as
a tool for managing risk, building resilience and securing
sustainable coastal livelihoods. Concern about public
safety, infrastructure investment and seemingly intractable
conflict underscores the political nature of ICM and
prompts reconsideration of business as usual coastal management practices. The South African experience is distinctive, but there are important parallels with experiences
in other coastal settings, like the Mississippi delta.

The Mississippi delta

Draining more than 40 % of the lower 48 states of the
USA, the Mississippi river reaches the Gulf Coast via a
distinctive wetland system that provides an abundance of
ecosystem goods and services that enrich the lives of
millions of people but are nonetheless hard to fully
appreciate. If this natural capital were treated as an economic asset, it would provide annual benefits of USD
1347 billion and have a minimum asset value of USD330
billion-1.3 trillion (Batker et al. 2010). However, for over
100 years, these wetlands have been intensively exploited
and transformed (Saikku 2005; Morris 2012; Day et al.
2014). Unsustainable practices, together with the regions
natural subsidence, have accelerated wetland loss to the
point at which many delta communities and wetlanddependent livelihoods are in jeopardy (Blum and Roberts
2012). Moreover, disaster risk in the delta region is escalating rapidly. Many delta communities are physically
exposed to perils such as riverine flooding and hurricanes
which is exacerbated by wetland loss and further compounded by projected climate change impacts, including
sea-level rise and altered storm patterns (Day et al. 2007).
Many delta communities, e.g. those in New Orleans, are
dependent on functional protective works such as levees
and spillways to safeguard them against hazard events, but,
as Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, levee failure is inevitable once design standards are exceeded. Restoring wetlands and maintaining effective protective works are
necessary but not sufficient for reducing disaster risk and
securing coastal livelihoods. The combination of physical
exposure and social vulnerability renders disaster all but

123

356

inevitable in a region that experiences regular riverine and

coastal flooding, hurricanes and technological disasters
(such as the 2010 BP-Deepwater Horizon oil spill) and that
has a long history of racism, corruption, poverty and social
inequity (Woods 1998; Campanella 2007)as was tragically exposed by those left stranded in New Orleans in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Laska and Morrow 2006;
Freudenburg et al. 2009).
Addressing prevailing coastal issues and risks whilst
anticipating and preparing for the challenges of the Anthropocenein a region that is a global hotspot for climate
change impactsis daunting. Experts on the Mississippi
delta concur: business as usual is unsustainable (e.g. Day
et al. 2014). Wetland loss needs to be stemmed. Reducing
exposure and vulnerability to disaster risk is compelling.
Reliance on protective works will not suffice. Reducing
disaster risk will require enhanced protection and, where
necessary, relocation of those most exposed, coupled with
practical steps to reduce social vulnerability and build
resilience. Recent disasters, including Katrina and the BPDeep Water Horizon oil spill, led to massive investment in
response and recovery, as well as renewed focus on wetland restoration (e.g. LACPRA 2007, 2012). There have
been extensive efforts to engage the public in deliberations
about these issues, and stakeholders have participated in an
array of legislative, policy and planning efforts. Despite
these efforts, however, wetland loss continues; many delta
communities are exposed to physical perils; and there is
persistent social vulnerability. This combination of physical and social vulnerability does not bode well for communities living on an over-exploited and subsiding coast
subject to sea-level rise. Recent disaster experiences reveal
that systemic changes in governance are needed to ensure
public safety, resilience and sustainability. The challenge is
to overcome the historical, social, economic and institutional factors that encourage unsustainable, risky and
maladaptive practices that are destroying the wetlands that
sustain delta communities and entrench social vulnerability
that predisposes communities to future disasters (Freudenburg et al. 2009; Comfort et al. 2010; Freudenburg and
Gramling 2011; National Commission 2011; Boesch 2012;
Day et al. 2014). This is a wicked problem, involving
difficult trade-offs. How can delta communities continue to
derive economic benefits from the delta and sustain their
livelihoods whilst restoring the wetlands that meet their
needs? How can the requisite protective works be established and maintained whilst recognising the limitations of
such works in the face of subsidence and sea-level rise?
How can the drivers of poverty, inequity, racism and corruption be overcome whilst building inclusive, diverse and
vibrant communities? Navigating these complexities
necessitates a sea change in delta governance theory and
practice. What insights can be drawn from the evolution in

123

B. C. Glavovic

governance thinking to overcome the impasse in real-world

coastal management efforts reflected in the Mississippi
delta and South Africa?

Integrated coastal management and convergent

governance literatures
Efforts to manage coastal resources have evolved from
ancient customary arrangements, including community
sanctions and taboos, to ad hoc sector-based practices,
and more contemporary state sanctioned governance
arrangements that have focused on integration over the
last four to five decades. ICM strives to promote sustainable development by recognising that the coast is a
coherent socialecological system that needs horizontally
and vertically integrated management practices that seek
to resolve conflicting interests in the face of global
change (Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998; Kay and Alder
2005; Krishnamoorthy et al. 2008; Moser et al. 2012;
Portman et al. 2012; Reis et al. 2014; Wynberg and
Hauck 2014). ICM initiatives have proliferated in recent
decades, and many coastal communities and nations have
institutionalised practices that encourage key actors and
networks from government, civil society and the private
sector to coordinate activities, share power and take
collective action. These ICM efforts are complemented
by a range of interdisciplinary concepts and practices that
also promote coastal and ocean sustainability, including
ecosystem-based management, marine spatial planning
and a variety of environmental governance approaches
(see e.g. Lemos and Agrawal 2006; Lubchenco and Petes
2010; Kannen 2012; Kerr et al. 2014). However, as the
South African and Mississippi delta experiences attest,
translating ICM rhetoric into reality has proved elusive.
Coastal management scholar-practitioner Olsen (e.g.
2002, 2003) and colleagues (Olsen et al. 2009) recognise
the step-wise nature of the coastal policy cycle and
propose the Order of Outcomes framework (see Fig. 1) to
reflect that ICM is a long-term undertaking that requires
fundamental changes in individual, organisational and
societal behaviour.
The enabling conditions of the first Order of Outcomes
include clear goals; supportive constituencies; institutional
capacity to develop and implement ICM policies and plans;
government commitment and the requisite authorities; and
resources to secure compliance and enforce these measures. The second Order of Outcomes secures implementation through changed behaviour with activities
conforming to rules; collaborative implementation and
institutional learning; and sustained investment in ICM
implementation. The third Order of Outcomes is realised
when socio-ecological goals are achieved, and this enables

Towards deliberative coastal governance

357

Fig. 1 Order of outcomes framework (after Olsen 2002, 2003)

the transition to the fourth Order of Outcomessustainable

coastal development.
The South African and Mississippi delta experiences
underscore the systemic difficulty of securing even the first
Order of Outcomes described in this framework. Despite
institutionalisation of ICM around the world, there are
surprisingly few examples that have progressed beyond the
first Order of Outcomes (Kremer and Pinckney 2012).
Neither business as usual nor incremental ICM advancement is sufficient for securing coastal sustainability.
Increasing attention is being focused on reframing ICM as
coastal governance to chart new sustainability pathways.
This reframing is part of a striking shift in thinking
about how to address societal problems, including sustainability, from state-centric government, reliant mainly
on hierarchy and control, towards governancethe interaction of actors and networks from government, civil
society and the private sector to address societal problems
through power sharing, coordination and collective action
(Pierre and Peters 2000; Kooiman 2003; Ostrom 2010)or
indirect government through among other things
empowerment and collaboration (Boyte 2005). This trend
is exemplified by the shift from reliance on science and
administrative control to manage the South African coast in
the 1980s towards a participatory coastal policy

formulation process founded on dialogue and negotiation

after political emancipation (Goble et al. 2014). Post-Katrina recovery planning and wider delta restoration efforts
similarly underscore the need to move beyond business as
usual and more actively involve communities in planning
and decision-making processes (Jordan and Benson 2013).
Emerging governance approaches, reflecting diverse
perspectives, inform the conceptualisation and practice of
democracy in general and sustainability governance at the
coast in particular. Governance implies a shift from citizens as voters and consumers to citizens as co-creators of
public goods and collaborators in solving public problems;
public leaders as providers of public services and solutions
to partners and mobilisers of the citizenry; and democracy
as elections to democratic society. As Boyte (2005) points
out, the promise of these innovations in governance is the
resolution of societal problems that cannot be solved by
government alone but cannot be solved without government. Emerging conceptualisations of governance, including insights from coastal governance, risk governance and
governance for adaptation and resilience, shed light on how
prevailing governance thinking and practices at the coast
might be transformed.
ICM and coastal governance scholars argue that there
needs to be authentic engagement of coastal stakeholders

123

358

and communities in governance processes that are reflexive

(or self-critical learning), deliberative and resolve conflicting interests (Olsen et al. 2009; Moser et al. 2012;
Glavovic 2013c; Lloyd et al. 2013; Wynberg and Hauck
2014). It is suggested that these processes need to be
informed by scientific and technical understanding of
coastal issues but also need to be based upon ethical considerations and the deeply rooted emotional, spiritual and
relational connections between people and the coast that
frame social choices about its future (Hofmeester et al.
2012).
Risk governance scholars similarly recognise that
addressing risk problems requires inclusive and deliberative practices that enable integration of scientific and other
forms of knowledge founded upon a shared understanding
of diverse and contending values and norms that underpin
the moral and ethical justification of alternative pathways
into the future (Klinke and Renn 2002, 2012; Renn 2008;
Aven and Renn 2010; Palmer 2012; Klinke 2014).
Scholars in the fields of resilience and adaptive governance also recognise that governance actors have divergent
and contested values framed by various ethical, cultural,
risk and knowledge considerations that shape barriers and
opportunities for building adaptive capacity and resilience.
They argue, among other things, that it is imperative to
understand these underlying values and interests and
develop and implement governance processes that recognise and reconcile contradictory perspectives through
inclusive deliberative processes and practices (Lebel et al.
2006; Adger et al. 2009; Webler et al. 2014). How might
these insights be synthesised and integrated into evolving
coastal governance theory and practice to navigate the
stormy seas of the Anthropocene?

Towards deliberative coastal governance

Extensive scholarship demonstrates that deliberative
democracy offers a conceptually and practically robust
foundation for addressing contemporary societal challenges
(Dryzek 1990, 2000, 2009, 2011; Fischer 2000, 2003,
2006; Fung and Wright 2001, 2003; Chambers 2003; Fung
2003, 2004, 2006; Baber and Bartlett 2005; Goodin and
Dryzek 2006; Gupte and Bartlett 2007; Jenssen 2008;
Kahane et al. 2010; Nabatchi 2014), like those facing
coastal communities.
What is deliberation? Dryzek (2000) defines deliberation as a non-coercive communicative process that facilitates reflection on and reconciliation of divergent societal
values, preferences and interests. Participants share information, discuss and debate matters of common concern and
develop deeper understanding about these matters through
social learning to make more democratic public decisions

123

B. C. Glavovic

(Chambers 2003). There are divergent views about what

constitutes deliberative democracy even among deliberative democrats, but there is broad agreement on at least two
theses (Kahane et al. 2010): first, deliberative democracy is
centred on the communicative exchange of reasons rather
than the mere clash of political interests. Secondly, the
choice of public policies in liberal democracies should be
more democratic than prevailing pluralist politics. Deliberation can take place in both formal and informal settings,
but it is not simply talking for the sake of talking. It needs
to be inclusive, authentic and consequential if it is to have a
legitimate bearing on societal choices (Dryzek 2009). Such
deliberation enables reflexive social learning that can
deepen and extend knowledge and understanding and open
up opportunities for systemic change, including pursuit of
sustainability in an era of global change (Fischer 2000;
Baber and Bartlett 2005; Goodin and Dryzek 2006; Gupte
and Bartlett 2007; Dryzek 2011; Hegger et al. 2012).
Translating the ideals of deliberative democracy into
practice is challengingas the experiences in South Africa
and the Mississippi delta attest. There are many systemic
barriers to deliberative, communicative or participatory
planning and public decision-making processes (e.g. King
et al. 1998; Cooke and Kathari 2001; Hickey and Mohan
2004; Hoppe 2011; Dryzek 2011), which are even more
deeply entrenched in the face of climate change (Few et al.
2007) and global change more generally. Deliberative
processes are invariably contested. Even when opportunities for deliberation are created, participants often face
resistance from entrenched interests and those who want to
maintain the status quo, albeit unsustainable, as shown by
the difficulty experienced in progressing wetland restoration in the Mississippi delta (Jordan and Benson 2013; Day
et al. 2014). Creating and sustaining opportunities for
inclusive, reflexive and collaborative governance can be
truncated by institutional resistance and opposition (Darbas
2008). In South Africa, for example, deepening and
extending the governmentcivil societyprivate sector
partnership that led to Cabinet approval of the coastal
policy and the eventual passage of the ICM Act has proved
difficult in the post-Mandela institutional era (Goble et al.
2014). Notwithstanding practical challenges, inevitable
resistance and even strident opposition, together with the
significant investment of resources and time to develop and
sustain deliberation, extensive scholarship and mounting
empirical evidence (Newig and Fritsch 2009; Menzel and
Buchecker 2013; Nabatchi 2014) demonstrate that deliberation has distinctive potential to build the human, social
and political capital necessary to address wicked problems.
The challenge is to translate deliberative rhetoric into
practical reality. Convergent governance literatures, and
deliberative democracy scholarship in particular, underscore the need to create safe arenas for public deliberation:

Towards deliberative coastal governance

interconnected and overlapping opportunities for governance actors to interact, exchange ideas and viewpoints,
and resolve conflict, in a robust but non-coercive manner.
A wide range of deliberative modalities of communicative
interaction can be drawn upon, many of which extend
beyond rational arguments to include a variety of collaborative and conflict resolution processes, including storytelling, contestation and even dissentin other words safe
arenas for difficult, even unsafe, deliberation.
The normative conceptual framework depicted in Fig. 2
was recently proposed by the author (Glavovic 2013c; in
press) and is extended here by taking climate risk explicitly
into account and highlighting the need to chart adaptive
pathways in the face of conflict, uncertainty, turbulence and
surprise. This framework has been informed by real-world
experiences, such as those in South Africa and the Mississippi delta, but it will need to be rigorously tested, reviewed
and further developed upon application. Informed by the
convergent governance literatures cited above, the framework is founded on process outcomes that sequentially
build deliberative capacity and underpin the coastal outcomes proposed by Olsen and colleagues in Fig. 1. Building
the enabling conditions for realising the first Order of
Outcomes and progressing towards subsequent orders is a
sequential but nonlinear process with inevitable feedback

359

and the likelihood of taking two steps forward and several

backwards as evidenced in the South African effort to
develop and implement the coastal policy and ICM Act.
Despite the legacy of apartheid and persistent levels of
mistrust even after the transition to democracy, safe arenas
for deliberation and authentic opportunities for public participation were created through the coastal policy formulation process. The decision-making body that oversaw the
process was a partnership between key actors in government, civil society and the private sector, with substantive
contributions by the scientific community. This partnership
was, however, difficult to sustain and despite good intentions it dwindled. Rekindling this partnership and recreating
deliberative opportunities at local, provincial and national
levels are considered by many key informants interviewed
in December 2013January 2014 to be key to realising the
promise of the White Paper and ICM Act. The organic
cycling of the governance process portrayed in Fig. 2 seeks
to reflect this iterative but nonlinear reality where progress
from one order to the next is not inevitable. There are no
panaceas for the intractable problems facing coastal communities. Interim strategies, temporary solutions and flexible and adaptive pathways will need to be deliberated and
agreed upon in the face of complexity, change, uncertainty
and surpriseas the case study narratives attest.

Fig. 2 Deliberative coastal governance (After Glavovic 2013c; in press)

123

360

The first process outcomes are deliberative issue framing and learning and enhanced democratic attitudes and
skills. Engaging in deliberative communicative interactions
can enable governance actors and networks to build shared
understanding about coastal issues and risks through integration of science with tacit, local and traditional knowledge. It can facilitate exploration of alternative views about
problems and foster mutual framing, joint learning and
bridge the sciencepolicypractice interfaces. The roles
and responsibilities of different actors can be distinguished
and more coherently integrated. For instance, if a coastal
issue is characterised by scientific uncertainty that necessitates more research, such research can be undertaken to
inform subsequent deliberation. In other words, deliberation does not imply that all parties (e.g. experts, coastal
stakeholders and the public) or actors (e.g. government,
civil society and the private sector) need to deliberate every
aspect of coastal governance. Rather, the nature of
involvement ought to be contingent on the nature of the
issue and risk problem under consideration, within a
deliberative arena that can enable public spiritedness and
awareness, respect and tolerance of different points of
view. Deliberation can help to improve communicative
skills and enhance group interactions and decisions, even in
the face of complexity, uncertainty and surprise. Shortterm choices can be framed by shared longer-term public
goals, and commitments to take action in the short- to
medium-term can retain options for alternative future
pathways and ongoing adaptation to changing circumstances. These first-order process outcomes can thus constitute a necessary social learning and democratic
foundation for creating the enabling conditions of the firstorder coastal outcomes, namely goals, constituencies,
capacity and commitment.
The second-order process outcomes include communityoriented action and an institutional culture that fosters
more inclusive and effective decision-making in the face of
contestation, complexity, uncertainty and surprise. Deliberative interactions can help governance actors engage in
community activities, develop a shared community spirit
and begin to reconcile contending interests. These interactions can enable individual, group and community
behavioural change and build an institutional culture that
fosters innovation, collaboration and social learning.
Transitioning from the first to second Order of Outcomes is
difficult to achieve in practice, but was achieved in South
Africa (Glavovic 2008a). For instance, having public support and Cabinet approval for the White Paper, which
outlined a vision and goals for ICM and an action plan, and
subsequent investment in ICM institutional capacity,
including increased budget allocation for ICM by the lead
government agency and promulgation of the ICM Act,
enabled more effective implementation, prompted new

123

B. C. Glavovic

practices and investment, notably in the KwaZulu-Natal

and the Western Cape provinces, that provide evidence of
behavioural change, collaborative implementation, institutional and social learning and continued investment in
ICM. This was, however, a hard-won struggle that is
ongoing (Aylett 2010; Palmer et al. 2011; Goble et al.
2014; Wynberg and Hauck 2014). Similarly, post-disaster
recovery planning processes in the Mississippi delta provide evidence of a transition from the first to second Order
of Outcomes. In New Orleans, for example, initial recovery
planning efforts were driven by a well-intentioned but
largely technocratic planning process that did not engage
communities impacted by Katrina. Subsequent recovery
planning processes involved communities more actively,
and the resultant plans were more inclusive, credible and
legitimate, notwithstanding the ongoing challenge to build
resilience and sustainability in the delta (Nelson et al.
2007; Wilson 2009; Jordan and Benson 2013; Day et al.
2014). Such mixed experiences are common in other
settings, including the European Union (Portman et al.
2012; Reis et al. 2014) and Ecuador for example (Burbridge et al. 2012). Progressing to the third Order of Outcome is, however, rare indeed (Kremer and Pinckney
2012).
The third-order process outcome, community problemsolving capacity, can be fostered by deliberation as coastal
problems are reframed from a community vantage point,
understanding is deepened, institutional capacity and
decision-making are enhanced, and governance actors and
networks increasingly recognise and take on responsibilities that help to reconcile contending community interests.
Overcoming the barriers that foster unsustainable practices
and maladaptation is fraught in practice. Sustained deliberative processes that are inclusive, authentic and consequential challenge prevailing path dependencies but can
help to build the community problem-solving capabilities
necessary for choosing pathways that enable realisation of
the third-order coastal outcomes.
The fourth-order process outcome is collaborative
communities. Deliberative processes can occur within and
between coastal communities to address the complex crossscalar and multi-level issues that prevail at the coast and
thus enable the transition towards the fourth-order coastal
outcome of sustainable coastal development (Note: The
notion of optimal equilibrium is an inadequate framing of
sustainability which can be viewed as a normative position
better articulated in the context of particular social-ecological coastal systems, see Glavovic 2013c). Whilst the
overarching sustainability imperative to meet long-term
human needs and maintain the diversity, productivity and
integrity of the ecosystems that underpin coastal livelihoods applies in different coastal settings, the strategic and
practical implications are locality specific. For example, in

Towards deliberative coastal governance

South Africa, reducing poverty and meeting basic needs are

integral to coastal sustainabilitya struggle that continues
to be framed by the legacy of apartheid (Wynberg and
Hauck 2014). In the Mississippi delta, over-exploitation
and degradation of wetlands continue to frame the coastal
sustainability imperative. However, escalating disaster risk,
due to the combination of shock events, like coastal storms
and oil spills, and climate change impacts, reframes coastal
sustainability and underscores the need to transform business as usual to reduce physical exposure and social vulnerability (Day et al. 2014). In both cases, creating safe
arenas for deliberation is widely considered to be foundational for deepening and extending understanding of
coastal sustainability and to charting practical pathways
that can institutionalise adaptive capacity, resilience and
sustainability. The question remains how to operationalise
the deliberative coastal governance approach recommended here.

361

Operationalising deliberative coastal governance

There is a wide range of formal and informal institutional
structures and processes that enable or at least envisage
deliberative processes and outcomes. Contemporary governance is replete with laws and administrative practices
that engage citizens in public decision-making processes
ranging from legislative or quasi-legislative to judicial or
quasi-judicial provisions. Quasi-legislative processes
include e-democracy, collaborative policy-making, participatory budgeting and citizen juries among others. Quasijudicial processes include stipulations for public participation and a variety of alternative dispute resolution provisions and practices ranging from facilitation to mediation
and arbitration. The challenge is to better understand what
tools are available to stimulate and sustain deliberation;
how to create safe arenas for such tools to be used, by
whom and when in the public decision-making process;
and how best to engage the array of governance actors from
all spheres and sectors of government, civil society and the
private sector, in the process of developing and using these
deliberative tools.
There is a wide body of scholarship and practice experience to draw from (e.g. Beierle and Cayford 2002; Dryzek 2011; Nabatchi 2014). Important questions about how
to operationalise deliberative governance need to be
answered in the context of particular coastal settings;
questions that are best answered through co-production of
knowledge based on research grounded in real-world
experience. Following Bingham et al. (2005), such questions about how to operationalise new governance processes include:

the choice of process (e.g. on what basis should

particular deliberative processes be used in different
circumstances?);
timeliness (e.g. at what point in the policy cycle should
particular deliberative processes be used?);
quality of process (e.g. what constitutes inclusive,
authentic and consequential deliberation?);
equity and representation (e.g. who should be involved
and how does one address issues of power, rights,
responsibilities, etc.?);
connections to the policy cycle (e.g. what mix of formal
and informal institutional processes are most appropriate for different stages of policy-making?);
impact (e.g. what impact does deliberation have on
policy outcomes, including democratic quality and
legitimacy?);
implementation (e.g. how can the choices made through
deliberation be put into practice and how can different
actors be held accountable for implementation?); and.
institutionalisation (e.g. what are the barriers and
opportunities to secure more effective institutionalisation of deliberative practices?).

Addressing such questions in a reflexive and deliberative manner may offer the best prospect for transforming
unsustainable business as usual practices. The South African and Mississippi delta experiences reveal commonalities and differences but underscore the pivotal role of
windows of opportunity to initiate deliberation and institutionalise practices that adopt a longer planning horizon,
stimulate behavioural change, resolve conflicting interests
across different scales, and adapt to changing
circumstances.
The issues under consideration, the nature and severity
of the implications for coastal communities and stakeholders, and their democratic culture can inform the
choice of process. The South African and Mississippi delta
narratives show that deliberation is compelling when issues
are complex and contentious, with legitimate alternative
courses of action materially affecting outcomes for coastal
communities. Deciding about the future of the South
African coastpart of the national heritage governed
under the public trust doctrinewas founded on efforts to
promote inclusive, authentic and consequential deliberation
in the transition to democracy. Anything less would have
entrenched the legacy of apartheid, and hence the
endeavour to tailor the coastal policy process for the linguistically, culturally and institutionally distinctive communities around the coast. Similarly, post-disaster recovery
planning efforts in the Mississippi delta sought to meet the
needs of different communities and their inherent heterogeneity. The delta narrative highlights the challenge of
achieving such ideals in practice, and the imperative to take

123

362

into account long-term considerations, and cross-scale

linkages, barriers and opportunities, as well as inherent
contestation, uncertainty, change and surprise. The choice
of specific deliberative processes and tools thus needs to be
informed by context specific history, culture and needs,
mindful of the array of barriers that will be faced. Creating
safe arenas for constructive non-coercive communicative
interactions that can yield implementable actions has
overriding importance in making such choices. In both
cases, developing and sustaining deliberative processes,
however, proved to be extremely difficult.
Timeliness for deliberation includes when to initiate such
processes, how they can be sustained and what kind of
practices are appropriate at different times in different
contexts. The transition to democracy in South Africa
opened up a unique opportunity to initiate a deliberative
policy process that was not possible under apartheid. Similarly, post-disaster settings create opportunities to address
systemic problems in ways that can be transformativeas
evidenced in post-disaster Louisiana and the wider Mississippi delta region. Sustaining deliberative processes and
realising their full potential is, however, challenging, and
proactive efforts need to be made to unlock opportunities
that unfold over time. For instance, storm events created an
opportunity for refocusing attention on ICM in South Africa
and continue to highlight the relevance of ICM. The BPDeepwater Horizon oil spill reinforced the need to address
systemic problems in the Mississippi deltalike wetland
restorationthat had been previously raised but glossed
over by business as usual practices.
The quality of the process is ultimately best judged by
the governance actors and networks who seek to chart
sustainability pathways at the coast. When key parties are
excluded from authentic engagement, or the legitimacy of
the process is called into question, even well-intentioned
and technically sound recommendations are likely to be
marginalisedas transpired in the early stages of postKatrina recovery planning and pre-democracy ICM efforts
in South Africa. The quality of the process will be influenced by how the need to invest time and resources in
deliberation is balanced against the pressures on governments to make cost-effective and efficient decisions, and
the extent to which vested interests prevail.
Securing equitable and effective representation in
deliberative processes is challenging in practice. The South
African coastal policy formulation process sought to
engage stakeholders from diverse regional, cultural, linguistic, educational and socio-economic backgrounds.
Representation was a perennial challenge, with concerted
efforts made to build participant capacity to participate and
establish structures and processes to genuinely represent
different interests at various scales. A Policy Committee
was established to oversee the overall policy formulation

123

B. C. Glavovic

process. Provincial and local forums were set up for

locality and interest-specific participation, and ad hoc
arenas were set up for deliberation. Structures and processes are provided for representation and participation in
the ICM Act. However, effective implementation of these
provisions lies at the heart of the challenge of institutionalising the Act. Similar challenges are faced in the Mississippi delta. Many efforts have been made in recovery
and sustainability planning to engage historically disadvantaged and marginalised people whose voices are
otherwise silent, perpetuating social vulnerability. Much
remains to be learned about how to ensure more equitable
and effective representation in delta planning and decisionmaking.
Determining how to facilitate connections to the policy
cycle, especially the linkages between formal and informal
institutions, is key to ensuring that deliberation is translated
into practice. How this is achieved needs to be tailored to
particular circumstances. One of the challenges revealed in
both case studies is the need to reframe sustainability as a
coupled environmenthuman development issue so that it
is not reduced to an environmental issue. Otherwise
sustainability is likely to remain on the periphery of
political priorities and core policy debates. Deliberation is
central to such reframing and proved to be central to
Cabinet approval of the White Paper and subsequent passage of the ICM Act.
Much remains to be learned about the impact of deliberative processes, and research on the South African and
Mississippi delta experience is helping to shed light on
barriers, opportunities and future prospects (Day et al.
2014; Goble et al. 2014) but further research is needed on
this topic.
The normative framework recommended above suggests
key considerations for making the transition from one
Order of Outcomes to the next, and these cases and experience elsewhere demonstrate the difficulty of progressing
to the third Order of Outcomes and effective implementation of ICM and sustainability governance more generally.
Further attention needs to be focused on understanding and
overcoming the limits and barriers to effective implementation of deliberative processes, which is likely to be fostered by action-oriented research that is itself reflexive and
deliberative.
Ultimately, institutionalisation of deliberative processes
and practices is crucial to enabling the transition to coastal
sustainability. The South African and Mississippi delta
experiences underscore the systemic challenge this presents. Both cases also demonstrate that deliberative processes can be mobilised despite countervailing forces.
Moreover, both cases and the scholarship reviewed here
show that deliberation can help to overcome entrenched
practices that have put coastal communities on the frontline

Towards deliberative coastal governance

of the sustainability crisis in the Anthropocene. The process outcomes outlined above can help guide coastal
communities in transitioning from one Order of Outcomes
to the next.

Conclusion
The South African and Mississippi delta experiences
demonstrate that building resilient and sustainable coastal
communities is urgent and compelling. Insights from
governance praxis and convergent literatures shed light on
how to transform unsustainable practices. This is, however,
a complex and contested enterprise. Conflict, change,
uncertainty and surprise are the new normal. Scholarship
and practice suggest that a transformative practice of
deliberative coastal governance ought to be envisaged and
institutionalised. Four deliberative outcomes are foundational for the proposed normative conceptual framework.
First, human and social capital need to be built through
issue learning and enhanced democratic attitudes and skills.
Attention then needs to be focused on facilitating community-oriented action and fostering deliberative institutional capacity and decision-making. Together these
endeavours can enable improved community problemsolving. The ultimate process goal is to build more collaborative communities. Realising the promise of deliberation is a struggle in practice. However, experience in
South Africa and the Mississippi delta shows that deliberative processes can help to reframe thinking and practice.
Determination and persistence will nonetheless be required
to operationalise deliberative coastal governance, with
more attention focused on questions about the choice of
process, timeliness, quality of process, equity and representation, connections to the policy cycle, impact, implementation and institutionalisation.
Acknowledgments I would like to thank the editors for considering
this article for inclusion in this Special Issue. I would also like to
thank LOICZ and the New Zealand Earthquake Commission for
providing financial support that enabled me to conduct the research
upon which this article is based and to enable participation in IMBIZO III. I would also like to thank the journal editors and reviewers
for their constructive suggestions that helped to improve the manuscript. I retain sole responsibility for this research.

References
Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, OBrien KL (2009) Adapting to climate
change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Aven T, Renn O (2010) Risk management and governance. Springer,
Heidelberg

363
Aylett A (2010) Conflict, collaboration and climate change: participatory democracy and urban environmental struggles in Durban,
South Africa. Int J Urban Reg Res 34(3):478495
Baber WF, Bartlett RV (2005) Deliberative environmental politics:
democracy and ecological rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge
Batker DP, de la Torre I, Costanza R, Swedeen P, Day JW, Boumans
R, Bagstad K (2010) Gaining groundwetlands, hurricanes and
the economy: the value of restoring the Mississippi River Delta.
Earth Econ, Tacoma
Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public
participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the
Future Press, Washington DC
Bingham LB, Nabatchi T, OLeary R (2005) The new governance:
practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation
in the work of government. Public Adm 65(5):547558
Blum MD, Roberts HH (2012) The Mississippi Delta region: past,
present, and future. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 40:655683
Boesch DF (2012) Deep-water drilling remains a risky business.
Nature 484:289
Boyte HC (2005) Reframing democracy: governance, civic agency,
and politics. Public Adm Rev 65(5):536546
Burbridge PR, Glavovic BC, Olsen SB (2012) Practitioner reflections
on integrated coastal management experience in Europe, South
Africa, and Ecuador. In: Kremer H, Pinckney J (eds) Management of estuaries and coasts. Academic Press, Waltham,
pp 131158
Campanella R (2007) An ethnic geography of New Orleans. J Am
History 94:704715
Celliers L, Rosendo S, Coetzee I, Daniels G (2013) Pathways of
integrated coastal management from national policy to local
implementation: enabling climate change adaptation. Marine
Policy 39:7286
Chambers S (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annu Rev Polit
Sci 6:307326
Cicin-Sain B, Knecht RW (1998) Integrated coastal and ocean
management: concepts and practices. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.
Colenbrander D, Cartwright A, Taylor A (2014) Drawing a line in the
sand: managing coastal risks in the City of Cape Town. S Afr
Geogr J. doi:10.1080/03736245.2014.924865
Comfort LK, Birkland TA, Cigler BA, Nance E (2010) Retrospectives
and prospectives on hurricane Katrina: five years and counting.
Public Adm Rev 70(5):669678
Cooke B, Kathari U (eds) (2001) Participation: the new tyranny?. Zed
Books, New York
Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415:23
Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The anthropocene. Global Change
Newslett 41:1718
Darbas T (2008) Reflexive governance of urban catchments: a case of
deliberative truncation. Environ Plan A 40:14541469
Day JD, Boesch E et al (2007) Restoration of the Mississippi Delta:
lessons from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science
315:16791684
Day JW, Kemp GP, Freeman AM, Muth DP (eds) (2014) Perspectives
on the restoration of the Mississippi Delta: the once and future
delta. Springer, Dordrecht
Dryzek JS (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political
science. Cambridge University Press, New York
Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberalism,
critics, contestations. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dryzek JS (2009) Democratization as deliberative capacity building.
Comp Polit Stud 42(11):13791402
Dryzek JS (2011) Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford

123

364
Few R, Brown K, Tompkins EL (2007) Public participation and
climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion.
Clim Policy 7(1):4659
Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts and the environment: the politics of
local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham
Fischer F (2003) Reframing public policy: discursive politics and
deliberative practices. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fischer F (2006) Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment. The cultural politics of discursive space. Am Rev Public
Adm 36(1):1940
Freudenburg WR, Gramling R (2011) Blowout in the Gulf: The BP
oil spill disaster and the future of energy in America. The MIT
Press, Cambridge
Freudenburg WR, Gramling R, Laska S, Erikson KT (2009)
Catastrophe in the making: the engineering of Katrina and the
disasters of tomorrow. Island Press, Washington DC
Fung A (2003) Recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design
choices and their consequences. J Polit Philos 11:338367
Fung A (2004) Empowered participation: reinventing urban democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in democratic governance.
Public Adm Rev 66(Supplement 1):6675
Fung A, Wright EO (2001) Deepening democracy: innovations in
empowered local governance. Polit Soc 29(1):541
Fung A, Wright EO (eds) (2003) Deepening democracy: institutional
innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso, New
York
Glavovic BC (2006) The evolution of coastal management in South
Africa: why blood is thicker than water. J Ocean Coast Manag
49(12):889904
Glavovic BC (2008a) Sustainable coastal development in South Africa:
Bridging the chasm between rhetoric and reality. In: Krishnamurthy
R et al (eds) Integrated coastal zone management: the global
challenge. Research Publishing Services, Singapore
Glavovic BC (2008b) Sustainable coastal communities in the age of
coastal storms: reconceptualising coastal planning and ICM as
new naval architecture. J Coast Conserv 12(3):125134
Glavovic BC (2013a) The coastal innovation paradox. Sustainability
5:912933
Glavovic BC (2013b) Disasters and the continental shelf: exploring
new frontiers of risk. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN, Chircop A,
Long R (eds) The regulation of continental shelf development.
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 225256
Glavovic BC (2013c) The coastal innovation imperative. Sustainability 5:934954
Glavovic BC (2014) Waves of adversity, layers of resilience: floods,
hurricanes, oil spills and climate change in the Mississippi Delta.
In: Glavovic BC, Smith GP (eds) Adapting to climate change:
lessons from natural hazards planning. Springer, Berlin
Glavovic BC (in press) On the frontline in the anthropocene: adapting
to climate change through deliberative coastal governance. In:
Glavovic BC, Kelly M, Kay R, Travers A (eds) Climate change
and the coast: building resilient communities. CRC Press, Boca
Raton
Glavovic BC, Boonzaaier S (2007) Confronting coastal poverty:
building sustainable coastal livelihoods in South Africa. J Ocean
Coast Manag 50(12):123
Glavovic BC, Cullinan C (2009) The coastal zone. In: Strydom HGA,
King ND (eds) Fuggle and Rabies environmental management
in South Africa. Juta, Cape Town
Glavovic BC, Kelly M, Kay R, Travers A (eds) (in press) Climate
change and the coast: building resilient communities. CRC
Press, Boca Raton
Goble BJ, Lewis M, Hill TR, Phillips MR (2014) Coastal management in South Africa: historical perspectives and setting the
stage of a new era. Ocean Coast Manag 91:3240

123

B. C. Glavovic
Goodin RE, Dryzek JS (2006) Deliberative impacts. The macropolitical uptake of mini-publics. Polit Soc 34(2):219244
Gupte M, Bartlett RV (2007) Necessary preconditions for deliberative
environmental democracy? Challenging the modernity bias of
current theory. Global Environ Polit 7(3):94106
Hegger D, Lamers M, Van Zeil-Rozema A, Dieperink C (2012)
Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate
change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for
action. Environ Sci Policy 18:5265
Hickey S, Mohan G (eds) (2004) Participation: from tyranny to
transformation?. Zed Books, New York
Hofmeester C, Bishop B, Stocker L, Syme G (2012) Social cultural
influences on current and future coastal governance. Futures
44:719729
Hoppe R (2011) Institutional constraints and practical problems in
deliberative and participatory policy making. Policy Polit
39(2):163186
Jenssen S (2008) Deliberative democracy in practice. Acta Polit
43:7192
Jordan S, Benson W (2013) Governance and the Gulf of Mexico
Coast: how are current policies contributing to sustainability?
Sustainability 5:46884705
Kahane D, Weinstock D, Leydet D, Williams M (2010) Deliberative
democracy in practice. UBC Press, Vancouver and Toronto
Kannen A (2012) Challenges for marine spatial planning in the
context of multiple sea uses, policy arenas and actors based on
experiences from the German North Sea. Region Environ
Change. doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0349-7
Kay R, Alder J (2005) Coastal planning and management, 2nd edn.
Taylor and Francis, London and New York
Kerr S, Johnson K, Side JC (2014) Planning at the edge: integrating
across the land sea divide. Marine Policy 47:118125
King CS, Feltey KM, ONeill Susel B (1998) The question of
participation: toward authentic public participation in public
administration. Public Adm Rev 58(4):317326
Klinke A (2014) Postnational discourse, deliberation, and participation toward global risk governance. Rev Int Stud 40:247275
Klinke A, Renn O (2002) A new approach to risk evaluation and
management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based
strategies. Risk Anal 22(6):10711094
Klinke A, Renn O (2012) Adaptive and integrative governance on risk
and uncertainty. J Risk Res 15(3):273292
Kooiman J (2003) Governing as governance. Sage, London
Kremer H, Pinckney J (eds) (2012) Management of estuaries and
coasts. Academic Press, Waltham
Krishnamoorthy R, Glavovic BC et al (eds) (2008) Integrated coastal
zone management: the global challenge. Research Publishing
Services, Singapore
Laska S, Morrow B (2006) Social vulnerabilities and hurricane
Katrina: an unnatural disaster in New Orleans. J Marine Technol
Soc 40(4):1626
Lebel L, Anderies JM, et al (2006) Governance and the capacity to
manage resilience in regional socialecological systems. Ecol
Soc 11(1):19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/
art19/
Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev
Environ Resour 31:297325
Lloyd MG, Peel D, Duck RW (2013) Towards a socialecological
resilience framework for coastal planning. Land Use Policy
30:925933
Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (2007, 2012)
Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast.
LACPRA, Baton Rouge, LA. http://www.coastalmasterplan.
louisiana.gov/. Accessed August 2013
Lubchenco J, Petes LE (2010) The interconnected biosphere: science
at the oceans tipping points. Oceanography 23(2):115129

Towards deliberative coastal governance

Mead A, Griffiths C et al (2013) Human-mediated drivers of
changeimpacts on coastal ecosystems and marine biota of
South Africa. Afr J Marine Sci 35(3):403425
Menzel S, Buchecker M (2013) Does participatory planning foster the
transformation toward more adaptive socialecological systems?
Ecol Soc 18(1):13
Morris C (2012) The big muddy: an environmental history of the
Mississippi and its peoples, from Hernando de Soto to Hurricane
Katrina. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Moser SC, Williams SJ, Boesch DF (2012) Wicked challenges at
lands end: managing coastal vulnerability under climate change.
Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:5178
Nabatchi T (2014) Deliberative civic engagement in public administration and policy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10(1):21.
http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol10/iss1/art21
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling (2011) Deep water: the Gulf Oil Disaster and
the future of offshore drilling: Report to the President. http://
www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nationbp-oil-spill. Accessed 17 December, 2012
Nelson M, Ehrenfeucht R, Laska S (2007) Planning, plans, and
people: professional expertise, local knowledge, and governmental action in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. Cityscape
J Policy Dev Res 9(3):2352
Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) Environmental governance: participatory,
multi-leveland
effective?
Environ
Policy
Govern
19(3):197214
Nicholls RJ, Wong PP et al (2007) Coastal systems and low-lying
areas. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF et al (eds) Climate Change
2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of
working group II to the fourth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University PressUK, Cambridge, pp 315356
Olsen SB (2002) Assessing progress towards goals of coastal
management. Coastal Management 30:325345
Olsen SB (2003) Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in
integrated coastal management initiatives. J Ocean Coastal
Manag 46(34):347361
Olsen SB, Page GG, Ochoa E (2009) The analysis of governance
responses to ecosystem change: a handbook for assembling a
baseline. LOICZ R and S Report No. 34, GKSS Research Centre,
Geesthacht, Germany
Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance
of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100:641672

365
Palmer J (2012) Risk governance in an age of wicked problems:
lessons from the European approach to indirect land-use change.
J Risk Res 15(5):495513
Palmer BJ, Hill TR, Mcgregor GK, Paterson AW (2011) An
assessment of coastal development and land use change using
the DPSIR framework: case studies from the Eastern Cape,
South Africa. Coastal Management 39(2):158174
Pierre J, Peters G (2000) Governance, politics and the state.
Macmillan Press, London
Portman ME, Esteves LS, Le XQ, Khan AZ (2012) Improving
integration for integrated coastal zone management: an eight
country study. Sci Total Environ 439:194201
Reis J, Stojanovic T, Smith H (2014) Relevance of systems
approaches for implementing integrated coastal zone management principles in Europe. Marine Policy 43:312
Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a
complex world. Earthscan, London
Saikku M (2005) This delta, this land: an environmental history of the
Yazoo-Mississippi Floodplain. University of Georgia Press,
Athens
Webler T, Tuler S et al (2014) Design and evaluation of a local
analytic-deliberative process for climate adaptation planning.
Local Environ Int J Just Sustain. doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.
930425
Wilson PA (2009) Deliberative planning for disaster recovery: remembering New Orleans. J Public Delib 5(1), Article 1. http://
www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol5iss1/art1. Accessed August
2013
Wong PP, Losada IJ, et al. (2014) Coastal systems and low-lying
areas. In Field CB, Barros VR et al. (eds) Climate change 2014:
impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and
sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate
change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Final Draft
Woods C (1998) development arrested: the blues and plantation
power in the Mississippi Delta. Verso, London and New York
Wynberg R, Hauck M (2014) People, power, and the coast: a
conceptual framework for understanding and implementing
benefit sharing. Ecol Soc 19(1):27. doi: 10.5751/ES-06250190127

123