ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Towards deliberative coastal governance: insights from SouthAfrica 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 delib-

erative governance. A normative framework is presented

that focuses attention on underpinning deliberative out-

comes 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 experi-

ences 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 Anthropocene—a proposed new geological era to sig-

nify the dominant influence human activities now have on

global biogeochemistry and the post-Holocene geological

record (Crutzen 2002; Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). Con-

temporary coastal practices are typically unsustainable, and

many communities face escalating disaster risk, com-

pounded by climate change, especially at river mouths,

low-lying urbanised coasts and megacities, arctic commu-

nities 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 gov-

ernance 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 Africa’s coastal management

experience (see e.g. Glavovic 2006; Glavovic and Boon-

zaaier 2007; Glavovic 2008a; Glavovic and Cullinan

2009), and resilience and sustainability in the Mississippi

delta, with a focus on the recovery experience since Hur-

ricane Katrina (see e.g. Glavovic 2008b, 2013b, 2014).

This longitudinal case study research has reviewed evolv-

ing 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, 2013–2014) and the

Mississippi delta (in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010).

The South African coastal experience

The South African coastal experience reflects the socio-

political narrative of the country’s transition from apartheid

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

123

Reg Environ Change (2016) 16:353–365

DOI 10.1007/s10113-014-0727-4

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). Pre-

vailing 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 pre-

valent 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 prac-

tices. 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 envi-

ronmental 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 formula-

tion process was initiated. It took many years and con-

certed 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

supported coastal policy was approved by Cabinet and

released as a White Paper in 2000. Progress towards in-

stitutionalisation of the policy and effective implementa-

tion on the ground was, however, delayed by, among other

things, the government’s 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. Notwith-

standing 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 flex-

ibility; and collaboration and conflict) and take into

account the centrality of power relationships and imbal-

ances 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 imple-

menting 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, profes-

sional consultancies and research organisations. Intervie-

wees concur that the first 5 years of implementing the ICM

Act has been chequered, despite good intentions and con-

certed effort by many. The Western Cape has made sig-

nificant 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 KwaZulu–Natal has

regressed according to many involved in coastal manage-

ment in that province. The relatively well-capacitated

metropolitan councils, notably Cape Town City and Dur-

ban (eThekwini municipality), have made significant

advances in ICM notwithstanding the scale of the chal-

lenges 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 government–civil society–private sector collaboration

354 B. C. Glavovic

123

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 dis-

seminated 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. Estab-

lishing 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 manage-

ment 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. Environ-

mental professionals and coastal managers welcome the

ICM Act, but government officials without this back-

ground, and many others in the private sector and civil

society, consider the ICM Act to be unnecessarily com-

plicated and bureaucratic, imposing prescriptions, plans

and obligations that are seen to be burdensome and anti-

thetical to the interests of coastal communities—especially

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 country—namely 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 legis-

lative 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 flex-

ibility, short- and long-term interests, collaboration and

conflict, and between centralised control and devolution of

responsibilities, is expected to be an ongoing challenge.

Strengthening government–civil society–private sector

partnerships is considered crucial. The ICM Act has pro-

visions 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

sustainable coastal livelihoods and development remains a

compelling motivation for ICM. In addition, it is increas-

ingly 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 man-

agement practices. The South African experience is dis-

tinctive, 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 eco-

nomic asset, it would provide annual benefits of USD

13–47 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 region’s

natural subsidence, have accelerated wetland loss to the

point at which many delta communities and wetland-

dependent livelihoods are in jeopardy (Blum and Roberts

2012). Moreover, disaster risk in the delta region is esca-

lating rapidly. Many delta communities are physically

exposed to perils such as riverine flooding and hurricanes

which is exacerbated by wetland loss and further com-

pounded 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 inevi-

table once design standards are exceeded. Restoring wet-

lands 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

Towards deliberative coastal governance 355

123

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 tragi-

cally 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 An-

thropocene—in a region that is a global hotspot for climate

change impacts—is 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 BP-

Deep Water Horizon oil spill, led to massive investment in

response and recovery, as well as renewed focus on wet-

land 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 physi-

cal and social vulnerability does not bode well for com-

munities 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 institu-

tional 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 (Freu-

denburg 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 estab-

lished 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 cor-

ruption 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

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 sus-

tainable development by recognising that the coast is a

coherent social–ecological 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 mea-

sures. The second Order of Outcomes secures implemen-

tation 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

356 B. C. Glavovic

123

the transition to the fourth Order of Outcomes—sustainable

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 advance-

ment 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 sus-

tainability, from state-centric government, reliant mainly

on hierarchy and control, towards governance—the inter-

action 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-Kat-

rina 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 citi-

zens 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 govern-

ment. Emerging conceptualisations of governance, includ-

ing 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

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

Towards deliberative coastal governance 357

123

and communities in governance processes that are reflexive

(or self-critical learning), deliberative and resolve con-

flicting 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 con-

siderations 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 delibera-

tive 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 gover-

nance 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 recog-

nise 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 delibera-

tion as a non-coercive communicative process that facili-

tates reflection on and reconciliation of divergent societal

values, preferences and interests. Participants share infor-

mation, discuss and debate matters of common concern and

develop deeper understanding about these matters through

social learning to make more democratic public decisions

(Chambers 2003). There are divergent views about what

constitutes deliberative democracy even among delibera-

tive 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. Delib-

eration 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 challenging—as 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 opportuni-

ties 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 restora-

tion 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 government–civil society–private 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 delib-

eration 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, under-

score the need to create safe arenas for public deliberation:

358 B. C. Glavovic

123

interconnected and overlapping opportunities for gover-

nance 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 collab-

orative and conflict resolution processes, including story-

telling, contestation and even dissent—in 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 Missis-

sippi delta, but it will need to be rigorously tested, reviewed

and further developed upon application. Informed by the

convergent governance literatures cited above, the frame-

work is founded on process outcomes that sequentially

build deliberative capacity and underpin the coastal out-

comes 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

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 par-

ticipation were created through the coastal policy formu-

lation process. The decision-making body that oversaw the

process was a partnership between key actors in govern-

ment, civil society and the private sector, with substantive

contributions by the scientific community. This partnership

was, however, difficult to sustain and despite good inten-

tions it dwindled. Rekindling this partnership and recreating

deliberative opportunities at local, provincial and national

levels are considered by many key informants interviewed

in December 2013–January 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 com-

munities. Interim strategies, temporary solutions and flexi-

ble and adaptive pathways will need to be deliberated and

agreed upon in the face of complexity, change, uncertainty

and surprise—as the case study narratives attest.

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

Towards deliberative coastal governance 359

123

The first process outcomes are deliberative issue fram-

ing 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 inte-

gration of science with tacit, local and traditional knowl-

edge. It can facilitate exploration of alternative views about

problems and foster mutual framing, joint learning and

bridge the science–policy–practice 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 neces-

sitates more research, such research can be undertaken to

inform subsequent deliberation. In other words, delibera-

tion 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. Short-

term 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 circum-

stances. These first-order process outcomes can thus con-

stitute a necessary social learning and democratic

foundation for creating the enabling conditions of the first-

order coastal outcomes, namely goals, constituencies,

capacity and commitment.

The second-order process outcomes include community-

oriented action and an institutional culture that fosters

more inclusive and effective decision-making in the face of

contestation, complexity, uncertainty and surprise. Delib-

erative interactions can help governance actors engage in

community activities, develop a shared community spirit

and begin to reconcile contending interests. These inter-

actions 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 sup-

port 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

practices and investment, notably in the KwaZulu-Natal

and the Western Cape provinces, that provide evidence of

behavioural change, collaborative implementation, institu-

tional 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 pro-

vide 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 (Bur-

bridge et al. 2012). Progressing to the third Order of Out-

come is, however, rare indeed (Kremer and Pinckney

2012).

The third-order process outcome, community problem-

solving 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 responsibili-

ties that help to reconcile contending community interests.

Overcoming the barriers that foster unsustainable practices

and maladaptation is fraught in practice. Sustained delib-

erative processes that are inclusive, authentic and conse-

quential 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 cross-

scalar 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-eco-

logical 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 liveli-

hoods applies in different coastal settings, the strategic and

practical implications are locality specific. For example, in

360 B. C. Glavovic

123

South Africa, reducing poverty and meeting basic needs are

integral to coastal sustainability—a 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 busi-

ness as usual to reduce physical exposure and social vul-

nerability (Day et al. 2014). In both cases, creating safe

arenas for deliberation is widely considered to be founda-

tional 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 recom-

mended here.

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 gov-

ernance 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, partic-

ipatory budgeting and citizen juries among others. Quasi-

judicial processes include stipulations for public partici-

pation and a variety of alternative dispute resolution pro-

visions 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 expe-

rience to draw from (e.g. Beierle and Cayford 2002; Dry-

zek 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 ques-

tions about how to operationalise ‘new governance’ pro-

cesses 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 appropri-

ate 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 institutionalisa-

tion of deliberative practices?).

Addressing such questions in a reflexive and delibera-

tive manner may offer the best prospect for transforming

unsustainable business as usual practices. The South Afri-

can and Mississippi delta experiences reveal commonali-

ties and differences but underscore the pivotal role of

windows of opportunity to initiate deliberation and insti-

tutionalise 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 stake-

holders, 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 coast—part of the national heritage governed

under the public trust doctrine—was 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 lin-

guistically, culturally and institutionally distinctive com-

munities around the coast. Similarly, post-disaster recovery

planning efforts in the Mississippi delta sought to meet the

needs of different communities and their inherent hetero-

geneity. The delta narrative highlights the challenge of

achieving such ideals in practice, and the imperative to take

Towards deliberative coastal governance 361

123

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. Sim-

ilarly, post-disaster settings create opportunities to address

systemic problems in ways that can be transformative—as

evidenced in post-disaster Louisiana and the wider Mis-

sissippi 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 BP-

Deepwater Horizon oil spill reinforced the need to address

systemic problems in the Mississippi delta—like wetland

restoration—that 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

marginalised—as transpired in the early stages of post-

Katrina recovery planning and pre-democracy ICM efforts

in South Africa. The quality of the process will be influ-

enced by how the need to invest time and resources in

deliberation is balanced against the pressures on govern-

ments 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, lin-

guistic, 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

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 pro-

cesses are provided for representation and participation in

the ICM Act. However, effective implementation of these

provisions lies at the heart of the challenge of institution-

alising the Act. Similar challenges are faced in the Mis-

sissippi delta. Many efforts have been made in recovery

and sustainability planning to engage historically disad-

vantaged 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 decision-

making.

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 environment–human 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 pas-

sage of the ICM Act.

Much remains to be learned about the impact of delib-

erative 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 expe-

rience elsewhere demonstrate the difficulty of progressing

to the third Order of Outcomes and effective implementa-

tion of ICM and sustainability governance more generally.

Further attention needs to be focused on understanding and

overcoming the limits and barriers to effective implemen-

tation of deliberative processes, which is likely to be fos-

tered 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 pre-

sents. Both cases also demonstrate that deliberative pro-

cesses 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

362 B. C. Glavovic

123

of the sustainability crisis in the Anthropocene. The pro-

cess 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 founda-

tional 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 com-

munity-oriented action and fostering deliberative institu-

tional capacity and decision-making. Together these

endeavours can enable improved community problem-

solving. The ultimate process goal is to build more col-

laborative communities. Realising the promise of deliber-

ation is a struggle in practice. However, experience in

South Africa and the Mississippi delta shows that delib-

erative 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 repre-

sentation, connections to the policy cycle, impact, imple-

mentation 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 IMB-

IZO III. I would also like to thank the journal editors and reviewers

for their constructive suggestions that helped to improve the manu-

script. I retain sole responsibility for this research.

References

Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien KL (2009) Adapting to climate

change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge

Aven T, Renn O (2010) Risk management and governance. Springer,

Heidelberg

Aylett A (2010) Conflict, collaboration and climate change: partic-

ipatory democracy and urban environmental struggles in Durban,

South Africa. Int J Urban Reg Res 34(3):478–495

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 ground—wetlands, 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, O’Leary R (2005) The new governance:

practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation

in the work of government. Public Adm 65(5):547–558

Blum MD, Roberts HH (2012) The Mississippi Delta region: past,

present, and future. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 40:655–683

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):536–546

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) Manage-

ment of estuaries and coasts. Academic Press, Waltham,

pp 131–158

Campanella R (2007) An ethnic geography of New Orleans. J Am

History 94:704–715

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 39:72–86

Chambers S (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annu Rev Polit

Sci 6:307–326

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):669–678

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 41:17–18

Darbas T (2008) Reflexive governance of urban catchments: a case of

deliberative truncation. Environ Plan A 40:1454–1469

Day JD, Boesch E et al (2007) Restoration of the Mississippi Delta:

lessons from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science

315:1679–1684

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):1379–1402

Dryzek JS (2011) Foundations and frontiers of deliberative gover-

nance. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Towards deliberative coastal governance 363

123

Few R, Brown K, Tompkins EL (2007) Public participation and

climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion.

Clim Policy 7(1):46–59

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 empower-

ment. The cultural politics of discursive space. Am Rev Public

Adm 36(1):19–40

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 11:338–367

Fung A (2004) Empowered participation: reinventing urban democ-

racy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in democratic governance.

Public Adm Rev 66(Supplement 1):66–75

Fung A, Wright EO (2001) Deepening democracy: innovations in

empowered local governance. Polit Soc 29(1):5–41

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):889–904

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):125–134

Glavovic BC (2013a) The coastal innovation paradox. Sustainability

5:912–933

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 225–256

Glavovic BC (2013c) The coastal innovation imperative. Sustainabil-

ity 5:934–954

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(1–2):1–23

Glavovic BC, Cullinan C (2009) The coastal zone. In: Strydom HGA,

King ND (eds) Fuggle and Rabie’s 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 manage-

ment in South Africa: historical perspectives and setting the

stage of a new era. Ocean Coast Manag 91:32–40

Goodin RE, Dryzek JS (2006) Deliberative impacts. The macro-

political uptake of mini-publics. Polit Soc 34(2):219–244

Gupte M, Bartlett RV (2007) Necessary preconditions for deliberative

environmental democracy? Challenging the modernity bias of

current theory. Global Environ Polit 7(3):94–106

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 18:52–65

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

44:719–729

Hoppe R (2011) Institutional constraints and practical problems in

deliberative and participatory policy making. Policy Polit

39(2):163–186

Jenssen S (2008) Deliberative democracy in practice. Acta Polit

43:71–92

Jordan S, Benson W (2013) Governance and the Gulf of Mexico

Coast: how are current policies contributing to sustainability?

Sustainability 5:4688–4705

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 47:118–125

King CS, Feltey KM, O’Neill Susel B (1998) The question of

participation: toward authentic public participation in public

administration. Public Adm Rev 58(4):317–326

Klinke A (2014) Postnational discourse, deliberation, and participa-

tion toward global risk governance. Rev Int Stud 40:247–275

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):1071–1094

Klinke A, Renn O (2012) Adaptive and integrative governance on risk

and uncertainty. J Risk Res 15(3):273–292

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):16–26

Lebel L, Anderies JM, et al (2006) Governance and the capacity to

manage resilience in regional social–ecological systems. Ecol

Soc 11(1):19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/

art19/

Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev

Environ Resour 31:297–325

Lloyd MG, Peel D, Duck RW (2013) Towards a social–ecological

resilience framework for coastal planning. Land Use Policy

30:925–933

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 ocean’s tipping points. Oceanography 23(2):115–129

364 B. C. Glavovic

123

Mead A, Griffiths C et al (2013) Human-mediated drivers of

change—impacts on coastal ecosystems and marine biota of

South Africa. Afr J Marine Sci 35(3):403–425

Menzel S, Buchecker M (2013) Does participatory planning foster the

transformation toward more adaptive social–ecological 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

land’s end: managing coastal vulnerability under climate change.

Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:51–78

Nabatchi T (2014) Deliberative civic engagement in public admin-

istration 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-nation-

bp-oil-spill. Accessed 17 December, 2012

Nelson M, Ehrenfeucht R, Laska S (2007) Planning, plans, and

people: professional expertise, local knowledge, and govern-

mental action in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. Cityscape

J Policy Dev Res 9(3):23–52

Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) Environmental governance: participatory,

multi-level—and effective? Environ Policy Govern

19(3):197–214

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 Univer-

sity PressUK, Cambridge, pp 315–356

Olsen SB (2002) Assessing progress towards goals of coastal

management. Coastal Management 30:325–345

Olsen SB (2003) Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in

integrated coastal management initiatives. J Ocean Coastal

Manag 46(3–4):347–361

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 100:641–672

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):495–513

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):158–174

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 439:194–201

Reis J, Stojanovic T, Smith H (2014) Relevance of systems

approaches for implementing integrated coastal zone manage-

ment principles in Europe. Marine Policy 43:3–12

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: re-

membering 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 King-

dom 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-06250-

190127

Towards deliberative coastal governance 365

123