Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Higgins, Olivia and Shackleton, Charlie M. 2015. The benefits from and barriers to participation in civic environmental organisations in South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 24, Issue. 8, p. 2031.

    Enengel, Barbara Penker, Marianne and Muhar, Andreas 2014. Landscape co-management in Austria: The stakeholder's perspective on efforts, benefits and risks. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 34, p. 223.

    Penker, Marianne Enengel, Barbara Mann, Carsten and Aznar, Olivier 2013. Understanding Landscape Stewardship - Lessons to be Learned from Public Service Economics. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 64, Issue. 1, p. 54.

    Enengel, Barbara Penker, Marianne Muhar, Andreas and Williams, Rachael 2011. Benefits, efforts and risks of participants in landscape co-management: An analytical framework and results from two case studies in Austria. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 92, Issue. 4, p. 1256.

    Plummer, Ryan Spiers, Andrew Summer, Robert and FitzGibbon, John 2008. The Contributions of Stewardship to Managing Agro-Ecosystem Environments. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 31, Issue. 3, p. 55.

    Plummer, Ryan and Armitage, Derek 2007. Crossing Boundaries, Crossing Scales: The Evolution of Environment and Resource Co-Management. Geography Compass, Vol. 1, Issue. 4, p. 834.


RESEARCH ARTICLE: Co-Management of Natural Resources: Opportunities for and Barriers to Working with Citizen Volunteers

  • Ryan Plummer (a1) and Susan M. Arai (a2)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 08 February 2006

Co-management is an innovative approach for managing the natural environment and providing opportunities for outdoor recreation. It combines the efforts of government agencies legally responsible for environmental quality with those of citizens and interest groups using such resources. This article documents the experiences gained from a co-management process involving the Tine River (a pseudonym) corridor in Ontario. The analysis focuses on revealing factors that fostered opportunities and presented barriers to the voluntary nature of the process. Sharing common objectives, the presence and characteristics of a network, and willingness to share information appear to create opportunities for continued involvement. Different perceptions of intent, particularly between nongovernment and government participants, and failure to fulfill commitments, appear to destroy opportunities for involvement by citizens. Implications from this study are particularly relevant to government agencies, which are identified in this particular case as being responsible for creating significant barriers to this new mode of operation through both past and current actions. Recommendations are made for environmental professionals to foster opportunities and limit barriers to working with volunteers in pursuing co-management.

Environmental Practice 7:221–234 (2005)

Corresponding author
Address correspondence to: Ryan Plummer, Associate Professor, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave., St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3A1; (fax) 905-984-4843; (e-mail)
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Environmental Practice
  • ISSN: 1466-0466
  • EISSN: 1466-0474
  • URL: /core/journals/environmental-practice
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *