Allan Dale

Dr. Allan Dale


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

33Years (1994-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
14 November 2014 in Sustainability Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JSJeffrey Sayer
Jeffrey Sayer
CMChris Margules
Chris Margules
Agni Klintuni BoedhihartonoAgni Klintuni Boedhihartono
Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono
ADAllan Dale
Allan Dale
TSTerry Sunderland
Terry Sunderland
RSRia Saryanthi
Ria Saryanthi

1 October 2013 in Marine Pollution Bulletin
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AGA. Grech
A. Grech
MBM. Bos
M. Bos
BJBrodie Jon
Brodie Jon
RCR. Coles
R. Coles
ADAllan Dale
Allan Dale
Adam Kingsley SmithAdam Kingsley Smith
Adam Kingsley Smith

1 April 2001 in Environmental Modelling & Software
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
XZXuan Zhu
Xuan Zhu
ADAllan Dale
Allan Dale

1 May 1994 in Society & Natural Resources
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ADAllan Dale
Allan Dale
MLMarcus B. Lane
Marcus B. Lane
Recent developments in planning and social impact assessment (SIA) theory have traveled parallel paths. Both fields have moved away from centralized, purportedly apolitical modes of decision making and are moving toward enhanced participation of parties affected by resource development. Some writers now view SIA and planning as essentially sociopolitical processes that should facilitate bargaining and negotiation among interest groups within the constraints of the law and government administration. Strategic perspectives analysis has been designed as a flexible procedure that can be used to conduct both participatory and political applications of SIA. In a progression from position analysis techniques, the method uses strategic planning principles to elicit the vision, objectives, and strategies of each party. It then facilitates the articulation of their interests with the planning process through more effective bargaining and negotiation.

1 March 2010 in Environmental Conservation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RHRosemary Hill
Rosemary Hill
KWKristen Williams
Kristen Williams
PPPetina L. Pert
Petina L. Pert
CRCatherine J. Robinson
Catherine J. Robinson
ADAllan Dale
Allan Dale
TOTony O'Malley
Tony O'Malley
SUMMARY: In the globally significant Australian tropical rainforests, poor performance of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) approaches mandated by national policy highlights the importance of the global search for better models. This paper reports on co-research to develop, apply and test the transferability and effectiveness of a new model and tools for CBNRM in biodiversity conservation. Adaptive co-management, designed with specific communities and natural resources, recognized as linked multi-scalar phenomena, is the new face of CBNRM. New tools used to achieve adaptive co-management include a collaborative focal species approach focused on the iconic southern cassowary, scenario analysis, science brokering partnerships, a collaborative habitat investment atlas and institutional brokering. An intermediate-complexity analytical framework was used to test the robustness of these tools and therefore likely transferability. The tools meet multiple relevant standards across three dimensions, namely empowering institutions and individuals, ongoing systematic scientific assessment and securing effective on-ground action. Evaluation of effectiveness using a performance criteria framework identified achievement of many social and environmental outcomes. Effective CBNRM requires multi-scale multi-actor collaborative design, not simply devolution to local-scale governance. Bridging/boundary organizations are important to facilitate the process. Further research into collaborative design of CBNRM structures, functions, tools and processes for biodiversity conservation is recommended.

9 October 2014 in Planning Theory
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RPRuth Potts
Ruth Potts
KVKaren Vella
Karen Vella
ADAllan Dale
Allan Dale
Neil SipeNeil Sipe
Neil Sipe
Existing planning theories tend to be limited in their analytical scope and often fail to account for the impact of many interactions between the multitudes of stakeholders involved in strategic planning processes. Although many theorists rejected structural–functional approaches from the 1970s, this article argues that many of structural–functional concepts remain relevant and useful to planning practitioners. In fact, structural–functional approaches are highly useful and practical when used as a foundation for systemic analysis of real-world, multi-layered, complex planning systems to support evidence-based governance reform. Such approaches provide a logical and systematic approach to the analysis of the wider governance of strategic planning systems that is grounded in systems theory and complementary to existing theories of complexity and planning. While we do not propose its use as a grand theory of planning, this article discusses how structural–functional concepts and approaches might be applied to underpin a practical analysis of the complex decision-making arrangements that drive planning practice, and to provide the evidence needed to target reform of poorly performing arrangements.