Adaptive Co-Management for Social-Ecological Complexity

Adaptive Co-Management for Social-Ecological Complexity
Author(s): Derek R. Armitage, Ryan Plummer, Fikret Berkes, Robert I. Arthur, Anthony T.
Charles, Iain J. Davidson-Hunt, Alan P. Diduck, Nancy C. Doubleday, Derek S. Johnson,
Melissa Marschke, Patrick McConney, Evelyn W. Pinkerton and Eva K. Wollenberg
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Mar., 2009), pp. 95-102
Published by: Ecological Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25595062 .
Accessed: 09/08/2012 10:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment.
http://www.jstor.org
REVIEWS
REVIEWS
REVIEWS_
95
for
co-management
Adaptive
social
complexity
ecological
Derek R Armitage1*, Ryan Plummer2, Fikret Berkes3, Robert I Arthur4, Anthony T Charles5,
Iain JDavidson-Hunt3,
Alan P Diduck6, Nancy C Doubleday7, Derek S Johnson8, Melissa Marschke9,
Patrick McConney10, Evelyn W Pinkerton11, and Eva K Wollenberg12
trust through collaboration, institutional development, and social learning enhances efforts to foster
dilemmas. One emerging approach
and resolve multi-scale
ecosystem management
society-environment
aimed at addressing these dilemmas is adaptive co-management. This method draws explicit attention to the
I
Building
functions necessary to
(vertical and horizontal)
learning (experiential and experimental) and collaboration
systems. Here, we identify
improve our understanding of, and ability to respond to, complex social-ecological
and outline the core features of adaptive co-management, which include innovative institutional arrange
ments and incentives across spatiotemporal scales and levels, learning through complexity and change, mon
itoring and assessment of interventions, the role of power, and opportunities to link science with policy.
Front Ecol Environ 2009; 7(2): 95-102, doi: 10.1890/070089
(publishedonline 24 Jan2008)
to resolve multi-scale environment-society dilem
mas
require innovative governance approaches (Berkes et
Efforts
al. 2003; Dietz et al. 2003; Hughes et al. 2005). Adaptive and
ecosystem-based formsofmanagement have drawn attention
to this need (Lee 1993, 1999; Grumbine 1994), yet much
emphasis has been directed at the role of science, overcoming
informationgaps, and the construction ofmodels. As a result,
translating ecosystem management principles into practice
has remained a challenge. Flexible social anangements are
necessary to develop the rules, institutions, and incentives
(see Brown 2003; Ostrom 2005) that influence ecosystem
in a complex
outcomes
management
and
uncertain
world.
consensus on best management practices has been
While
slow to evolve, there is evidence of progress.
One emerging and interdisciplinary approach that holds
systems is adaptive
promise for complex social-ecological
This
co-management.
approach explicitly links learning
and
experimental) and collaboration to facili
(experiential
tate effective governance, defined here as the public and pri
vate interactions undertaken to resolve societal challenges,
and the institutions and principles which mediate those
interactions (Kooiman and Bavinck 2005). In this paper, we
identify and define the principal features of adaptive co
management and draw attention to its corollary ideas (see
Panel 1): innovative institutional arrangements and incen
tives across spatiotemporal scales and levels (sensu Cash et
al. 2006), learning through complexity and change, moni
toring and assessment of interventions, the role of power,
and opportunities to link science with policy. This review is
intended to foster reflection and action on the societal
processes
In a nutshell:
complex
resource management
world
"Command-and-control"
a complex
Innovative
is limited
in
and changing
and
foster collaboration
strategies that explicitly
to trust building
and
learning are emerging, and contribute
the formation of social networks of researchers, communities,
and policy makers
suited
One
approach
flict is adaptive
to conditions
of uncertainty
and
A
University,
2Department
Catherines,
Waterloo,
of Tourism
ON,
Canada;
and
ON,
Canada
Environment,
^Natural
Resources
con
and practices
Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada;
Penh, Cambodia;
Management
St
University,
Institute, University
Studies,
Saint
Mary's University,
Halifax,NS, Canada (continuedon page 102)
? The
Ecological
Society of
of
4WorldFishCenter, Phnom
Science/Environmental
America
in moving
ecosystem
management
forward.
co-management
of
resource
management
is underway.
interest disputes, the cross-scale nature of
environmental problems, and pervasive ecological and
social uncertainty demand new strategies (Holling and
et al. 2003).
Meffe 1996; Ravetz 2003; Waltner-Toews
The neglect of culture and the persistence of conven
([email protected]);
Brock
reinvention
Value
1
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies,Wilfrid
Laurier
importance
Adaptive
co-management
the principles
merges
co-management
Adaptive
of co-management
and adaptive management
institutional arrangements appropriate in
systems, and to highlight their
social-ecological
and
and
tional assumptions about social and ecological stability,
scientific certainty, and the place of experts in gover
condi
nance, all create challenging decision-making
tions. Centralized bureaucracies are often limited in their
transforma
ability to respond to rapid social-ecological
to
tions (MA
with
and
2005)
cope
uncertainty.
isolation restrict our
Reductionism
and disciplinary
understanding of a world characterized by surprises and
www.frontiersinecoiogy.org
Social-ecological
96
DR Armitage et al.
complexity
discontinuities (Levin 1999). These
the limitations of yield-oriented,
trol"
considerations reveal
"command-and-con
governance.
In
thatmultiple sources and types of knowledge
to problem solving. As Olsson et al. (2004)
governance
approaches
emphasize
group decision making that accommodates diverse views,
shared learning, and the social sources of adaptability,
renewal, and transformation (Folke et al. 2005; Campbell
a considerable theoretical base has
et al. 2006). While
evolved
for both co-management
1994;
(eg Hanna
Pinkerton 1994; Jentoft et al. 1998) and adaptive man
1978; Walters
1986), merging the
agement (eg Holling
two concepts engenders an approach that is distinct from
either. The result is a flexible system of resource manage
ment, tailored to specific places and situations, supported
by, and working in conjunction with, various organiza
tions at different scales (Buck et al. 2001; Olsson et al.
2004; Colfer 2005). Ecological and social uncertainty is
as inherent to governance, and is best
acknowledged
addressed with collaborative
and recognition
processes
of selected
Cross-scale/multi-level
among
logical connections
nections may be horizontal
tems more
tical (eg across
different
levels of organization).
to
The public and private interactions undertaken
and create
within
opportunities
society.
challenges
Governance
thus includes the development
and application of the
and
institutions
that guide public
norms,
rules,
principles,
enabling
Governance:
address
and private
interactions.
Institutions:
conduct)
formal (rules, laws, constitutions, organizational
informal (norms of behavior, conventions,
codes of
human
interaction.
Accumulated
Memory:
and
experience
and social), which provide
(both ecological
nization.
Networks:
The
tions within
themselves
and/or other
within
that structure
practices
interconnections
a social-ecological
resource
around
history of the system
the basis for self-orga
among
people
system. Networks
use,
and organiza
may structure
administrative
functions, and may be connected
responsibility,
to other networks
of the system of interest.
and outside
In adaptive co-management,
Self-organization:
self-organization
involves the emergence
of formal and informal networks, working
ina collaborative
knowledge
in response
Social
process, often drawing on a range of
ideas, to resolve issues and move forward
and creative
sources
and
to disturbance.
The social norms, networks of reciprocity and
capital:
and relationships of trust that enable people to act col
exchange,
lectively.
learning:
The
Integrated, coupled
collaborative
or mutual
systems of peo
development
and
sharingof knowledgebymultiple stakeholders(both people and
organizations)
through
to
change".
to management objectives and structures is
necessary. However, an emphasis on trustbuilding, institu
tional development, and social learning takes adaptive co
into the realm of governance. Creating the
management
social and institutional space for such interactions is a
daunting task; most resources are contested by multiple
institutions are often
stakeholders, while management
interests
divided.
and values are the
Competing
internally
norm, and conflict is a frequent operating condition, while
social relationships and rules regarding use and manage
ment are complex. New directions in research and practice
are required to further support effective interventions
under these challenging social conditions. We
areas
of adaptive
outline five
co-management.
Institutions, incentives, and governance
study of institutions has generated useful insights for
in diverse resource contexts (Ostrom et al.
governance
2002). Such factors as group size and levels of homogene
ity, reciprocity and trust in social dilemmas, benefit and
cost distribution mechanisms,
the existence of monitor
resource system bound
and
defined
systems,
ing
clearly
aries are highlighted. However, these insights are largely
The
from the study of self-organizing, community
based systems of management of the commons. Very few
published papers about co-management have dealt with
the complexities of multi-party and multi-scaled gover
nance (Pinkerton 1994; Brown 2003). Recognition of the
challenge of governance inmulti-scale systems highlights
additional
priorities: deliberative processes among all
stakeholders, redundant and layered institutions, and a
mix of institutional types (Dietz et al. 2003). Adaptive co
reflects these combined insights.
to non-linear social-ecological
feedback
Responding
and cross-scale interplay requires multi-level governance
arrangements that link social actors (vertically and hori
zontally) in the pursuit of shared learning (Young 2002;
management
Ostrom 2005). Effective linkages will establish the basis
for regularized flows of information, shared understand
ing, and problem articulation (Young 2002), and will
move governance beyond simplified network perspec
tives. Figure 1 illustrates the potential multi-level institu
tional features of adaptive co-management, inwhich het
erogeneous
system:
Social-ecological
ple and environments.
Social
co-management
derived
The
and
entities)
robust
Attention
terms
Social, institutional, or eco
linkages:
individuals or organizations.
Such con
across
geographical
space) or ver
(eg
adaptive
development, facilitated by rules and incentives of higher
levels, has the potential to make...social-ecological
sys
thematic
Panel 1. Glossary
of
process
"self-organizing
novel
contrast,
are relevant
suggest, the
learning-by-doing.
networks
of actors
are
connected
in a process
of social learning. Using the case of narwhal management
inNunavut, Canada, Figure 1 depicts horizontal and verti
cal linkages among local hunters' and trappers' organiza
tions, regional wildlife organizations, and the Nunavut
Board. These entities are further
Wildlife Management
linked to the national-level organizations (eg Fisheries and
www.frontier8iiiecology.org
? The
Ecological
Society ofAmerica
DR Armitage et al
Oceans Canada)
that are vested
with authority for the manage
ment of narwhal. National-level
entities also provide opportunities
for transnational
linkages and
conflict resolution. In this nar
L__^
*
i
;
harvest
_,.
T
organizationI
.;'
;-.__
therefore,
institutional
I
the
arrangements
of
Ecological
Society of
Regional wildlife
?-.
organizationI
-i
|~~~-?~|
Hunters' and trappers'
J
:
J"
L ^orgarizatiorr^
... -
';
:
p~-?-?^
Hunters'
and trappers'
?_I)
-.__
\_^oi^anizatioiV_J
___.-'
1. Horizontal and vertical linkages among narwhal management organizations.
Adapted fromArmitage (2005).
It is impor
interactions
associated
co-manage
adaptive
co-management
are likely to unfold inmany hybrid forms.
Finally, it is valuable to recognize the importance of
rights, responsibilities, and benefits within multi-level
institutional arrangements, given the challenges
of
? The
I
Figure
ment are not necessarily fixed in time or space, and that
institutional arrangements will vary with context.
Institutional
__J1
.?.
|_^
L._organization_J
for adaptive
arrangements
Hunters' and trappers' ?_
Hunters' and trappers'
p-1
[
a commitment.
that
organizationI
^^-^L_organization
:
_1".'^^^^z-^TT^r:_?....TTTTrrrT
these arrangements tomature to the point where levels of
trust and social capital contribute to self-organizing sys
tems of governance. Conversely, trust can be eroded very
quickly, as a result of sudden shifts inharvest intensity by a
particular group, unexpected regulations or restrictions on
with
Regional wildlife
I
I
.j_.i.
and capacity may
While
high levels of motivation
increase the rate at which successful institutional arrange
ments develop, more often such arrangements must be fos
tered for a long time. Experiences from earlier collabora
tive processes offer no recipe for trust building, but do
reveal the need for repeated interaction among stake
holder groups and individuals, and a commitment to open
communication. Thus, itmay take a decade or more for
harvesting,
tant
to note,
r-*
Regional wildlife
in decision making, and the uncertainty about
and transboundary narwhal stocks. Despite many
challenges, the linking and learning features of this inno
vative narwhal regime offer additional opportunities for
involved to better collaborate
and
the organizations
to
et
al.
2005).
respond
change (Diduck
to meet
Fisheries
andOceans Canada
--jj.
Board
Nunavut
Wildlife
Management
pation
mobile
failure
*
_-.-
ing as individuals and communi
ties engage with the market economy, the formalized
nature of interactions among local actors and govern
ment agencies, which can create barriers to Inuit partici
or
"
Nunavut
Inc
Tunngavik
1
Canadian Government).
A number of factors have con
strained learning among those
participating in narwhal manage
a need
to
ment,
indicating
our
of
understanding
deepen
for resource
-
International^__J
i ^______?-?1________^
comprehensive land claim accord
the
between
the Inuit and
motivations
complexity
97
whal management regime, local
an
level actors should have
in
central
role
harvest
increasingly
decision making and enforcement,
with support from higher level
organizations and institutions (ie
the Nunavut Final Agreement, a
social networks (as in Figure 1).
These
factors include evolving
Social-ecological
America
accountability, resource sharing, and knowledge transfor
mation. To date, these concerns have been explored pri
marily with reference to the role of state and community
based entities, while that of non-governmental
organ
izations and market incentives in adaptive, multi-level
governance has not been fully explored (Ostrom et al.
2002). Careful analysis of institutional processes, struc
tures, and incentives is vital, since the interactions of the
various stakeholders are unlikely to be socially or politi
cally
neutral.
through complexity
Learning
The struggle to learn from social-ecological
feedback and
to respond with appropriate strategies reflects a limitation
of the conventional
command-and-control
paradigm
and
(Gunderson
2002). Adaptive
co-manage
Holling
ment takes learning as a necessary starting point, yet goes
further and requires greater specificity with respect to
learning objectives, approaches, outcomes, and risks.We
highlight four issues in relation to learning.
First, systematic learning under conditions of complex
ityand uncertainty requires meaningful social interaction
and a concerted effort to build trust.Technical expertise
has a crucial yet restricted role in this regard (Waltner
Toews et al. 2003). Local and traditional knowledge also
have a crucial (although similarly bounded) role (Figures
2 and 3), and can support learning through dialogue and
deliberation.
Second,
the
transition
toward
adaptive
co-management
signals a need to apply diverse learning strategies to under
stand social-ecological
feedback. These learning strategies
www.frontiersinecology.org
Social-ecological
complexity
DR Armitage et al.
adaptive capacity, systems thinking or interconnected
ness, a diversity of approaches to adaptation, and para
digm shifts.
Fourth, careful attention to who is learning and the
linkages among learners is required. Adaptive co-manage
ment involves more than individual learning; it also
98
entails scaling up individual learning outcomes to various
social levels, implying a certain sense of common purpose
in the learning, and the capability of identifying, explain
ing, and ultimately facilitating effective cross-scale insti
tutional arrangements (as outlined above). In the absence
of clearly articulated learning objectives and strategies,
definitive conclusions about individual or group learning
Figure 2. A hunting part^ traveling in uncertain sea ice
conditions.Here, theknowledge and experience of local hunters
are
essential.
are intentional, whether experimental or experiential, and
focus on the development of flexible institutional and
organizational
arrangements
to encourage
reflection
actions. Understanding
the experiential dimension of
to
attention
draws
the importance of creating a
learning
shared understanding of the consequences of actions and
behaviors, and the possibilities forpositive change that can
emerge as a result. In this sense, learning processes fitwith
the concepts of passive and active adaptive management in
the resource management literature (seeWalters 1986).
Third, careful attention to how learning is defined and
is critical, because learning theories are
conceptualized
drawn from diverse disciplines and have various process
and outcome implications (Parson and Clark 1995). What
is that
adaptive
co-management
requires
governance
prospects.
and
innovation (see Lee 1999; Cook et al. 2004). In this latter
regard, scientists and decision makers must recognize that
learning may often emerge from experience when individ
uals (and the organizations of which they are a part) pay
attention to both their actions and the outcomes of their
is apparent
outcomes will be slow to emerge. Similarly, learning is
strongly related to the collective "memory" of groups
engaged in deliberative governance and the cultural and
collective historical experiences of those groups. Learning
through complexity in the absence of collaboration and
attention to social-ecological
memory will undermine
Power
With
recognition
of adaptive
as an
co-management
evo
lutionary process, emphasis shifts toward the social
processes that encourage flexibility and innovation
key
ingredients of adaptive capacity. Trust building, conflict
resolution, and social learning become
governance
requirements in a rapidly changing world, and highlight
in adaptive
the role of power
co-management
to examine
is
It
therefore
2007).
necessary
(Doubleday
the many sources and manifestations of power, how it
emerges and persists (through control, resistance, and sol
- on
collabora
idarity), and its influence good and bad
tion and learning. Different social entities continuously
exert their power (eg through the use or misuse of infor
mation). Power is therefore linked to deliberation, learn
a
model of learning that accounts for social context (eg con
flict and power imbalances), pluralism, critical reflection,
asymmetries
-
ing (eg who defines what type of learning), the choice of
indicators formeasuring outcomes, and the sharing of risk
all key
With
adaptive
components
of adaptive
its greater emphasis
co-management
on
provides
co-management.
linking and
a process
learning,
for mediat
ing conflict, where other approaches may ignore, or dis
count as too complex, the dynamics of power inherent in
institutional arrangements. Establishing
novel
such
on
a
first
arrangements depends
thorough understanding
of the social, economic, and other sources of power which
influence regulatory bodies, and society more widely.
Without an understanding of class, ethnicity, gender, and
the other structuring dimensions of society, the social,
bureaucratic, and scientific segmental tendencies that
< ^^^BBB^BS^^^^B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B
constrain flexibility and the sharing of governing author
oW^^^^^BBmB^^^^^K^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B
itywill go unchallenged (Figure 4). These tendencies are
Figure 3. Crossing a lead. Changing conditions can add an
additional layer of uncertainty for local harvesters and may
require theadoption ofnew technologies.
exemplified in bureaucracies that fragment interests and
values, responsibilities, and authority into separate, non
communicating
departments, to partition information
and engage in dysfunctional learning, to give preference
www.frontiersinecology.org
? The Ecological
Society of America
DR Armitage et al.
Social-ecological
complexity
to decisions targeting only short-term outcomes, and to
compete rather than to cooperate within and between
divisions and departments. Adaptive co-management can
have a corrective effect on these inherent tendencies
99
(Pinkerton 2007).
Assessment:
outcomes
monitoring,
indicators, and
assessment and reflection are crucial within a
complex adaptive systems worldview, which places a pri
to feedback
1978).
ority on responding
(Holling
is at the core of determining appropriate
Assessment
institutional responses to change, enabling an adaptive
approach, and learning at multiple levels (Bellamy et al.
2001). Monitoring acts to position assessment, reflection,
Ongoing
and learning in specific empirical contexts. Nevertheless,
a number of challenges must be faced. First, while emerg
ing experience points to the potential of adaptive co
to
management
encourage
constructive
interaction
among stakeholders, contextual specificity makes it diffi
cult to develop widely applicable blueprint solutions.
Ostrom
(2007) challenges the appropriateness of such
panaceas for social-ecological
systems and argues that
researchers and practitioners considering outcomes must
take into account contextual variables at multiple tiers in
different domains (social and biophysical).
Second, the existing gap between theory and practice
is further complicated by the shifting conditions of com
systems, particularly in areas at
plex social-ecological
the
terrestrial-marine
interface (Figure 5). Moving
assessment
the
process to the establishment of
through
assessment parameters or indicators is particularly chal
lenging. Useful parameters must draw attention to key
slow and fast variables that structure most complex
and Holling
systems (Gunderson
social-ecological
must
these
2002). Moreover,
parameters
provide the
basis for context-appropriate
indicator selection directed
at ecosystem conditions, socioeconomic
and livelihood
and
and
institutional
conditions
outcomes,
process
(see
Table
indicators to the scale of the
1). Matching
system is particularly important, since,
social-ecological
for example, indicators commonly used in large-scale sys
temsmay be inappropriate at the community level (Boyd
and Charles 2006).
Third, assessment
take
into
account
in adaptive
the
specific
co-management
context,
<
o
Ic
3
Figure 4. An Inuit hunter on the lookout.Less powerfulgroups
require
attention
particular
in co-management
arrangements.
Linkingto policy
links scientists with resource
co-management
Adaptive
users, government managers, and other stakeholders in
collaborative problem-solving. To link the process of
adaptive co-management with policy, two issues are of
First,
care
paramount
importance.
developing
the policy conditions
management.
Adaptive
must
be
taken
when
to enable adaptive co
co-management
processes
are
slow to develop, or will fail to develop at all, unless policy
environments are supportive of multi-level learning net
works, and unless scientists and managers are rewarded
for participating
in those networks
andOTlaherty 2007).
(see Davidson-Hunt
of the conditions identified above highlight key
directions.
These include more attention to assess
policy
additional
funds to building the social
ment, directing
sources of learning and adaptation, fostering flexible
Many
designed to work in a
full range of knowledge
the
rapidly changing world, using
and
sources,
explicitly considering the role of power.
Other requirements will emerge with additional experi
ence and as a result of tests of adaptive co-management in
a variety of social-ecological
contexts. What
is clear,
institutions and bureaucracies
^^^^^^K^^^^^^^^^^B^^BB^^^m^Kt^^B^'^'M^^^Bl^B^s^^l^^t^^^^^BaB^s^^^^
should
uncertainties,
and
objectives prior to determining what outcomes will be
monitored. This extends to the consideration of the role
of different organizations in determining what questions
to ask,
what
outcomes
to encourage,
and
the
choice
of
indicators used to assess outcomes (as previously noted),
as well as the use of participatory processes for indicator
and monitoring
(Prabhu et al. 2001;
development
Garaway and Arthur 2004). Ultimately, to facilitate sys
tematic
assessment
and
learning
across
sites,
parameter and indicator selection is required.
? The
Ecological
Society of
America
consistent
Figure 5. The tenestrial-marine interfacedeepens social-eco
logicalcomplexity.
www.frcmtiersinecology.org
Social-ecological
100
complexity
Table 1. Broad assessment
DR Armitage et al.
tion costs and the risks in adaptive co-management.
are suitably addressed,
the
If such concerns
enhanced capacity for adaptation, forged through
collaboration, should help foster social and ecologi
parameters
Parameters
Domains
system
Ecological
Components
(ecosystem
types/habitats,
features);
species, and biophysical
between
components
relationships
cal sustainability.
(nutrients, biogeochemical
cycles, trophic
interactions); diversity and functional
memory
diversity; ecological
Socioeconomics
increased
resource
Institutions and process
Multiple
food security;
making;
sustainable
and
interests, perspectives
institutions; communication
social
transactive
tion in many
same
decision
time,
Adapted from Plummer andArmitage (2007)
"conditions
however,
for adaptive
can
co-management
have
ingredients
strongly
negative
implications for the sustainability and resilience of the
system (Charles 2004, 2007).
social-ecological
Second, the incentives required to establish enabling
policy conditions for adaptive co-management, over and
above regular policy review and assessment, require fur
ther analysis. It is also important to consider the benefits
policy makers expect from adaptive co-management
processes, and how these expectations can best be met.
Experience over several decades with conventional nat
ural resource management has revealed a process that is
often adversarial, pitting stakeholder groups against one
another.
Furthermore,
given
advances
in our
understand
feedback, those policies that seek
ing of social-ecological
to maximize yield and reduce uncertainty appear misdi
rected (Kates et al. 2001; Gunderson and Holling 2002).
Optimism can be difficult tomaintain. For policy makers
and managers, there ismerit in considering how adaptive
co-management
processes
can
encourage
better
outcomes,
despite the apparent risks and higher transaction costs.
will better
For instance, adaptive co-management
enable learning over the mid- to long term as social net
works are formed and trust accumulates, and will bear
fruit, in the form of mutual respect and cooperative rela
costs associated
1994). Transaction
tionships (Hanna
with this process-oriented approach may appear high in
the short term, but long-term benefits associated with the
development of policy and resource management deci
sions are likely to emerge (see Brown 2003; Waltner
Toews et al. 2003). In fact, where adaptive co-manage
ment emerges, both in structure and in spirit, there can
be an important element of risk sharing (but not neces
and managers.
sarily less risk) for policy makers
experiments carrywith them the possibility
Management
of failure, and risk sharing in collaborative partnerships is
an
important
Thus,
part
of adaptive
co-management
processes.
it is crucial to consider who bears both the transac
locations around
are
researchers
the world. At
to
seeking
the
synthesize
these experiences to better understand the specific
conditions under which this approach ismost likely
to succeed. To this end, Table 2 identifies ten key
learning
is that an absence of the necessary
governance
panacea, and will not be appropriate in all cases.
On-the-ground
examples and tools for successful
adaptive co-management are still being developed,
inwhat is a highly adaptive process of experimenta
use
linkages among
and negotiation;
a
is not
co-management
Adaptive
decreased
Increased well-being;
poverty;
increased
income; decreased
vulnerability;
and
livelihoods
Notes:
Conclusions
and continuity
for
in
success"
adaptive
co-manage
ment. Based on case study evidence, we feel that these
conditions must all be met to some extent in order to
achieve a successful outcome, but there will certainly be
variation depending on the system of interest.
dilemmas
Some resource management
(whether in
or
urban settings) will overwhelm novel institu
rural
tional
arrangements
such
as
adaptive
co-management.
This may occur when it is difficult to identify a clear set
of place-based entities linked to a defined resource stock,
or where there is little commitment or incentive among
participants to encourage long-term learning around a
shared goal (ie sustainability rather than rapid resource
exploitation;
Adaptive
see Berkes et al. 2006).
co-management,
however,
is one
potential
tool in a suite of governance options tomodify unsustain
institu
able social-ecological
feedbacks. Conventional
tional responses, including strictly enforced regulations,
the development of protected areas and set-asides, and
other social and market
incentives, are still needed.
Within adaptive co-management, however, the ability to
link adaptive and collaborative mechanisms
offers the
potential to produce deliberative processes (Stern 2005)
that encourage reflection, observation, and opportunities
for communication and persuasion among social groups,
where uncertainties are high (Lee 1999). An adaptive co
management process can also help many such groups to
articulate the full range of values and assumptions that
will shape governance outcomes. Ultimately, this leads to
several key attributes: (1) a greater recognition of differ
ent needs and an emphasis on distributive arrangements
among stakeholders; (2) continued effort to build on cul
turally embedded, formal and informal rules and norms;
(3) formation of horizontal and vertical linkages and net
works to foster trust building and social learning; (4) a
wide variety of types and sources of knowledge, and the
shared development of such knowledge among stakehold
ers; and (5) enhanced capacity among resource manage
ment organizations to respond proactively to uncertainty.
www.frontiersinecology.org
? The
Ecological
Society of America
DR Armitage et al.
Table 2. Ten conditions
for successful
Condition of success
resource
Small-scale
system
use
contexts
Clear
identifiable set of
and
social entities with
clear property
Reasonably
of concern
rights to resources
(eg fisheries, forest)
to adaptable
portfolio
measures
of management
Access
Systems
resource
characterized
enabling
environment
stocks
a
Commitment
to support
long-term
institution-building
Provision
of training, capacity
for
building, and resources
local-, regional-, and nationallevel stakeholders
prepared
individuals
the
process
of participants
Openness
share and draw upon a
plurality of knowledge
systems
to
and sources
National
and regional
environment
supportive
policy
explicitly
of collaborative
management
efforts
by relatively immobile (as opposed
fewer institutional
likely to generate
for learning.
to "place",
stakeholders
have limited or no connection
be problematic.
In such situations, efforts by local/regional organizations
outcomes
and political forces.
may be undermined
by non-local economic
In situations where
building linkages and trust
to achieve better
or bundles of
use are reasonably
clear (whether common
property
rights
rights to resource
innovation
security of access and incentives may better facilitate governance
individual), enhanced
with corresponding
and learning over the long term. Such rights need tovbe associated
responsi
in resource management).
bilities (eg for conservation
practices, participation
in an adaptive co-management
process must have flexibility to test and apply a diversity
Participants
or tools to achieve desired outcomes.
measures
These measures
of management
may include
schemes,
adjustments
(eg gear size), education
licensing and quota setting, regulations, technological
In other words,
economic,
regulatory, and collaborative
tools
should
all be available.
ismore
stakeholders
accept the long-term nature of the process, and recognize
likelywhere
to institutions or management
is probably not advantageous,
that a blueprint approach
strategies
Commitments
of this type can provide a degree of relative stability in the context of numerous
the system.
changes and stresses from within and outside
resources
in an adaptive co-management
all the necessary
groups will possess
and effective sharing of decision
that facilitate collaboration
local level, resources
entities must also be provided with the
and national-level
making power are required. Regionalresources.
necessary
Few stakeholder
context.
At
the
a focus on collaboration
for
and the creation of opportunities
Key individuals are needed to maintain
to "place" and the
reflection and learning. Ideally, these individuals will have a long-term connection
to policy and its implementation.
Such individuals will be viewed
resource, or, within a bureaucracy,
as effective mediators
in resolving
conflict.
can play productive
and essential
roles in problem
identiflca
expert and non-expert
knowledge
contexts
is to emphasize
inmost resource management
tion, framing, and analysis.The
tendency
to social-ecological
in knowledge
there are substantial contributions
differences
systems. However,
trust building, and learning, where
between
the complementarities
formal, expert
understanding,
are recognized.
and non-expert
knowledge
knowledge
Both
success,
and multi-stakeholder
processes
engagement will enhance
Explicit support for collaborative
This support can be articulated
legislation or land claim
through federal or state/provincial
to distribute functions across organizational
levels. Additionally,
and the willingness
agreements,
the likelihood of success, and encourage
consistent
support across policy sectors will enhance
provision
of resources,
This synthesis isone outcome of an expert Delphi process
and a two-day workshop (atWilfrid Laurier University,
October, 2006). We thank all of the respondents of the
Delphi process, and the participants of the workshop,
whose
insights have contributed to the ideas in this
research group is
paper. The Adaptive Co-Management
and
Humanities
Social
Sciences
the
supported by
of Canada
and
the Ocean
Research
Council
Network
Research
Management
(www.omrn-rrgo.ca).
Additional
support has been provided
by Brock
in
the
Canada
Research
Chair
Community
University,
Based Resource Management
Natural
Resources
Society of
resource
or
Acknowledgements
Ecological
the number
Where
clear objectives,
user groups.
? The
to highly migratory
and/or transboundary)
while creating an
and
conflicts,
challenges
Success
process
to champion
are
of a specific rangeland or local fishery) will reduce
Small-scale
systems (eg management
and layers of organization.
of competing
interests, institutional complexities,
Larger-scale
contexts
will exacerbate
stocks, large watersheds)
challenges.
(transboundary
and so on.
leaders or
101
adaptive co-management
will
shared
interests
Key
complexity
Explanation
resource
Well-defined
Social-ecological
America
and the devolution
of real power
to
local actors
and
Institute (University of Manitoba),
and Wilfrid Laurier
the
Cold
Regions Research Centre).
University (through
References
in
D.
narwhal
2005. Community-based
management
Armitage
Soc Natur
Nunavut, Canada:
change, uncertainty and adaptation.
Resour 18: 715-31.
Walker DH, McDonald GT, and SymeGJ. 2001.A sys
Bellamy JA,
to the evaluation
tems approach
of natural resource management
initiatives. J Environ Manage
63:407-23.
Berkes F, Hughes TP, Steneck RS, et al. 2006. Globalization,
roving
bandits and marine resources. Science 311:1557-58.
and Colding
]. 2003. Navigating
social-ecological
and
for complexity
resilience
change.
building
Press.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
indicators
community-based
Boyd H and Charles AT. 2006. Creating
Berkes
F, Folke C,
systems:
www.frontier8inecology.org
102
to monitor
DR Armitage etal.
complexity
Social-ecological
of local
sustainability
fisheries. Ocean
Coast Manage
49: 237-58.
Brown K. 2003.
Buck L, Geisler CC, Schelhas J, andWollenberg E (Eds). 2001.
interests through adaptive
Biological
diversity: balancing
Press.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC
rative management.
BM, Hagmann
J, Stroud A, et al. 2006. Navigating
Campbell
collabo
amidst
to implementing effective research and devel
complexity:
to improve livelihoods
and the environment.
Bogor,
opment
for International Forestry Research.
Indonesia: Center
guide
Cash
DW, Adger W,
ics: governance
Berkes F, et al. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynam
world. Ecol Soc
and information in a multilevel
AT.
tems:
Kooiman
M.
and resilience in natural resource
2004. Sustainability
institutions.
directions
and management
policy
MA
SA.
peoples, and place-based
20: 1-15.
governance
Resour
30:
8.1-8.33.
learning: a practical frame
Garaway C] and Arthur R. 2004. Adaptive
of adaptive
for the implementation
work
co-management
Asia.
in
southeast
and
south
from
selected
lessons
experiences
London,UK: MRAG Ltd.
Grumbine
RE.
Conserv
Biol 8:
2002. Panarchy: understanding
natural
systems. Washington,
trans
is ecosystem management?
1994. What
LH
formations
and Holling
in human
CS.
and
environmental
CS
(Ed). 1978. Adaptive
agement. New York, NY: Wiley.
Holling CS and Meffe GK.
pathology
328-37.
of natural
assessment
and man
theoretical
Columbia
University
1994. Local
Pinkerton
for going beyond
approach
P
panaceas.
E.
Press.
a review of inter
fisheries co-management:
their implications
for salmon manage
and
experiences
E. 2007. Integrating holism and segmentalism: overcoming
to adaptive co-management
between management
agen
In: Armitage
bodies.
and multi-sector
D, Berkes F, and
barriers
cies
N
co-management:
(Eds). Adaptive
and multi-level
Vancouver,
governance.
Doubleday
learning
Press.
Plummer
R and Armitage
2007. A
D.
collaboration,
UBC
Canada:
framework
resilience-based
for
economy
co-management:
linking ecology,
evaluating
adaptive
and society in a complex world. Ecol Econ 61: 62-74.
PrabhuR, RuitenbeekHJ, BoyleTJB, andColferCJP 2001. Between
the role and research
science and adaptive management:
In: Raison
forest management.
for indicators of sustainable
sustain
J,Brown A, and Flinn D (Eds). Criteria and indicators for
voodoo
needs
able forest management.
Series
IUFRO Research
Wallingford,
7.
UK:
International.
CAB
Futures 36:
science of precaution.
J. 2003. The post-normal
347-57.
environmental
for understanding
methods
Stern P. 2005. Deliberative
systems. BioScience 55: 976-82.
of renewable resources. New
Walters CJ. 1986. Adaptive
management
Ravetz
York, NY: MacMillan
Waltner-Toews
D, Kay
Publishing Company.
C,
J, Neudoerffer
and
changes
everything: managing
Perspective
inside out. Front Ecol Environ 1: 23-30.
Young
2002.
O.
T.
Gitau
2003.
from the
ecosystems
conse
interplay: the environmental
In: Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak
interactions.
DC:
drama of the commons. Washington,
Institutional
of cross-scale
quences
N, et al. (Eds). The
Press.
National
Academy
Hanna
S.
access
Holling
NJ:
ment inBritishColumbia. Can] FishAquat Sci 51: 2363-78.
Island Press.
Wildlife Fund.
diagnostic
learning:
Gunderson
national
DC:
In: Gimbel
KL
1994. Co-management.
(Ed). Limiting
to marine
the focus on conservation.
fisheries: keeping
and World
Conservation
for Marine
DC: Center
Washington,
E. 2007. A
Pinkerton
27-38.
Gunderson
diversity. Princeton,
In:
and practical
challenges.
perspectives
L, Holling CS, and Light S (Eds). Barriers and bridges
to the renewal of ecosystems
and institutions. New
York, NY:
2007.
Press.
UBC
couver, Canada:
Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson
P, and Norberg J. 2005. Adaptive
Rev Environ
of social-ecological
systems, Annu
institutional
Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, et al. (Eds). 2002. The drama of the com
mons. Washington,
Press.
DC: National
Academy
as social
1995. Sustainable
Parson EA and Clark WC.
development
Institute ofNorth America
N.
E. 2005. Understanding
University Press.
NatlAcadSci USA 104:15181-87.
co-management:
finding
adaptive
Culturing
In: Armitage
in asymmetries of power.
D,
"keys" to resilience
col
N (Eds). Adaptive
Berkes F, and Doubleday
co-management:
Van
multi-level
and
governance.
laboration,
learning
Doubleday
for
co-management
P, Folke C, and Berkes E 2004. Adaptive
in social-ecological
resilience
systems. Environ Manage
Princeton
social
and University of Calgary Press.
Dietz T, Ostrom E, and Stern P. 2003. The struggle to govern the com
mons. Science 302:
1907-12.
and
Ecosystems
Island Press.
34: 75-90.
Diduck A, Bankes N, Clark D, and ArmitageD. 2005. Unpacking
Arctic
2005.
DC:
building
2007.
systems: case studies of polar
learning in social-ecological
In: Berkes F,
in northern Canada.
bear and narwhal management
resource
ice: renewable
Huebert R, Fast H, et al. (Eds). Breaking
in the Canadian
North. Calgary, Canada:
and ocean management
Perseus Books.
(Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment).
human well-being:
synthesis. Washington,
Ostrom
Researchers,
indigenous
Soc Natur Resour
learning communities.
MA:
Reading,
for resilient resource sys
AT
2007. Adaptive
co-management
In:
tems: some ingredients and the implications of their absence.
co-man
N (Eds). Adaptive
Armitage D, Berkes F, and Doubleday
governance.
collaboration,
agement:
learning and multi-level
M.
In:
perspective.
1999. Appraising
Conserv Ecol 3:3.
adaptive management.
1999. Fragile dominion:
and the commons.
complexity
Lee K.
Levin
and Eolss Publishers.
I and O'Flaherty
governance
Nether-lands:
for fisheries. Amsterdam,
governance
University Press.
Lee K. 1993. Compass
and gyroscope:
integrating science and politics
Island Press.
DC:
for the environment. Washington,
Ostrom
Press.
Canada:
UBC
Vancouver,
Colfer CJP 2005. The complex forest: communities,
uncertainty, and
DC: Resources
Washington,
adaptive collaborative management.
for International Forestry Research.
for the Future and Center
to roll with the
Cook W, Casagrande
D, Hope D, et al. 2004. Learning
in
human-dominated
systems.
experimentation
adaptive
punches:
Front Ecol Environ 2: 467-74.
The
interactive
sys
In:
Charles
2005.
Science
Amsterdam
Encyclopaedia of Life SupportSystems.Oxford,UK: UNESCO
Davidson-Hunt
J and Bavinck
science.
Sustainability
Kooiman J,Jentoft
S, PullinR, and BavinckM (Eds). Fish forlife:
Olsson
11:8.
Charles
R, et al. 2001.
292:641-42.
a case of
and development:
Integrating conservation
institutional misfit. Front Ecol Environ 1: 479-87.
Kates R, Clark W, Corell
Environmental Studies Program, University of Winnipeg,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada; 7DepartmentofGeography and Environ
mental
Studies,
Carleton
University,
Ottawa,
Canada;
ON,
1996.Command and control and the department ofAnthropology,University ofManitoba, Winnipeg,
resource
management.
Conserv
Biol
10:
D, Folke C, et al. 2005. New paradigms for sup
Hughes T, Bellwood
Ecol Evol 20:
porting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends
380-86.
1998. Social
DC.
BJ, and Wilson
Jentoft S, McCay
Mar Pol 22: 423-36.
eries co-management.
theory and fish
MB,
9International
Canada;
Development
and
ON,
Ottawa,
of Ottawa,
Program, University
and Environmental
for Resource Management
Globalization
l0Center
Canada;
Studies,
University
West Indies, StMichael, Barbados,West Indies; uSchool of
of the
Resource
and
Environmental
Management,
12Center
Canada;
University,
Burnaby,
BC,
Agriculture,
University
of Vermont,
Burlington,VT
?
The Ecological
www.frontier8inecology.org
Simon
for
Eraser
Sustainable
Society ofAmerica